About Me

My photo
I am a former middle and high school science teacher pursuing a doctorate in Science Ed. at George Mason University, with a concentration in cognitive science and the evolution of cognition and learning. Postings on this blog represent my own views, not those of my employer or school. All writing displayed on this page is original work unless otherwise noted, and thus copyrighted.

25 January 2011

Since you brought it up...

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2011/01/25/7_non-political_differences_between_liberals_and_conservatives

  A blogger who writes for townhall.com recently posted what he considers to be 7 non-political differences between liberals and conservatives. I think those would do well to be subjected to critical examination.


 1) Conservatives are more patriotic than liberals:Conservatives tend to focus on the positive things about America, while liberals focus on the negative. If the first thoughts that came to your mind when you thought of America were “slavery,” "imperialism," and "unfairly using too much of the world's resources," you probably wouldn't like America very much either. Conservatives, on the other hand, look at the fact that we saved the world in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War, take pride in the fact that we have contributed so much to the planet, and believe America has had a tremendous positive impact on history. The conservative view produces love of country. The other view produces a deep seated dislike of our nation.



  Gee, that's great... you're optimists. Or you've failed to see the reality in front of you, which is that the rest of the world doesn't much like us because of an imperialist, unilateral foreign policy. Am I less patriotic than some/most conservatives? Perhaps, but I don't consider that to be a bad thing, and it doesn't mean I don't want 'murica to succeed, it means I view it in a more reasonable light. Rampant nationalism doesn't have much to recommend it, historically speaking.

10 January 2011

One side or other needs to be rational...

Dear fellow left-wingers,
  The recent shooting (I hate the overuse of the word tragedy, and I'm refusing to use it in this case) in Arizona my be the result of a deluded neo-nazi/tea party loon, but let's be frank here: those spewing right-wing rhetoric are no more responsible for the actions of a violent psychopath than those promoting left-of-Lenin politics are to blame for the actions of someone that might listen to them. If you'd like someone to blame, place it squarely on a) said violent psychopath, b) our lack of health care that failed to identify and treat someone that is clearly mentally ill, and c) whichever douchebag reviewed this man's pistol permit and concluded that despite a record of mental issues, he should be allowed to own a weapon.
  Is political rhetoric inflammatory on both sides? Yes. Is it possible that someone who is a paranoid schizophrenic might take right-wing talk radio a little too seriously? certainly. OTOH, unless someone can produce direct quotes that were intended to incite someone to violence, CAN IT. (Yes, Palin's "Don't retreat, RELOAD" tweet is ridiculous, but it's also the product of a mind simple enough to think that it was witty rather than particularly violent).

09 December 2010

But he's only worried about teh childrenz!

Rachel Maddow deals rather well with this man, considering what a complete twit he is... Note the persecution complex and cries of "I'm thinking of the children" coming from someone who wants to have homosexuals jailed for life or put to death. It's only in Uganda you say? Yes, but his backers are not, and have their fingers in a number of Congressional and gubernatorial pies (pun intended). For those that don't want to bother watching this deplorable fool, the highlights are thus:
  He accuses homosexuals of 'recruiting' children in schools by paying them American dollars to become gay.
He believes that homosexuality can be 'cured'.
His 'kill the gays' bill is based on his interpretation of Biblical law, which unfortunately seems to match what's written in Deuteronomy and Exodus. I'm not about to pollute my blog with verse; feel free to find it yourself.




02 December 2010

Laws of Nature: Nomic or Gnostic?

Some of the issues with Foster's argument have been left alone due to the instructions of the professor for whom the paper was written. These are apparent in any case.     




 John Foster, in The Divine Lawmaker, believes that he has made headway on a philosophical account of natural laws by taking natural laws as causal regularities that are (or were) enacted by a universal creator.  While this may be satisfying to the theist, both as a teleological proof of a deity and as an account of natural laws, it is lacking in the way of parsimony and explanatory power. There is utility in Foster’s nomic account of laws as causing regularity in the universe: it is possible to present an account of natural laws that properly describes what the laws of nature are and excludes those regularities that are accidental. After a careful examination of Foster’s views, along with some pertinent criticisms of them, this paper will attempt to make sense of Foster’s account of laws without the need for the involvement of a supernatural agent.

02 November 2010

New Life for Liberals...

 In light of the recent surge of the Tea Party, Democrats, and liberals in general, seriously need to find an answer to that energy, however misplaced it may be. This is my solution.

  We are the future of America, not trying to recreate an ideal that never existed. Wrapping yourself in the flag may gain you some votes, but it's also the path to Fascism, and we should refuse that path.

Core Values:


- All people should be treated equally and equitably. Thus, restrictions to marriage, voting, and holding office based on sexual orientation and religious persuasion need to be abolished immediately as they run contrary to the founding principles of this nation, and, more importantly, to common decency and ethics.

- In an effort to continue the above, the income tax system should be abolished and replaced with a value-added tax on all purchases. This is the only permissible tax on citizens, and as it is based on spending rather than income or property, it is entirely voluntary in an important sense: if you don't want to give money to the government, don't spend any.

- A complete overhaul of the criminal justice system aimed at breaking the cycle of crime, and the poverty from whence that cycle arises. Criminals will be given reasonable sentences, and billed for their room and board while incarcerated,  after the first year. In order to allow the prisoner a means of doing this, they will be afforded the opportunity to learn a trade or complete a degree during their imprisonment, and then paid for their time, less the real costs incurred by housing them. This not only gives the prison system a chance to be self-financing, but provides a means to be a productive member of society when released. Prison manufactured goods will be sold on the open market. Citizenship rights will be stripped from no one, including felons, once they have served their sentence.

- Decriminalisation of illegal drugs, and the legalisation of marijuana. We spend far too much money on law enforcement for something that we cannot hope to control. Prohibition is not an effective solution, therefore: those arrested on drug offences will be sentenced to in-patient rehabilitation, not prison. Those convicted of trafficking or selling large quantities may still be subject to criminal penalties, as above, and in addition all liquid assets will be seized and donated to the rehabilitation programs that treat their customers.

- Real and reasonable social welfare programs: a) universal health insurance for all, administered by the government and paid for by tax dollars. Those under 18 and over 65 will receive completely free care and prescriptions, all others will pay a co-pay, up to a yearly limit. This is about eliminating a predatory health insurance industry and ensuring proper preventative care and treatment for all. Thus, health care providers will be paid on a per patient basis, and as an incentive, pharmaceutical companies will be awarded grants from NIH/NSF just like other researchers. These are for the public good, not profit, and should be treated as such.
b) Unemployment/disability insurance should continue, with the requirement that those taking benefits attend a workshop, weekly, aimed at job-seeking skills and/or training for a new career. Frankly, with the current computer technology, there's no reason to claim physical disability... unless you're mentally incompetent or quadriplegic, you can certainly operate a keyboard or man someone's customer service line.

- Dismantle the military-industrial complex, beginning with aggressive foreign policies and empire-building. This doesn't mean that we don't need a military for defensive purposes, nor even does it mean that we might not need bases on foreign soil, but we no longer need to enter into a war simply because the president feels the need to assuage daddy's pride. All acts of war require a formal declaration of such in Congress, as written into the Constitution. We need not inform the enemy of this declaration, but it ensures that one man or woman doesn't get to play a game of soldiers with real people again. To make up for the lost productivity in the economy, I suggest retooling all those brilliant minds and the factories that produce their inventions to generate clean, domestic energy sources. Removing the dependence on foreign oil will remove much of the need for the military in any case, and let's face it, the idea of clean coal is a joke. Ethanol/biofuels are a band-aid for this problem, what we really need are renewable, non-polluting energy sources.

- Government spending and size of government are not the problem, what we choose to spend government money on the the efficiency with which government business is conducted are. Not only should a government protect it's people, it should also serve their best interests, as determined by them.

21 September 2010

We call them IDiots for a reason

Satirists used to be clever, but this one seems not to have the knack. It might be fun to respond to his canards, however.

 The troublesome issue of intelligent design (known simply as ID) is one that every science educator needs to be prepared to deal with. The issue threatens our society on several levels. For example, how can our nation hope to compete in an increasingly technological world unless our budding new scientists believe life is a purposeless cosmic accident? The very integrity of science is in danger. In fact, the continued existence of civilization might be at stake.

True science must always provide purely naturalistic answers, not simply follow the evidence where it leads. Unless we restrain the range of acceptable answers to scientific problems, we cannot guarantee appropriate, scientific conclusions. Such is our duty as educators. The following suggestions should make your job of shaping young minds somewhat easier.



   We aren't troubled by you at all, at least not any more than we might be troubled by bedbugs or mosquitoes. Your existence is unfortunate, sometimes we feel the need to swat you when you're being particularly irritating, but you haven't a leg to stand on. Funnily enough, we do follow the evidence where it leads, and that isn't to your deity.

19 September 2010

Not my normal post

... but this one is important. If you happen to be a resident of Wake County, NC, and reading this, you need to carefully consider who we elect to the Board of Education this fall, given the situation on the board over the past year or more. Get the scoop on each here. I urge you to pay careful attention to a candidate's stance on diversity and busing, as it has a profound impact on the well-being of all students in Wake Co. While neither group of students (low socioeconomic status or high) may make significant academic gains by being placed in the same schools, students of low SES stand to make important gains in social capital (the ability to navigate mainstream society) and those of higher SES are likely to have a greater understanding of segments of society to which they don't belong. Those of a liberal bent don't need this urging, but to those who aren't, ask yourself this: Is paying for busing now better than paying out larger sums in welfare-related programs and funneling money into failing neighbourhood schools later?