Brrrrrr

Has anyone noticed that it's kind of cold?

Skipping town on the Sabbath

With the run to complete a health care bill, Senators are working out what to do to be in place. Some Reps are bragging and twittering about putting in a cot in their offices to be in place.

What a about Joe Lieberman, you asked? No? Well I'll tell you anyway.

He's left town. Why? Sure he wants to kill it. Sure he is in league with Reps and Insurers to block it. But even the Reps are staying in place.

But not Joe.

He's back in CT. It's the Sabbath after all.

Why is this okay? Oh, well, it is religious..how sensible and respectable....pfft...

No it isn't. Racing to a dying friend or family member, sure. Go to a pregnant wife, okay...or if you are...I understand. A family emergency...it happens.

But the Sabbath? He does know that he gets 52 of them every year, right?

What would have been laudable would have been giving up on the Sabbath for once for important work for the sake of his state and his country. But he isn't that loyal, is he?

Being charitable without being a dick

PZ Myers points out some secular charities that are available. Think of it, charity without the preaching, the commandments, or the moralizing. Could it be?

Here is the link.

Hands off holy mama

When I was born I was taken and baptized in a Catholic Church, after that I didn't really spend anytime in The Church. Except that one time a friend dragged me to communion and things got a bit wonky after I got the old wafer (not PZ Myers with a cracker cracker wonky just kid wandering into a groups weird ritual wonky).

So there was a whole lot about The Church I never knew. Until I saw the movie Dogma, I never knew what was supposed to be thought about Mary (God's baby's mama). I got that she was supposed to a virgin who gave birth to a child, sure why not. But the idea that she just stayed a virgin through the rest of her life...really? Why? As I understand now she's flippin' holy. She's the big mama of The Church, and no one...no one touches mama. It's almost cute...in an arrested development fashion (And it does just add a whole new creepy layer to an already creepy story...perhaps I should tell the story of Jesus's conception this Christmas...). I mean, come on. Grow up, she had the kid and then had to go through raising him and Joseph had to be there, and just stand aside? They kept selling me as a kid the idea that her a Joe were in love and wanted to be together...or was that a lie to! Oh, man, is it all lies?!

Anywho. PZ Myers looks at the charming Catholic reaction to a billboard in New Zealand. They just don't seem to take to jokes about Joe and Mary's love life. Funny. Catholics always seem so light hearted and easy going....

Bo-tax

There has been some consternation over talk of new taxation on cosmetic surgery.

Some feminist leaders popped up quickly to decry it as unfair and punishing to women. Other feminist reacted with surprise at this, and others agreed with the outcry.

One who found agreement talked about the unfairness of focusing in on women with a tax, and made some interesting points. Of note the use of taxation to pressure and bring morality to medicine.

But in looking at this and the concerns and arguments, I just have to disagree.

I do agree that I don't care for the government to try and force a view of society through tax breaks and burdens (to have marriage or families, etc.). But this is not the sole picture here.

First, the demographics. Men are a growing part of this cosmetic surgery customer base. Second various ethnic groups are growing in numbers to be found using these service. And finally, those making use of this service would seem to trend in to the middle and upper classes. This taxed group will be diverse sexually and ethnically, so not too much bias there. And more importantly they are a wealthy subset of the whole population.

And that is why this tax is being levied. It is on the rich. That is the view and impression. There could be an argument for it being placed on those that are deemed to be wasting money on vanity. But it is primarily being focused on those that are deemed to have excess of cash and a willingness to spend it. Hence the taxes placed on money luxury items. That is the view at the governmental top. And as the wealthy are more heavily hit, it is hard for most progressives to be particularly bummed.

Now, if this impacts needed (for healthy living) surgeries, that is bad. Likewise, the effect on gender changes deserves some consideration. But this is not a sin tax, just as import duties on luxury cars isn't.

Glam media

Crooks and Liars is somewhat peaked at the coverage Glenn Beck is getting from Barbara Walters, being called one of the years most interesting people.

I agree it is annoying to see him up like that treated as light fare.

But that is how Walters works, and Larry King. And it has long been so. King admitted once in an interview that if he had to choose between a news maker and a major celebrity, he goes with the celebrity as that is what his audience wants. It is how it works, and it works nicely for them, the interviewer, and them, the interviewee. It used to be a joke that when you get called out, as a politician or corporate face, for some negative remarks or acts, you go to this lot. The Walters give you some soft light place you beside your spouse, in sweaters and in front of a fire, and you just...gosh...show your real snugly self to the world. Damage Control.

And it is nauseating. Look at the Tiger Woods story and how it is compared to the likes of Hugh Grant. People want him out in the limelight looking embarrassed and going red. Then they can move on, once we get our mental shaming done. Me, I don't care. It's a family issue. As to his business side, we'll see what comes.

But with the likes of Beck...he says horrid things daily. Makes money off of driving fear and anger. He stokes up a dangerous amount of rage, then tries to laugh it off and play the goof.

And with this interview he is just a jovial nice guy that...gosh, wants to help America. These shows are there to sell something. And like with Hugh Grant, it is about TV and movies, or others a tell all book. But when the politicians come in...

Were getting sold a whole other range of goods. That is what is nice with the likes of The Daily Show. They bring in an actor or author to talk about their work. But they don't treat the politicians the same. They are actually aware of the difference...a difference that some older venues are loathe to note.

The Battle of the Ages!

TPM is looking at how the Climate Change-Gate-Denial-Miasma is being dealt with in the media.

They seem to have to titan on the subject duking it out for their amusement. Al Gore and Sarah Palin.

Gore has spent many years looking at, discussing, and engaging on the issue.

Palin...likes Facebook.

It is a real battle royale. He responds to things she has written and she gets on Facebook and sets her mood to grumpy...

Couldn't the get Chopra or Cheney to weigh in? Where's Ashton Kutsher...shouldn't he be twittering on all this...I need more input!!!

Maddow vs the Gay Cure

Rachel Maddow has been giving some great coverage of the anti gay bill in Uganda, and also on The Family in D.C.

Last night she got a chance to engage one of the people who have help to bolster these groups, Richard Cohen, who claims he is a one time gay that is now cured (How do you cure a choice?).

TPM has the video that is a hoot. First she deals with the Uganda bill, but he gives his excuses. The rest of the interview deals with his book about the gay choice and the cure, and also the horrible things that the gays do. And this book gives here one heck of a cudgel to use on this guy.

It is great journalism and debunking.

The Best Man - 1964

I just saw that they have the classic film The Best Man on tonight. It tells the story of the behind the scenes shenanigans of a presidential convention. It started out as a play by Gore Vidal, and stars the likes of Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson. And all I can think is...why the heck is this not yet available in the US on DVD?

What is the hold up for this classic? A contentious fight ensues at the Democratic (?) convention. This leads to a battle between different flawed would be world leaders. One man, Sec. of State Russell (Henry Fonda), has cheated on his wife and spent a brief period getting mental treatment, but he wants to be an honest and worthy leader. Another man, Joe Cantwell (Cliff Robertson), seems squeaky clean, but is determined to win, whether it means embracing segregation, red scares, or any suspect cause that will get votes. He's willing and ready to pull any trick or story to destroy his opponents. But then the would be honest man gets hold of a claim of a suspect sexual experience for Mr. Squeaky Clean...but he can see how suspect it is, and how dirty the trick is. Will he use this to guarantee the convention win? Can he live with winning by any means?

This is just a grand flick.

Boosting employment

Robert Reich shares his thoughts on the administration's work to get employment growth occurring.

I have to agree with his view that the investment from the government has been anemic. Some attempt has been made to stimulate the economy and get people to work. But it has not been remotely what it could be. The investment has not been enough, even now as more money is promised for stimulus. Reich suggests the need for up to $400 billion over the next couple of years, and what we will get is around $70 billion from the TARP returns. Where he sees this leaving us is an even longer wait for the return of near full employment in this country. And when that happens everyone is paying taxes and fewer people need additional government support. So the larger expenses for us all will continue. All so we can compromise for those that want a controlled and limited budget.

More with Chopra

It feels like it has been a while since I talked about old Deepak. He is a piece, a doctor that can get neither medicine or physics right. Yet he is a revered expert, particularly for us on the left side of politics.

So what has he said to get many in a huff? Instead of common sense, he specifically finds a bone to pick with skeptics (Hey, like my name!).

Various skeptics looked at his "thoughts":

Phil Plaitt:

... Anyway, he has gone to the very font of new age nonsense, the Huffington Post, to spew more woo: he’s written an article about why skepticism is bad. It’s almost a bullet-pointed list of logical fallacies. ...

Among the points Chopra tries to make are that:

• Skeptics don't like speculative thinking. Cause I know I hate innovative and creative ideas, or creative imaginings of applications of science, or potential future discoveries. I'm such a dick. It is just lame. He throws out half-assed, unsupported, and easily disputed claims, and he gets pissed that other than the group than ignore him and those that listen eagerly at his feet...there are others that actually dispute and want sound foundations before they will treat his ideas as anything other than new age guru piffle. I know he finds that unfair...so do the people selling crystals.
  
  This is pointed to by Steven Novella, who looks at where Chopra seems to sit:
  

  ... What this article demonstrates is that Chopra is unequivocally anti-science. That is the reason he attacks skeptics and skepticism. He wants his woo to get a free pass. He wants to be able to speculate wildly, without ever having to justify his claims with logic and evidence. Chopra laments being called “the emperor of woo-woo” – probably because he knows that this emperor has no clothes.



• Then there is the beaut, that no skeptic has EVER made a major scientific discovery...ever. That is either blazing stupidity, or attempt to tightly control the definition of a major discoveries and skeptic. He no doubt has a few skeptics that are the good sort that won't be counted. Sagan Dawkins, Einstein, etc. All paved over or redressed for Chopra's needs.

It seems to come down to wonder. Skeptics have no sense of wonder. It is just a tired claim. It's like the denouncements atheist face. We can't be spiritual, have a sense of joy, have hope, happiness...we can't be fully human without embracing the guff pumped out my the likes of Chopra. And then there is the arrogance seen.

Sprinkle on the fairy dust, or you can never fly.

Jason Rosenhouse looks at some discussion among a couple of Christian scientist disagreeing.

...

We New Atheist types like to emphasize that religion ought not to be exempted from the usual requirement that assertions of fact be supported by evidence, and that both the methods and findings of science tend to weaken the case for traditional religious beliefs. For this we are accused, with tiresome lack of originality, of being arrogant. We are lectured about the limits of science and about how we can not prove there is no God. Sometimes we are even described as being like fundamentalists.

Such charges are nonsense, of course. It is not arrogant to grow irritated with those who demand respect for their religion without providing a shred of evidence in support of their beliefs. Arrogance is when you claim to know, with “know” in italics and clearly distinguished from “believe,” that some dubious bit of religious dogma is true.

...

Who for the holidays

For the holiday season, the BBC in England like to go all out with the seasonal commercials. Like using Doctor Who for some seasonal merriment.



Obviously I can't talk about spoilers for the End of Time episodes at the end of the year, but I can at least share the Whovian holiday fun.