GodlessLiberal's Xanga

Merry Pagan Holiday Adopted By Christians Day!

Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:02:59 GMT

I hope whatever you're doing at this time makes you happy. As an atheist, I still enjoy giving/getting presents (mostly getting, and anyone who tells you different is a liar!).

So Merry Kriskomas to all, and to all lots of booze to escape from the family.

Elephants' Wings

Thu, 24 Dec 2009 04:19:51 GMT

Once upon a time, four blind men were walking in the forest, and they bumped into an elephant.

Moe was in front, and found himself holding the trunk. "It has a tentacle," he said. "I think we have found a giant squid!"

Larry bumped into the side of the elephant. "It's a wall," he said, "A big, bristly wall."

Curly, at the back, touched the tail. "It's nothing to worry about, nothing but a piece of rope dangling in the trail."

Eagletosh saw the interruption as an opportunity to sit in the shade beneath a tree and relax. "It is my considered opinion," he said, "that whatever it is has feathers. Beautiful iridescent feathers of many hues."

The first three, being of a scientifical bent, quickly collaborated and changed places, and confirmed each other's observations; they agreed that each had been correct in the results of their investigations, except that there wasn't a hint of feathers anywhere about, but clearly their interpretations required correction and more data. So they explored further, reporting to each other what they were finding, in order to establish a more complete picture of the obstacle in the path.

"Tracing the tentacle back, I find that it is attached to a large head with eyes, fan-shaped ears, and a mouth bearing tusks. It is not a squid, alas, but seems to be a large mammal of some sort," said Moe.

"Quite right, Moe — I have found four thick limbs. Definitely a large tetrapod," said Larry.

Curly seems distressed. "It's a bit complicated and delicate back here, guys, but I have probed an interesting orifice. Since this is a children's story, I will defer on reporting the details."

Eagletosh yawns and stretches in the shade of a tree. "It has wings, large wings, that it may ascend into the heavens and inspire humanity. There could be no purpose to such an animal without an ability to loft a metaphor and give us something to which we might aspire."

The other three ignore the idling philosopher, because exciting things are happening with their elephant!

"I can feel its trunk grasping the vegetation, uprooting it, and stuffing it into its mouth! It's prehensile! Amazing!", said Moe.

Larry presses his ear against the animal's flank. "I can hear rumbling noises as its digestive system processes the food! It's very loud and large."

There is a squishy plop from the back end. "Oh, no," says Curly, "I can smell that, and I think I should go take a bath."

"You are all completely missing the beauty of its unfurled wings," sneers Eagletosh, "While you tinker with pedestrian trivialities and muck about in earthy debasement, I contemplate the transcendant qualities of this noble creature. 'Tis an angel made manifest, a symbol of the deeper meaning of life."

"No wings, knucklehead, and no feathers, either," says Moe.

"Philistine," says Eagletosh. "Perhaps they are invisible, or tucked inside clever hidden pockets on the flank of the elephant, or better yet, I suspect they are quantum. You can't prove they aren't quantum."

The investigations continue, in meticulous detail by the three, and in ever broader strokes of metaphorical speculation by the one. Many years later, they have accomplished much.

Moe has studied the elephant and its behavior for years, figuring out how to communicate with it and other members of the herd, working out their diet, their diseases and health, and how to get them to work alongside people. He has profited, using elephants as heavy labor in construction work, and he has also used them, unfortunately, in war. He has not figured out how to use them as an air force, however…but he is a master of elephant biology and industry.

Larry studied the elephant, but has also used his knowledge of the animal to study the other beasts in the region: giraffes and hippos and lions and even people. He is an expert in comparative anatomy and physiology, and also has come up with an interesting theory to explain the similarities and differences between these animals. He is a famous scholar of the living world.

Curly's experiences lead him to explore the environment of the elephant, from the dung beetles that scurry after them to the leafy branches they strip from the trees. He learns how the elephant is dependent on its surroundings, and how its actions change the forest and the plains. He becomes an ecologist and conservationist, and works to protect the herds and the other elements of the biome.

Eagletosh writes books. Very influential books. Soon, many of the people who have never encountered an elephant are convinced that they all have wings. Those who have seen photos are at least persuaded that elephants have quantum wings, which just happened to be vibrating invisibly when the picture was snapped. He convinces many people that the true virtue of the elephant lies in its splendid wings — to the point that anyone who disagrees and claims that they are only terrestrial animals is betraying the beauty of the elephant.

Exasperated, Larry takes a break from writing technical treatises about mammalian anatomy, and writes a book for the lay public, The Elephant Has No Wings. While quite popular, the Eagletoshians are outraged. How dare he denigrate the volant proboscidian? Does he think it a mere mechanical mammal, mired in mud, never soaring among the stars? Has he no appreciation for the scholarship of the experts in elephant wings? Doesn't he realize that he can't possibly disprove the existence of wings on elephants, especially when they can be tucked so neatly into the quantum? (The question of how the original prophets of wingedness came by their information never seems to come up, or is never considered very deeply.) It was offensive to cripple the poor elephants, rendering them earthbound.

When that book was quickly followed by Moe's The Elephant Walks and Curly's Land of the Elephant, the elephant wing scholars were in a panic — they were being attacked by experts in elephants, who seemed to know far more about elephants than they did! Fortunately, the scientists knew little about elephant's wings — surprising, that — and the public was steeped in favorable certainty that elephants, far away, were flapping gallantly through the sky. They also had the benefit of vast sums of money. Wealth was rarely associated with competence in matters elephantine, and tycoons were pouring cash into efforts to reconcile the virtuous wingedness of elephants with the uncomfortable reality of anatomy. Even a few scientists who ought to know better were swayed over to the side of the winged; to their credit, it was rarely because of profit, but more because they were sentimentally attached to the idea of wings. They couldn't deny the evidence, however, and were usually observed to squirm as they invoked the mystic power of the quantum, or of fleeting, invisible wings that only appeared when no one was looking.

And there the battle stands, an ongoing argument between the blind who struggle to explore the world as it is around them, and the blind who prefer to conjure phantoms in the spaces within their skulls. I have to disappoint you, because I have no ending and no resolution, only a question.

Where do you find meaning and joy and richness and beauty, O Reader? In elephants, or elephants' wings?

Courtesy of PZ Myers.

Dr. Dino's "PhD" Dissertation Leaked

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:15:14 GMT

Four years ago I saw a lecture by a man named Kent Hovind, who fancied himself "Dr. Dino." When the Q&A came up, I asked what I thought to be a very pertinent question: "Can you tell us about your experience getting your doctorate, where it came from, and why your dissertation is kept under lock and key?" He dodged the question, but not the authorities, who put him in jail about a year later for using his creation theme park as a tax shelter by calling it a church and calling all his employees (from the tour guides to the ring-toss operator) "ministers."

Well my friends, they day has come. "Dr." Hovind's dissertation has been leaked, and if you know anything about the world of academics, his paper wouldn't pass undergraduate muster, let alone get one a PhD. You can find this "dissertation" at this website. I'm reading through it, and I laughed so hard that I blew milk out my nose... and I wasn't even drinking milk. I haven't finished it yet, but once I do I may decide to share my own review. Until then, I think DOCTOR Karen Bartlett does a wonderful job, of which I shall post a few excerpts:

What is a thesis or dissertation anyway?

A thesis is a body of ORIGINAL research, and is one of the requirements for an advanced degree (M.A., M.S., Ph.D.). Whether this encompasses laboratory or field study (typical of the natural sciences), surveying and statistical analysis (typical of the social sciences) or a critical analysis of some facet of an earlier body of work (typical of the humanities), the key is that it must contain original and new data or theories that ADD to the body of existing knowledge, otherwise, it's just a glorified high school theme or term paper.

There are no prescribed lengths for these documents, although individual universities may require a certain minimum number of pages. In a recent biography of Carl Sagan, it was mentioned that his Ph.D. thesis was 85 pages long (Davidson, 107). Generally, it is the content rather than the length that is important in a thesis.

Once written and approved by the committee, a thesis is considered a completed document AND DOES NOT CHANGE in length or content. A person is certainly free to pursue the dissertation topic at greater length, and publish more on a particular issue or set of experimental data, but the thesis itself does not get amended. [...]

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

    There is only one committee member, a Dr. Wayne Knight. Normally, a thesis must pass muster with 3-5 committee members, all of whom make suggestions and ultimately "sign off" on the thesis. Even the undergraduate honors theses at my institution require the signatures of two faculty members.

    Misspellings are rampant. A careful, knowledgeable editor/adviser would never allow a student to get away with misspelling "Caanan", "Voltair", "Nyles Eldridge", Madelyn Murray "O'Hare" (just like the airport), "Shintu" (the Japanese religion), "peersuaded", "centrifical" (force!!!), "aught" (to!), "disippated", "immerged" (from the slime), or "epic" (as in geological!). "It's" is used as a possessive pronoun. There are several non sentences. This is especially interesting since the course catalog of PU offers courses like "Refresher English" and "Mechanics of Composition".

    THE THESIS HAS NO TITLE. There are no references or footnotes. A few partial citations are included in the body of the thesis, but they are not in standard form, and are incomplete. In at least two places (pp 65-66) the citation simply notes that there is a book title to be added. This has no place in a final version.

    The single illustration, the electromagnetic spectrum, is cut out of a science textbook and taped on; it does not fit the page. Additionally, there are substantial formatting errors typical of a draft, but not a final, version. The final version is printed on a dot-matrix printer, an absolute no-no, even in 1991.

    The Ph.D. is in "Christian Education", not "Education" - that's what the title page says. The coursework for the two degrees is substantially different, but as late as 1-10-00, Hovind still seems loath to advertising the "Christian" aspect of his degree. Curious that a Christian would leave that part out! [...]

The first sentence is a greeting, equivalent to "Hello, my name is Barney, the Big Purple Dinosaur". This may well reflect the "popular writing style" accepted by PU. At this point in time (no later than early 1991) Hovind already claims to be preaching about creation 400 times a year and has a weekly radio program (where he claims to have gotten some of the ideas for the thesis chapters). Though he states that as a science teacher he wants to keep an open mind, he also says that if the Bible says that something was created in a particular way, then that's just what happened. He admits that there is nothing new in the thesis, and it is just an explanation of the things that he has learned. Chapter descriptions are included: Chapter 1 is the history of evolution; chapter 2 is evolution as a religion; chapter 3 allegedly deals with the effects of evolution, and chapter 4, allegedly with the age of the Earth. The twelve missing chapters (reminiscent of the 12 lost tribes of Israel) are described also: the big bang (5), the geologic column (6), radiocarbon dating (7), cave men (8), archaeopteryx (9), creation of life in the lab (10), scientists who were/are creationists (11), the Genesis 1/2 conflict (12), dinosaurs in the Bible (13), whether dinosaurs are extinct (14), human and dinosaur footprints at Glen Rose (15), and an alternative theory to evolution (16). There are no chapters entitled "The Effects of Teaching Evolution on the Students in our Public School System". [...]

No original thought is presented. This is nothing more than a rehash of long-discredited theories. It is a rambling, low-quality book report, sans the references. It is not an original, thoughtful, coherent body of knowledge. To award a Ph.D. for this is a travesty and an insult to anyone who has actually worked to achieve one.

    Ad hominem, shominem! No one, regardless of race, color, sex or religious background should be able to produce a work of this quality and claim an advanced degree. If Stephen Jay Gould had produced a thesis like this, I would be writing about him.

    If Patriot University did, in fact, accept this dissertation and award a Ph.D. in Christian education, then it does fall into the category of a diploma mill, for the reasons listed below.

--- There is no original research presented.

--- Large portions of the dissertation are repeated. Formatting errors are rampant.

---References are absent.

--- Spelling errors that are typical of high school (but not college) writing are present in this document.

--- The writing style, "popular" or not, is typical of high school-level writing, not college, and certainly not postgraduate. The writing style, as well as Hovind's lectures, are reminiscent of drive-by shootings, where many disjointed topics are presented in rapid-fire order (so as to not allow the reader or listener to really think about any particular topic).

Kent Hovind says (in his statement above) that he doesn't care whether he is addressed as "Mr." or "hey you" by the scoffers. In fact, his Ph.D. is very precious to him or he would not be listed as "Dr. Kent Hovind" in the Pensacola, FL, phone book (it is very unusual for a person with a Ph.D., even a real one, to do this). One has only to look at his itinerary to substantiate my claim that being called "Doctor" is very important to him.

It is certainly possible for a person to acquire expertise in a scientific field by studying that topic independently. However, such a person does not claim to have an advanced degree in the field. There is NO EVIDENCE that Kent Hovind has more than a college sophomore level of course work in ANY science. There is NO EVIDENCE from his thesis that he is widely-read in the areas of evolution, astronomy, geology, paleontology or even the history of science beyond what is written in a few young-Earth creationist books. There is ABUNDANT EVIDENCE that the requirements for a Ph.D. degree from Patriot University fall far below those of typical secular or religious institutions.

Ask yourself whether you would visit a medical doctor, an auto mechanic, a plumber, or an investment counsellor with similar dubious credentials. If so, then Hovind is your science guy! Or see him for what he is, the snake-oil salesman, peddling salvation and pseudo science in the late 20th century and even unto the 21st century

Atheist Elected to Office Cannot Legally Serve

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:59:48 GMT

Did anyone follow the news of Cecil Bothwell last month? He was an atheist who ran for public office in Asheville, NC, to be on the City Council. He won and got one of the three open seats. I lately heard there was an update, and instantly knew it was something bad.

“I’m not saying that Cecil Bothwell is not a good man, but if he’s an atheist, he’s not eligible to serve in public office, according to the state constitution,” said H.K. Edgerton, a former Asheville NAACP president.

Article 6, section 8 of the state constitution says: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”

It’s true — There are several state constitutions which hold such provisions: Arkansas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and North Carolina.

But none of these laws are truly enforceable. They’re all (obviously) unconstitutional.

Edgerton may not even be the bad guy here. He’s just pointing out what the state law says:

“If they go ahead, then the city of Asheville and the board of elections could be liable for a lawsuit,” Edgerton said.

Maybe someone filing a lawsuit would be a good thing. Let someone fight over the law. Bothwell’s side should win the case (and I would think he’d have pro bono help from a group like the ACLU).

Furthermore, a lawsuit like this would expose the open discrimination that still exists against atheists and educate people that atheists can be good public servants for all people.

Thanks again to Hemant Mehta for this story.

Is Atheism a Choice?

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:08:56 GMT

I’ve been wrestling with the idea of choice for a long time. The word is used in different ways by different people, but a recurring theme seems to be the importance of conscious thought controlling the decision. (One of the reasons I like this formulation is that it avoids the sticky issue of determinism and free will – we don’t need to argue over what sparked my conscious thought to get breakfast, only recognize that conscious thoughts occurred and they resulted in me eating delicious waffles.)

So is atheism under the control of our conscious thoughts? Even that’s a complex question!

I’m inclined to say no. While it’s a conscious effort that leads us to seek out the truth through study and reflection, we can’t decide ahead of time what the evidence will say. Evaluating evidence is in the domain of our subconscious.

But there is a way to affect our beliefs with conscious thought by exploiting our capacity for cognitive dissonance:

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The “ideas” or “cognitions” in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one’s behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.

Isn’t it fascinating that behavior can affect belief? So even if we don’t start out believing that the evidence points to the existence of a god, we could act as though it did. After a while of going to church, praying, and doing all the “believer” things, there’s a chance that some of us would genuinely start to believe – rationalizing our behaviors by changing our beliefs. And since the dissonance “can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms,” once it starts to kick in, reverting to our old beliefs would be less and less likely.

That’s the best I could come up with. In my conception of belief – confidence that something is true – it’s very difficult to argue that my atheism is a choice.

But many religious individuals have a different conception of belief – they don’t see evidence as they only factor. A friend in college once told me that he didn’t think Mary was really a virgin, but that he still “believed in the virgin birth.” He was never able to satisfactorily explain what he meant by that and I still haven’t figured it out. I wonder how the cognitive dissonance is resolving itself in his head…

Theists often seem quite capable of talking themselves into belief without evidence. I find this to be delusional. But it explains why religious believers often think that our atheism is a choice: if they put evidence aside to believe, they assume we can, too. I’ll try not to generalize to all atheists, but for me, belief doesn’t work that way. I recognize that this is begging the question – in essence, I’m simply asserting that I’m incapable of accepting something as true without evidence. But why do I feel this way about belief when others feel differently?

I would love to hear your thoughts, especially if you used to be one of those theists who was capable of “willing” yourself to believe.

Many thanks to a friend and a friendly athiest, Hemant Mehta.

Santa Claus: An Engineer's Perspective

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:57:38 GMT

I. There are approximately two billion children (persons under 18) in the world. However, since Santa does not visit children of Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist religions, this reduces the workload for Christmas night to 15% of the total, or 378 million (according to the Population Reference Bureau).

At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per house hold, that comes to 108 million homes, presuming that there is at least one good child in each.

II. Santa has about 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 967.7 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with a good child, Santa has around 1/1000th of a second to park the sleigh, hop out, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left for him, get back up the chimney, jump into the sleigh and get on to the next house.

Assuming that each of these 108 million stops is evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false, but will accept for the purposes of our calculations), we are now talking about 0.78 miles per household; a total trip of 75.5 million miles, not counting bathroom stops or breaks. This means Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second --- 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second, and a conventional reindeer can run (at best) 15 miles per hour.

III. The payload of the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium sized Lego set (two pounds), the sleigh is carrying over 500 thousand tons, not counting Santa himself. On land, a conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that the "flying" reindeer could pull ten times the normal amount, the job can't be done with eight or even nine of them--- Santa would need 360,000 of them. This increases the payload, not counting the weight of the sleigh, another 54,000 tons, or roughly seven times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth (the ship, not the monarch).

IV. 600,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance --- this would heat up the reindeer in the same fashion as a spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer would absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of energy per second each. In short, they would burst into flames almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them and creating deafening sonic booms in their wake.

The entire reindeer team would be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second, or right about the time Santa reached the fifth house on his trip.

Not that it matters, however, since Santa, as a result of accellerating from a dead stop to 650 m.p.s. in .001 seconds, would be subjected to centrifugal forces of 17,500 g's. A 250 pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of the sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force, instantly crushing his bones and organs and reducing him to a quivering blob of pink goo.

Therefore, if Santa did exist, he's dead now.

Happy Holidays!

Medical and/or Legalized Marijuana

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:16:20 GMT

Imagine if you turned on the radio and heard this: "From NPR News in Washington, I'm Carl Kasell. After 70 years of prohibition, marijuana becomes legal today for personal consumption throughout the United States for persons 21 and older."

How would the world change if cannabis finally came out of the closet, if it were fully legal to possess, sell and cultivate?

Willie Nelson, the 76-year-old iconic balladeer and cannabis connoisseur, says there are pros and cons.

"We don't worry about going to jail anymore for smoking it," he says. But, "a lot of our old friends who dealt it are out of work."

In Austin, Texas, the legal cannabis created a surge in business at head shops such as Oat Willie's.

"There's the most popular one, the Volcano," says Doug Brown, the store's longtime general manager, pointing to a conical device that is supposed to provide a milder smoking experience. "It's very expensive — $575 — and they're hard to get hold of."

In the two years since legalization, Brown has noticed new customers, many of whom are older.

"More affluent people, more fun people — people that have never done it before, but have decided to try it since it's now legalized," he says.

One of the new marijuana epicures is Sarah Bird, a middle-aged novelist in Austin and columnist for Texas Monthly Magazine. She says she hadn't smoked marijuana much since her college days.

"It's been a godsend for the temperamentally tense such as myself," Bird says. "And it's really been a boon to getting me off my addiction to Ambien and Yellowtail Merlot."

"What's not to like?" Bird asks. It's low-calorie, she doesn't wake up hung over, it's great for the libido, and it's popular at dinner parties, baked into Belgian chocolate brownies.

But most of all, she adds: "You know you're not contributing to the Sinaloa Cartel and you're not destabilizing Mexico. And in my case, as a parent, I'm not modeling criminal behavior for my child."

Recreational And Medicinal Uses

At the University of Texas at Austin, Kevin Prince, coordinator of UT's alcohol and drug program, says he's seen a spike in pot smoking since it became legal. This is troubling to him because national studies show that sustained marijuana use directly affects academic achievement.

"One of the main issues is there's still a mystique when it comes to marijuana use," Prince says. "A lot of people still don't know that marijuana use is addictive. If you're spending more time smoking weed than going to class or going to work, that's a problem."

Not everyone uses it recreationally. The end of cannabis prohibition has been a blessing for Marsha, a medical marijuana user with multiple sclerosis. Sitting in a wheelchair in a friend's backyard in Houston, Marsha says she smokes weed to "escape from my body" and the chronic pain caused by nerve damage.

"Oh, what a relief it is not to be home alone wondering if this minor-league marijuana user, if the cops were gonna come bust me down," she says. "It's nice to feel free."

The Cartels Stay Strong

Free at last to smoke marijuana: Since the prohibition on cannabis ended, has it delivered the results its supporters claimed it would?

With the spiraling drug mayhem in Mexico, some Latin American leaders looked at legalizing marijuana as a way to deny the murderous cartels a portion of their profits. When it was banned, marijuana was the greatest source of income for Mexican traffickers. Now that it's cultivated domestically and sold legally, surely that has crippled the cartels?

"These are crooks. You're not gonna take 'em out of the criminal activity business," says Robert Almonte, who worked narcotics for 25 years with the El Paso Police Department, just across the river from the ruthless Juarez Cartel. "Because drugs are legalized, they're not gonna say, 'Let's go back to school and get an honest job.' "

Almonte, director of the Texas Narcotic Officer's Association, says all cannabis legalization has done is force the drug mafias to improvise.

"As far as marijuana is concerned, they have been selling it less expensive than what it can sell for here in the United States," Almonte says. "But more importantly, we're seeing a more potent marijuana. And with that we're seeing an increase in the emergency room admissions."

A similar observation comes from William Martin, a drug policy expert and senior fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston.

"Just as after the repeal of prohibition, organized crime got into many other kinds of activities — protection money, control of the laundry business — so the drug cartels are quite flexible," Martin says. "They've diversified into kidnapping, human trafficking, protection other crime. And they're still selling cocaine, heroin and meth, which are highly profitable. So unfortunately, it has not hurt them as much as we'd hoped."

Fewer Criminal Cases, Records

Supporters of legalization say one of the undeniable benefits has been the reduction in criminal cases that have clogged courts.

"I used to represent a lot of marijuana smokers and dope dealers," says Gerry Goldstein, a prominent criminal defense lawyer in San Antonio.

Though he is not billing as many hourly fees these days, he believes that's a good thing for the criminal justice system.

"Back in 2006 to 2008, 45 percent of all drug arrests in this country for the most part were marijuana offenses," Goldstein says. "That's a staggering waste of resources of our law enforcement."

And it left young people scarred with criminal records for something that is arguably less dangerous than alcohol, Bill Martin says.

"If they were convicted, they could lose employment, child custody, student aid, voting privileges, some welfare benefits. They could even forfeit assets like cars or houses. The new regime has eliminated that. Problem users are now being treated as a public health matter and not as a criminal issue, and that's appropriate," he says.

It Wouldn't Fill Government Coffers

Since marijuana became legal, farmers around the country — illicit and formerly illicit — have scrambled to put Cannabis sativa seeds into the ground. Under the law, they pay $1,000 for a state license, whether their crop is hydroponic or soil-grown.

"The marijuana crop's been going really good. Just wait till the last frost, just start puttin' the plants in the ground, and add a little nitrogen fertilizer to give you a lotta leaf, and after that it just grows like a weed, which is what it is," says Larry Butler. He stands among the crop rows at his Boggy Creek Farm, a 5-acre certified organic urban farm in Austin, Texas.

His wife, Carol Ann Sayle, says they've been a bit disappointed by their newest cash crop and are nervous about losing the farm's family ambiance.

"The retailer takes a big hit off the bong, so to speak, and then the government comes in with their taxes," Sayle says. "So what's left for the farmer? After all that work and trying to ease peoples' fears that we're gonna be giving it to children. So, what's left for the farmer? Stems and seeds is about all that's left."

Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist who has modeled and written on the economics of the marijuana market, figures state and federal taxes on cannabis sales add up to $6.7 billion annually.

And he calculates the savings from not having to enforce state and federal marijuana laws — in arrests, prosecution and incarceration — at $12.9 billion a year. Excluding additional expenses, such as the public health cost of marijuana, or the cost of administering the new law, Miron figures that legal pot creates almost a $20 billion bonus. Miron adds, however, that the people who thought the taxation of marijuana would create a windfall for government coffers will be disappointed.

"Compared to the size of most federal government agencies, compared to the tax revenue from things like alcohol and tobacco, and certainly compared to the size of deficits that we have, this is just not a major issue, it is not a panacea, it is not curing any of our significant ills," he says. "There may be good reasons to do it, but the budgetary part is not a crucial reason to do it."

There Are More People Smoking It

Now that marijuana is legal to possess, use, process, transfer, transport, retail, wholesale and cultivate, has the United States become a nation of potheads?

The Dutch experiment offers an interesting case study. After marijuana was decriminalized there in 1976, pot smoking didn't jump in Holland, and it remained well below U.S. levels. But it rose sharply after coffee shops opened in the 1980s and began openly selling cannabis. The U.S. already has a huge appetite for drugs: It's the largest illegal narcotics market in the world. Half of all high-school seniors have used pot.

Drug policy analysts interviewed for this report believe that now that marijuana is legal and socially acceptable in the U.S., there are more people smoking it. And some of them are kids.

"They'll start using it sooner now because it looks like it's more OK, seems less harmful, because they see their parents doing it," says Rosalie Pacula, co-director of the Drug Policy Research Center at the RAND Corp. "Do we know how to keep kids from drinking alcohol? No, we don't. So why would we expect we'd be any better at it with marijuana?"

And the reason we should care is because of the effect that marijuana can have on the development of adolescent brains, says Dr. Vicki Nejtek, a research doctor who works on drug abuse at the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth.

"We know that marijuana use and chronic use, as it is now, in an adolescent population can cause extreme developmental delay," Nejtek says. "We know the myelin sheath around our brain cells acts like an insulator to an electric cord. When that's stripped away, it can cause memory loss, it reduces our ability to concentrate, and a reduction in brain cell activity."

In 2007, 14.4 million Americans ages 12 and older admitted to survey-takers that they had used pot in the past month. Rice University's Bill Martin believes, now that it's legal, about one-third more people are using marijuana — maybe 19 million Americans. Martin believes legal pot — which is, after all, an intoxicant — has been good for society but bad for young people.

"I have nine grandchildren," he says. "I would prefer that none of them use marijuana to any significant extent. I have seen students, I've seen friends, become less interesting."

NPR's fictitious scenario of legalized marijuana is not likely to come true anytime soon. Most states are still fighting to legalize medical marijuana and decriminalize marijuana penalties, much less seriously considering legalization. President Obama is on record opposing legalizing pot as a way to boost the economy. For now, whether legal cannabis would cause an outbreak of reefer madness or make more people just mellow out, makes for an interesting parlor game. But it's only a pipe dream.

Thanks to NPR.

God's Identity Crisis

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:31:34 GMT

Guide to the Manhug

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:30:40 GMT

You're watching your favorite sports-type-team and cheering on your favorite player. He/she (just kidding... he) has just successfully completed a touchdown / homerun / basket / goal / acquittal from rape charges. Your heterosexual friend turns towards you, jubilant, with arms outstretched. Pause! What do you do? Well, for your edification, I have here the rules of a proper manhug.

Rules of the manhug:

Once the hug is imminent, turn your head to the left, never right. Apply loud thumping slaps to the upper back for the duration of the hug, but never rub the back. Not only will such ritualized combat techniques dispel any thoughts of enjoying the hug, the thumping noise will cover up the sound of any moans that may inadvertently pass your lips.
Make an A-frame with your body to avoid inadvertent genital touching. A V-frame is not allowed.
Keep it brief. The three-second rule applies here.
Do not close your eyes. If you do close your eyes, think of baseball... but only the stats part of baseball, not the locker room or the non-stop ass-slapping parts.
No kissing unless you're in the mafia. If kissing occurs, no tongue unless your mob boss leads.
Keep your hands above the waist.
Don't allow yourself to melt into the embrace, no matter how secure and comforting. Also, don't think of it as an embrace.

Wrong!

Stand erect, but don't think of the word "erect."
Other terms not to think of: supple, firm, rugged, pecs, forbidden, steamy, nubile, engorged, throbbing, David Hasselhoff, gladiator.
After disengaging, throw a playful punch at the other person's shoulder. Hell, throw a real punch! Damn him and those steely-blue eyes that look right through you.
Make a gay joke.

Congratulations. You have just had a successful manhug.

Mass Message Epidemic

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:34:43 GMT

To be honest, my absence from Xanga has been due to the following things:

Loss of funding on my myrmecology (ant) lab
Loss of funding in my fellowship on Colony Collapse Disorder research
A backlog in my cricket response to global warming lab (a project I plan on passing down to further undergraduates)
Multiple ER visits
Poor grades in my biophysics course
The release of multiple video games I love and need
And, most importantly, the influx of mass messaging. I can't stand it. This epidemic makes me vomit in my own mouth. Why are you sending these messages? They are never important. I automatically delete them. Yet, they annoy the fuck out of me. Senders of mindless mass messages, I have a question for you: what's the weather like up your own ass? Is it pleasant? If so, stay there, and stay off your computer. If not, realize that you placed yourself there by your own habits.

In summary, to all frequent mass messagers: fuck you and the ISP you rode in on.

If anyone wants me to ever post again, rec this, comment on this, and give a big "fuck you" to anyone mass messaging.