Home
Friends

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> User Info
> BH Neely's Photography
> previous 20 entries

Links
annesblog
Extended Phenotype
Mystery Robin
BH Neely's Photography
A Year in Bread
WanderingGirl
Diplopundit
Art Market Blog

Advertisement

July 7th, 2009


annesblog
10:46 pm - Michael Bolton
Υπηρεσία Vodafone MMS προς Email

Έχετε λάβει ένα μήνυμα με εικόνα από τον συνδρομητή +306949124886

Θέμα: Michael Bolton

[Προστέθηκε εικόνα -- βλέπε Image052.jpg στα συνημμένα]

Image052.jpg

vodafone.gif


(Leave a comment)

atheism
[umilingual]
11:58 am - I love Something Positive
Cut because I didn't realize quite how big it was )

(15 comments | Leave a comment)

atheism
[aztec_mummy]
12:35 pm - Islam Contra World, or: World Contra Islam. Also culture vrs. race?


Egyptians cry racism in woman's slaying in Germany (thnx [info]madfilkentist)


CAIRO (AP) — Thousands of Egyptian mourners marched behind the coffin of the "martyr of the head scarf" on Monday — a pregnant Muslim woman who was stabbed to death in a German courtroom as her young son watched.

Many in her homeland were outraged by the attack and saw the low key response in Germany as an example of racism and anti-Muslim sentiment.
...
Christian Avenarius, the prosecutor in Dresden where the incident took place, described the killer as driven by a deep hatred of Muslims. "It was very clearly a xenophobic attack of a fanatical lone wolf."

He added that the attacker was a Russian of German descent who had immigrated to Germany in 2003 and had expressed his contempt for Muslims at the start of the trial.


China Riots: West Descends Into Mob Violence Between Han Chinese, Muslim Uighurs


URUMQI, China — The government imposed a curfew Tuesday night in this regional capital of western China after mobs of Han Chinese with meat cleavers and clubs roamed the streets looking for Muslim Uighurs who had earlier beaten up people in the country's worst ethnic violence in decades.

Rioting in the Xinjiang region broke out Sunday and killed at least 156 people. Tuesday's new violence came despite swarms of paramilitary and riot police enforcing a dragnet that state media said led to the arrest of more than 1,400 people in the often tense region.
...
On Tuesday, some among the Han Chinese mob retreating from the tear gas were met by Urumqi's Communist Party leader Li Zhi, who climbed atop a police vehicle and started chanting with the crowd. Li pumped his fists, beat his chest, and urged the crowd to strike down Kadeer, the 62-year-old Uighur leader.

"Those Muslims killed so many of our people. We just can't let that happen," said one man in the crowd, surnamed Liu. He carried a long wooden stick and said the Han Chinese were forced to take up arms.

More )

(13 comments | Leave a comment)

atheism
[madfilkentist]
12:28 pm - Pope Benedict and the Religious Left
If you start up a business, large or small, so that you can be better off, that makes you a sinner in the eyes of Pope Benedict. His new encyclical, Caritas in veritate, denounces profit "without the common good as its ultimate end." He's on good Christian ground; Jesus talked about how hard it is for a rich man to get into heaven, and he advised people to give away all they had. But his idea of the "common good" doesn't have much to do with economic well-being; he writes against "abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution in order to increase the country's international competitiveness."

To accomplish all this, he calls for "a true world political authority" and supports "justice through redistribution."

He doesn't ask why people would risk what they have and put in long hours if their profits are just going to be redistributed for the common good. He doesn't explain what kind of "justice" takes from those who produce and gives it to those who don't.

But he's the Pope, so he's just telling us what God said.

(115 comments | Leave a comment)

July 6th, 2009


atheism
[flightsabove]
11:52 pm - Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Atheist child

So I've been thinking about this topic for quite a while now, and I still can't find an answer. What do atheists do with their children? is it okay to raise a child to scrutinize all religions?

I consider myself a moderate antitheist. Basically, all religion is dumb, but you can believe what you like- should I pass this sort of 'bigotry' over to my child? (Not that I'm getting one any time soon; but anyway, irrelevant.) Honestly, I probably will end up passing over my beliefs to a T; I can't bare the thought that a spawn of mine would go around claiming that he has a *puke* personal god or something wretched like that.

I can't help but think that that thought is a little specious, though. I have a huge beef with parents labeling a child 'Christian' or 'Muslim' before the kid has enough little grey cells to even comprehend what that would mean. I want to see parents do the hippie thing and let the child choose for themselves, but that isn't always easy if you're trying to stay unobjectionable with the sorts of beliefs I've got. Claiming a child is 'Christian' or 'Muslim' sounds awful, and in a way, so does claiming that a kid is Atheist before he figured it out for himself.

Is anyone else as bothered about this as I am?



(43 comments | Leave a comment)

sunday_nihilist
[mothwentbad]
09:52 am
( You are about to view content that may only be appropriate for adults. )

(Leave a comment)

atheism
[felflowne]
09:12 am
The rival to the Bible

What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out....? The world's oldest surviving Bible is in bits. )

(17 comments | Leave a comment)

atheism
[fatpie42]
12:37 am - The Harry Potter movies will never be the same again....
Okay, some of you may have seen the recent Pharyngula post about Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) revealing himself to be both an atheist and a Richard Dawkins fan. What you might not have seen was the following comment in response to this news:

"Meh. He just likes Dawkins because he wants to nail Hermione"

This comment is accompanied by a link to the following image (it's perfectly suitable for work btw):
Click here to see the image: )

(37 comments | Leave a comment)

July 5th, 2009


atheism
[fatpie42]
02:14 pm - I love John Safran...





(14 comments | Leave a comment)

July 4th, 2009


atheism
[wheresmybulldog]
02:55 pm - Atheist "Float" Booed at my 4th of July Parade
I play in a community band in a suburb of Chicago. This morning our group played in the parade. After we were finished, I watched the rest of the parade and I spotted this atheist "float"!!! It got booed. I don't know who "Rob Sherman" is. At first I thought well maybe this guy is a d-bag and that's why they are booing but then I overheard a guy say "Ugh, atheists" as he shook his head. 

Here's my footage:



Current Mood: [mood icon] annoyed

(24 comments | Leave a comment)

atheism
[idragosani]
08:57 am - More from Mitchell & Webb

(5 comments | Leave a comment)

July 3rd, 2009


jeffreysmommy
09:23 pm - Never Test a Four Year Old, They'll Outsmart You Every Time
Jeffrey was playing with one of those racks of nails that you can press into objects to see their relief on the other side.  He grabbed a Duplo block with four nobs, pressed it into the nails, and mentioned how it looked like a stop light.

Me: "Does a stop light have four lights?"
J: "Yes."
Me: "Well, what colors are the lights?"  (thinking to myself: what a great leading question.  He's sure to discover the correct answer on his own)
J: "Red, Yellow, Green, and Green Arrow."

(Leave a comment)

atheism
[idragosani]
04:12 pm - Homeopathy -- The series
Saw this on Bad Astronomy:


(3 comments | Leave a comment)

atheism
[fine_clarity]
12:50 pm - Turkish Game Show Tries to Convert Atheists
The game show is called 'Penitents Compete'. A Muslim imam, a Greek Orthodox priest, a rabbi, and a Buddhist monk try to convert 10 atheists on each show.

http://www.newser.com/story/63439/turkish-game-show-tries-to-convert-atheists.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/02/turkey-penitents-compete-gameshow

The inclusion of Buddhism doesn't make sense though, because Buddhism is not a theism-based religion like the 3 Abrahamic religions are. If they wanted to use a non-Abrahamic monotheist, they could have used a representative from one of the 3 major monotheist Hindu sects (Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism), or from Zoroastrianism.

(13 comments | Leave a comment)

cerealjoe
08:20 am - And so it's back.
Finally we're back with some pictures from L'viv! By "we" I mean "I"... but let's disregard my need to talk about myself in the plural form.


The contrast amused me a bit, the ad says that the little girl asks her mum to take her to the museum and right next to it some people think that there is no future.

10 more... no long comments this time around )

(4 comments | Leave a comment)

July 2nd, 2009


sallysimpleton
10:26 pm - Midyear
Today, as [info]encmonkey and I sat by the canal, I mentioned I planned to check into how I was doing on the year's plans. I wrote these back in January.
Plans for 2009:
1. Pick a wedding date. Ha! But I believe we know our location and season which was half the battle. Half point.
2. Go dancing (swing?) four times. Every time I went to sign up for swing so far, half the nights would be in conflict with my own plans. But, I finally figured out where to go for drop-ins that's on my side of the Seattle bridges in Greenwood. Greenwood is the outer edge of convenient for us, but way easier than Century Ballroom. So we're giving this a shot soon. Also, I've lived .6 miles from Greenlake's Little Red Hen for almost 3 years and I had no idea until this week that they have free dancing lessons on Sundays - Tuesdays at 8 PM. It's country, but a coworker told me I'd love it so I should check it out. Also, it might be a way to get Captain Amy and her secretly-country-music-loving girlfriend out for an inexpensive outing. Although I should scope it out first to make sure they'd be friendly/open-minded to the gheys. And of course Jim's Laura lives nearby, making it an excuse to see them. Zero credit yet though.
3. Go to Bikram Yoga once. HAHAHA. Still very curious. Again, will I totally freak out? Only trying will tell. Zero.
4. Go to omakase in Seattle. I was about to laugh at this one too, when I realized I went to omakase last Saturday night to Kirkland's Izumi on [info]seattleforge's advice in the January entry. Technically not Seattle but I totally meant in Puget Sound when I was thinking of this. But Izumi was killer and crazy inexpensive for omakase. Like $25. I guess this is done in the spirit but maybe I will only give myself half credit so I'll make it to Kappo. I should also head to the one in Lynnwood. I really love sushi. And I really love rice but I digress. Half point.
5. Resurrect 2007's tracking spreadsheet. Oops. Well, I log most things on my gCal. Zero.
6. Make my list of those I haven't spent time with recently to plan how to get back in touch. Oops again. But I caught The Malaise so I shouldn't have expected much on this one. Then I alternate between feeling bitchy or boring so maybe it's for the best that I'm getting in touch with my inner hermit. Zero.
7. Comment more/reply to all comments on various sites. I've gotten way better at responding to every comment. And I'm commenting more out there. Point.
8. Go to GREECE. CHECK! I should give myself ten points for this! It was awesome. We'll return.
9. Supper Club. See #6. These are linked. But something may be brewing out there thanks to reuniting with a twitter friend who I met years ago when I used to assist in cooking classes with. I can already latch onto her plans which is even better than me doing any cat herding. I'm a little excited about this because I sense she is a kindred spirit a la Anne. Half-point.
10.Stay committed to letting go of certain people. Yes, I have succeeded in Phase 1. Point.

4.5 out of 10.
That's pretty good since I always plan for 50% when I write the list in the first place.

(4 comments | Leave a comment)

atheism
[fatpie42]
07:50 pm - It's official. Pat Condell is a racist.
I really wondered whether to post this here. This is something I wrote yesterday in my own personal LJ. I know that Pat Condell is very popular amongst many atheists on the internet and I'm fairly sure he has a few fans here. However, having thought it over for a bit it seems to me that fans who are willing to defend Pat's recent comments have some explaining to do, so where better to do it than in the comments here?

For those who don't recognise the name, Pat Condell is the "comedian" often found advertised on Richard Dawkins' website. I've actually known people to be surprised to hear that he isn't a celebrity here in Britain. His only claim to fame is his youtube videos which he's now actually begun releasing on DVD. He's gained a following amongst atheists who fancy a laugh at the expense of uptight religious fanatics. Unfortunately he's not anything like in the same league as John Safran or as subtle (yes, I'm serious). It was part of his initial appeal that he pulls no punches in his rants, however more recently his rants have sounded more and more like the typical right-wing closet-racist mentality in the UK.

The latest video from Pat Condell makes use of typical Daily Mail prejudice. The topic? Not only that we should ban the burkha, but that women are doing an injustice to women's rights by failing to decry a woman's right to wear it. Pat Condell takes up the mantle of liberator of women both now and in the ever-precious future through his insistence that we demand that it be illegal to wear it.

Perhaps the oddest thing about Pat's video is his claim that the problem is women deciding to disguise themselves. If we were sure that women only ever wore the burkha through their own free will rather than being pressured into doing so by oppressive patriarchy then I don't quite see how it would be a problem (and I certainly cannot see how it would be the women's fault). As for the idea that is mentioned later that the burkha should not be allowed to be worn in banks, I've never heard anything so ridiculous. As Pat is keen to remind us, wearing the burkha is like wearing "a mobile tent". Now imagine a bank robber trying to make a getaway carrying their bag of swag while wearing it. They'd be lucky not to fall straight onto their (covered) face.

Worrying too is Pat's use of emphasis for effect. It often seems quite hostile, but more importantly it can give a very dodgy (and supposedly unintentional) meaning to his words:

Well this week there’s been quite a lot of talk about the burkha or the nikab or whatever you want to call it. I’m talking about the neurotic need that some women have to walk around everywhere in disguise.

"Some women" eh? So much for the feminist champion Pat claims to be later on in the video. If the whole point of this rant is to victimise some women suffering from neuroses, it doesn't fit with the supposedly noble cause Pat claims to be calling for by the end.

Apparently, according to Pat, a more healthy society where everyone is honest would not require this ban because everybody's reaction to unfamiliar styles of dress would be ridicule and condescension. Sadly, what he is describing is not far from the actual situation and it's only thanks to those of us with simple human decency that it isn't even more of an issue for Muslims in Britain.

If we were a more honest society, and therefore a more healthy society, there’d be no need to ban this ridiculous outfit because it would already have been ridiculed out of existence.


Honest and healthy? More like bigoted and unpleasant.

Pat's first major argument appears to be that there is nothing in the Qu'ran which demands that women dress in this fashion, covering their face. That might be worth mentioning, certainly, but religions aren't simply based around scripture. In fact I'm pretty certain that EVERY religious tradition bases itself around more than scripture. Within the Christian tradition we would have to do away with rosaries, monasteries, bishops, crosses worn round the neck, holy water, and even arguably the doctrine of the trinity if Christians are only allowed to follow teachings found within their holy book. It takes a certain type of protestant Christianity to insist that scripture is the only thing which dictates religious tradition and I'm pretty sure their hypocritical in the process. Within Islam it is quite a conservative belief that religious tradition should be based not only on the teachings of the Qu'ran, but also on the actions and sayings of the prophet found in the hadiths and on top of that rules which are derived from these.

What would have been more helpful would have been an argument that the Qu'ran actively contradicts this passage (and I have certainly known Muslims claim that women are not supposed to have their faces covered according to Islamic teaching). However, this would involve putting in a good word for moderate Muslims which Pat wants to decry as 'enablers' (as we'll see in a moment).

In reply to the claim that the burkha is done to demonstrate modesty (rather like the kachhas in Sikhism), Pat's response, fairly reasonably, is that wearing "a mobile tent" is going way beyond modesty. Unfortunately that's where the reasonableness ends. The next stage of Pat's rant is to claim that all women who wear the burkha are ungrateful immigrants who hate British culture and should go back home.

Modest people don’t draw attention to themselves by dressing up in a mobile tent just to rub it in the face of a culture they despise, but for some reason insist on living in.

Now let's accept for the moment (to be as charitable as possible) that women who wear the burkha are disturbed by the commercialised and material world and wear this style of dress to withdraw. How is that different from the attitude of nuns? But then again, maybe Pat is an equal-opportunity bigot. Perhaps he would tell nuns to go to the Vatican if they aren't entirely happy with modern culture.

Quite apart from the obvious security threat posed by the burkha which we don’t like to talk about out of respect for their religion even though their religion is our biggest security threat. Sorry to all you peaceful Muslims but we all know that is the unfortunate truth, at least right now.
 
What the heck? I can't be the only person wondering how Pat's thought processes are working at this stage. He fully admits that there are Muslims for whom his argument is unreasonable and that there are enough of them to make them worth addressing. Yet for some reason his complete recognition that what he is posing is an unfair stereotype doesn't stop him from carrying on with it unashamedly.

Islam is responsible for the terrorist threat in the same way that Christianity is responsible for the death of Dr. Tiller. Yes, there's a link. No one is doubting that. But it's not a simple 1:1 relationship. Religions have a huge degree of internal diversity and even overlap with one another. Terms like "Christianity" and "Islam" bracket together similar kinds of religious devotion, however their expression will depend greatly on the culture and location in which you find them. Daniel Maguire is a Roman Catholic Christian and he strongly believes in his faith and the tradition of his Church. Nevertheless, he isn't going to condemn a man for performing abortions. Similarly just because someone follows the religion of Islam doesn't mean they're in favour of the burkah either. People's views about religion will differ. Nevertheless, plenty of people actually are talking about the burkha being a security threat. It's mentioned all over the place. What we could do with is a little more respect for the women who are actually wearing the damn thing and Pat does not feel inclined to contribute to this since it would conflict with the "healthy and honest" world he wants us to live in.

Pat has the audacity to claim that women who wear the burkha are condoning the oppression it is often used to achieve. That they are enablers. But what is Pat enabling? It wasn't so long ago that there was a big hoo hah over politician Jack Straw insisting that women uncover their faces when they speak to him. It was rightly pointed out in Straw's defence that he was not insisting that women do away with the burkha or nikab, but rather that within certain scenarios it might be necessary to remove it for pragmatic reasons. He certainly wasn't insisting that we forcibly unveil Muslim women, but unfortunately that was the sentiment that developed. This, it seems to me, is where the other side of the coin really comes into play. If you ban the burkha isn't this just another example of women having their rights limited by a patriarchal over-zealous authority? In the end shouldn't this be about choice. In Iran they have seen both sides of this coin, going from being forcibly unveiled to forcibly veiled and the debate today in Iran is much over personal freedom than this nonsensical issue in France of whether the burkha should be banned or not. (And let's not forget that in France there is a lot of racial tension in regards to those with Algerian roots which might influence the debate there.)

Pat also asks why feminists aren't talking about this. Clearly he hasn't bothered to look. Feminists are talking about this all over the place. Some will agree, some will disagree and most will recognise that the debate is far more complicated than he is making it out to be. In any case, Pat's criticism isn't really over silence but inaction. If we don't agree with Pat and actively campaign for the burkha to be banned we are morally culpable. It's at this point where my conspiracy theory alert starts ringing:

Any western woman who makes allowances for, or who accommodates the misogyny of Islam in her life is a fool to herself and a traitor to her daughters who will have to live with the consequences in a society where they feel less value, less safe and have fewer rights than they do now.

ZOMG THE MUSLIMS ARE TAKING OVER!

Seriously, allowing women the right to wear the burkha is not wearing down women's rights. We are still going to strongly criticise people being forced to wear clothing against their will and the chances of the burkha causing bad effects for anyone outside the religion of Islam is around about nil. There is an issue of the burkha being forced on Muslim women against their will and there is an issue of the burkha as a negative result of indoctrination. Nevertheless, to insist that this will have consequences for the daughters of 'western women' is pure shock tactics. This whole idea that Islamic ideas are going to take over the country and undermine our liberties is nonsense. The labour government is in a much better position to do that than any Muslim....

Current Mood: [mood icon] bitchy
Current Music: The Duskfall - Agorophobic

(274 comments | Leave a comment)

July 1st, 2009


atheism
[ugly_boy]
12:53 am - Paleontology and Creationism Meet but Don’t Mesh
This week's Science Times features an interesting story:

The worlds of academic paleontology and creationism rarely collide, but the former paid a visit to the latter last Wednesday. The University of Cincinnati was hosting the North American Paleontological Convention, where scientists presented their latest research at the frontiers of the ancient past. In a break from the lectures, about 70 of the attendees boarded school buses for a field trip to the Creation Museum, on the other side of the Ohio River… Many of the paleontologists thought the museum misrepresented and ridiculed them and their work and unfairly blamed them for the ills of society.


The article opens with some remarksfrom Dr. Tamaki Sato, a Japanese paleontologist. This reminds me of an experience I had a couple of years go. It was a day of two before my first exam in biology and I was standing outside my instructor's office, waiting to ask a couple of questions. There was a Japanese exchange student in there asking for some clarification about the ID-evolution "debate," something that she was completely unfamiliar with. It was not a formal part of our evolution and biodiversity unit, but we did touch on it in lecture, and it was interesting to see the reaction from someone who didn't have the same cultural context. A Swedish scientist echoes a similar sentiment: “…we have little of that kind of thing in Sweden.” It certainly highlighted the fact that this is a purely social controversy with zero scientific basis.

(29 comments | Leave a comment)

June 30th, 2009


bakerquest
08:50 pm - #1, #2
Yesterday I felt bad Mary Lynn had a diaper rash, so I left off her diaper and introduced her to Great Nana's potty that she had been given...sheesh I think at Christmas.

I just told her, "Pee and poop go in the potty."

"OK", she said.

I left the room and continued to work on dinner or whatever.

About an hour later she came running into the kitchen saying, "DADDY! DADDY!"

Then she put her hands out. I honestly had no clue what was going on. She was smiling and posing like she was about to take off in flight, looking out of the corner of her eyes. There in front of the TV I saw it. #2.

"Hooray!" I lied, "You pooped. But not quite in the potty." I quickly grabbed some TP and moved the package into the potty. I asked her to flush and she did and clapped. I washed my hands and gave her a treat. I told her next time to try and get the poop in the potty so I wouldn't have to resolve the carpet.

"OK," she promised.

Then today I took off her diaper again. She was standing in front of the TV while I was waking up on Facebook. She backed up and got 99.9% of her duty done. She came running to me and I cleaned her bottom and gave her a treat. I ran around and we danced. J hid his face. I think he hates the attention I am giving her, which is like 1000 times the attention I normally give her and like 2 times the attention I normally give him.

Later after I had cleaned out our travel potty and set it by the door to go into Yoda, she came running up to me and said, "pee potty daddy! pee potty!"

Sure enough she had peed in the potty. I saw about 5 feet away where she had started to pee. stopped and then walked over to the potty (no dribbles or mess) and then finished. I am so proud, but I know this is just the beginning. It could take two years.

========

I was making sandwiches for our trip and Mary Lynn was watching. I held up a piece of circular provolone and asked her what it was.

"Circle!" she beamed.

I held up the sandwich container.

"Triangle."

"No."

"Ummm. Quare!"

"Yes"

I held up the cover to a pie server (triangular).

"Triangle!"

she is so smart.

(3 comments | Leave a comment)

atheism
[harutake]
02:06 pm - but the Bible told us to!
"Many states have exemptions for these parents that absolve them of their sins because they once read a book that said thinking really hard in an upward direction would cure their children’s ailments."

I don't see skepchick links here often (if at all), but I adore Rebecca Watson and this article is fantastic, if for no other reason than it contains the phrase "kick Jesus in the sack"
Don’t Abuse Your Kids, Unless . . .

(1 comment | Leave a comment)

> previous 20 entries
> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com