News From Around The Blogosphere 2.6.10

1. Turkish Family buries 16-year-old daughter for talking to boys – Ha! Let’s see her talk to boys now! Way to go! You really showed her. What an incredibly appropriate punishment for your daughter who’s only crime was talking to people of her own age who happened to be of the opposite sex. Praise the Lord! Yes, I’m being ironic.

2. A new film about my less skeptical cousin – That’s right, there’s a new chupacabra “documentary.” This time he’s allegedly in Puerto Rico.

3. Rush Limbaugh touts creationist beliefs and climate change denialism – I know. I know. BIG SURPRISE! But what’s interesting is that he’s tied them together with a thin piece of fabric, proclaiming that “God” simply would not give his creations the power to destroy the world. Ha!  Checkmate scientists!

4. Amnesty International calls for investigation into more institutional Catholic child rape claims in Northern Ireland

The call comes after the Ryan Report in the Irish Republic which uncovered decades of institutional abuse.

Oh Catholics! If only you could use your power for good instead of pure fuckin’ evil. Again, I’m sure if any other organization like Starbucks or Nike was responsible for the institutionalize rape of thousands of child, people would continue to support them too.

7 Responses to News From Around The Blogosphere 2.6.10

  1. The Broads says:

    I love that the new chupacabra is apparently an alien, porcupine, T-rex hybrid. I wonder if he does birthday parties…

    Keep doin’ your damn thang… because it is really entertaining.


  2. Michelle says:

    Denialism? Way to make someone who wants to see scientific evidence sound like a Nazi.

    I haven’t seen any compelling evidence to support global warming.

    • mjr256 says:

      I’m sorry that most people associate the word “denialism” with Holocaust Deniers, but that’s not my intention and I’m using the word correctly.

      AGW is now accepted science and the evidence is available for those who look.

      Here’s a great piece about what position is most reasonable for laypeople to take:

      And here’s a page with a collection of articles and videos discussing the evidence and debunking the myths surrounding AGW:

      • Michelle says:

        The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

        The emails admitting lies – they bother me.

        I think “accepted science” is getting pretty ahead of the game.

        I’m open to the facts and I think this could go either way.

        On the pro side, I mainly see an anti-capitalist agenda – not science.

        If we were discussing homosexuality back when the DSM listed it as a mental illness, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t have backed down and said, “Oh. well I can’t argue with established science.”

        It’s certainly possible for us to be altering our environment. It’s happened before. There was a time when there wasn’t any oxygen on earth. The production of oxygen by living things killed off more than 90% of the species on earth at the time. Bad for them. Good for us. If oxygen is poisonous to you today – you’re hiding on the floor of the ocean where it can’t get to you.

        The earth and the universe are bigger than we are. The earth can take it.

        Maybe we’re altering the atmosphere. Maybe we’re not. If we are and we’re smart enough to save ourselves, we’ll continue. If we’re not, then from an evolutionary point of view – maybe humans weren’t such a good idea and the earth will come up with something else.

        Personally, I don’t have any kids and I’ll be done with the earth in, say, forty to fifty years. It doesn’t matter to me.

        Either way, the earth is going to be swallowed by the sun when the sun dies.

  3. José says:

    Hey! Chupacabra is originally from from Puerto Rico. What’s amazing is that a fictional beast was able to swim to the Mexico and the US.

  4. mjr256 says:


    When it comes to defining psychological conditions, we’re dealing with something that at least to a degree is subjective. Psychologists recognize that the DSM is not a sacred, unalterable text and there’s plenty of room for legitimate debate. It’s like when Astronomers decided to demote Plato to a dwarf planet or “Phutoid.” Nothing about the planet objectively changed; we merely altered our definition of what constitutes as a planet. AGW is different in that we’re diagnosing the cause to an actual phenomena. Though perhaps not quite as proven as, say, gravity, the overwhelming consensus of climatologists have the data to back up their positions that global climate change is largely the result of man-made CO2.

    Now I’m not a climatologist and so I admit that to a certain degree I have to trust that the experts know what they’re doing and aren’t involved in a massive global conspiracy of thousands to falsify their findings. Though based on my knowledge of how the scientific process works, I’d say that’s extremely unlikely and I’ve yet to be shown any real evidence to back up such a conspiracy. But this is no different from any other arena in life. I also don’t know how my car works and have to put a certain amount of trust in the people who made and repair it.

    If I felt I really had a solid objection to the scientific consensus, I would certainly bring it up and actively seek a response. But in some situations one has to remain somewhat humble and just accept that some people simply have a better understanding of a subject than they do because nobody can become an expert in everything.

    So at the end of the day, if I have to take a side, I’m going with the scientists over the very unscientific political ideologues and corporations for whom its in the best interests to deny AGW. I think it’s a rational choice and one in which the worst case scenario is making a better world for no reason as all our goals when combating AGW happen to be good for us anyway: energy independence, preserve rain forests, sustainability, green jobs, livable cities, renewable resources, clean water and air, healthy children, etc, etc.

  5. Michelle says:

    I’m going to look at the facts and not listen to those for whom it is in their best interest to promote global warming.

    I’m confident that we’ll both listen to reason and science.

    The truth will be discovered eventually.

    So far, I’m not convinced.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: