Shop for this design on shirts, gifts, and bumperstickers
Posts
1 day ago
Friday, July 17, 2009
Innovation Revised...
Yup, I've been changing things up again over at Dorid Designs before the holiday season. First off I have a Zazzle Shop now, and will shortly be uniting all my shops and products on one domain: Doriddesigns.com. For now, though, I'm revamping some of my best selling designs, including Invertebrate Innovations. This design previously read Invertebrates: Leaders in innovation since 550,000.000 BC. A lot of people don't use the BC designation (for what should be obvious reasons), so instead, and to NOT confuse the non-scientists, I've changed the design slightly.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
We're not getting any better.
Every few years or so some news personality decides to go out and film American Stupidity. You'd think after a while, they'd be less and less apt to find these levels of ignorance. After all, we claim to be world leaders, best in education, and the greatest nation on earth. Seems to me to be an awful lot of knuckle-draggers.
OK, fess up. I rather expect every one of my regular readers know the answer to every one of those questions. What about the rest of you?
OK, fess up. I rather expect every one of my regular readers know the answer to every one of those questions. What about the rest of you?
Close Mindedness and Identity
I've been trying to understand the conservative mind more... and it seems I have no end of things to blog about. The problem has been getting into any of them with any depth. I recently had a rather interesting exchange with a woman who considered herself liberal on gun control, followed by another discussion with a woman on "entitlements"
One of the interesting things in both cases was that the women didn't want to discuss it, didn't want to weigh pros and cons or look at evidence, they wanted to appeal to emotions.
In the later case,after putting my case before her, the woman said that I'd brought up a number of good points, but that she wasn't going to change her mind.
A lot of the comments supporting this woman were the typical "God and hard work = America" type comments that I expect from the wingnuts, which had me thinking about why these individuals are willing to ignore rational arguments and evidence. I came to the conclusion that they so closely bound their identity with their political/religious belief systems, that anything that would destabilize that faith in those beliefs also destabilized their faith in themselves.
It's a rather interesting concept for me, and one that hadn't occurred to me before. Basically I was willing to put this all down to ignorance or in some cases stupidity, now it seems to me to be more about insecurity, self definition, and ego. A threat to these concepts is seen to be a direct threat to the individual. I thought it was perhaps a premature assessment, although it was also consistent with my comparison of political ideologies to various developmental models, until I started Google Scholar searching the topic, where I found out I was really going over well covered ground.
I think it's interesting the way this bonding between the self and the concept seems to take place... usually the result of some emotional appeal, some response to an emotional rather than rational need. It's probably a lot easier to say "trust me and God" when you're in dire emotional straits, or you've been taught to distrust reality all your life and hang your life on the words of a pastor or politician (or actor or actress).
I've never understood the "aren't you a REAL AMERICAN" appeal, the assumption that I'm so darn needy that I'd belong to a group of people who would metaphorically kill and eat those who don't measure up to their standards. They assume that everyone who reads their gospel statements are Christian (or should be) and that just by calling on the name of Jesus that everyone will fall into agreement, because if Jesus is invoked, it can't be wrong. They want to argue that taking away guns is a violation of the second amendment, but that taking away freedom of religion is not a violation of the first... but they don't want to argue it with facts, evidence, historical precedent, or logic... they just want to say glory "Hallalujah can you feel it brother? this is what God and America are all about!"
Those who believe unquestioningly are "good" those who seek understanding, disagree, or find evidence to the contrary are "evil".
I keep thinking that there is common ground here somewhere. At least I read today in an article that some 62% of Republicans feel Sarah Palin is not qualified for the Presidency. On the other hand, Mike Huckabee is encouraging her to stay in the Republican party. I wonder just how many people think that the Republican party should be rebuilt on the concept of Christianity above the 1st amendment, and that it's not so bad having a woman who belonged to an organization who wanted Alaska to secede from the union and become a religious mecca of sorts for those awaiting and riding out the apocalypse.
Just how much control do the right wingnuts hellbent on theocracy have on the Republican party? and will mainstream or middle of the road Republicans stand for it?
I suppose a lot of it depends on how far the need to identify ones self with the Republican party goes. Are individuals going to mindlessly follow people like Palin and Huckabee into theocracy merely because they consider themselves "Republican"?
In a case like my friend's, I have no doubt that her feeling of belonging and security in these emotionally triggered manipulations by the far right wing will not loosen enough for her to actually think about how she feels and what she believes. Close-mindedness, is, after all, a defense. And if we're to believe the right wing, we're living in dangerous times, on attack from all sides.
But mostly, they're on attack from the side of reason.
They have no real defense against that, other than to shutter up their brains, put their hands over their ears, and go "la la la I can't hear you" as loudly as they can.
It seems to me to be a sad sort of life.
One of the interesting things in both cases was that the women didn't want to discuss it, didn't want to weigh pros and cons or look at evidence, they wanted to appeal to emotions.
In the later case,after putting my case before her, the woman said that I'd brought up a number of good points, but that she wasn't going to change her mind.
A lot of the comments supporting this woman were the typical "God and hard work = America" type comments that I expect from the wingnuts, which had me thinking about why these individuals are willing to ignore rational arguments and evidence. I came to the conclusion that they so closely bound their identity with their political/religious belief systems, that anything that would destabilize that faith in those beliefs also destabilized their faith in themselves.
It's a rather interesting concept for me, and one that hadn't occurred to me before. Basically I was willing to put this all down to ignorance or in some cases stupidity, now it seems to me to be more about insecurity, self definition, and ego. A threat to these concepts is seen to be a direct threat to the individual. I thought it was perhaps a premature assessment, although it was also consistent with my comparison of political ideologies to various developmental models, until I started Google Scholar searching the topic, where I found out I was really going over well covered ground.
I think it's interesting the way this bonding between the self and the concept seems to take place... usually the result of some emotional appeal, some response to an emotional rather than rational need. It's probably a lot easier to say "trust me and God" when you're in dire emotional straits, or you've been taught to distrust reality all your life and hang your life on the words of a pastor or politician (or actor or actress).
I've never understood the "aren't you a REAL AMERICAN" appeal, the assumption that I'm so darn needy that I'd belong to a group of people who would metaphorically kill and eat those who don't measure up to their standards. They assume that everyone who reads their gospel statements are Christian (or should be) and that just by calling on the name of Jesus that everyone will fall into agreement, because if Jesus is invoked, it can't be wrong. They want to argue that taking away guns is a violation of the second amendment, but that taking away freedom of religion is not a violation of the first... but they don't want to argue it with facts, evidence, historical precedent, or logic... they just want to say glory "Hallalujah can you feel it brother? this is what God and America are all about!"
Those who believe unquestioningly are "good" those who seek understanding, disagree, or find evidence to the contrary are "evil".
I keep thinking that there is common ground here somewhere. At least I read today in an article that some 62% of Republicans feel Sarah Palin is not qualified for the Presidency. On the other hand, Mike Huckabee is encouraging her to stay in the Republican party. I wonder just how many people think that the Republican party should be rebuilt on the concept of Christianity above the 1st amendment, and that it's not so bad having a woman who belonged to an organization who wanted Alaska to secede from the union and become a religious mecca of sorts for those awaiting and riding out the apocalypse.
Just how much control do the right wingnuts hellbent on theocracy have on the Republican party? and will mainstream or middle of the road Republicans stand for it?
I suppose a lot of it depends on how far the need to identify ones self with the Republican party goes. Are individuals going to mindlessly follow people like Palin and Huckabee into theocracy merely because they consider themselves "Republican"?
In a case like my friend's, I have no doubt that her feeling of belonging and security in these emotionally triggered manipulations by the far right wing will not loosen enough for her to actually think about how she feels and what she believes. Close-mindedness, is, after all, a defense. And if we're to believe the right wing, we're living in dangerous times, on attack from all sides.
But mostly, they're on attack from the side of reason.
They have no real defense against that, other than to shutter up their brains, put their hands over their ears, and go "la la la I can't hear you" as loudly as they can.
It seems to me to be a sad sort of life.
On Ocean Acidification
I'm not much one for the "pass it on" thing... especially cut and paste blogs and chain mails. But from time to time I make an exception. This is one such exception:
--------------------
We are both lifelong boaters. What we have learned from sailing across the Pacific over the past 6 years, and especially from scientists focused on marine conservation, is startling. Whether you spend time on the water or not, Ocean Acidification affects all of us and is something we believe you will want to know about.
--------------------
We are both lifelong boaters. What we have learned from sailing across the Pacific over the past 6 years, and especially from scientists focused on marine conservation, is startling. Whether you spend time on the water or not, Ocean Acidification affects all of us and is something we believe you will want to know about.
What would you do if you knew that many species of fish and other marine life in the ocean will be gone within 30 years if levels of C02 continue increasing at their present rate? We believe you would take action to stop this from happening, because informed people make informed choices. This letter is about what we can and must do together now to help solve a very serious but little-known problem, Ocean Acidification.
Ocean Acidification is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels. When carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ends up in the ocean it changes the pH, making the sea acidic and less hospitable to life. Over time, C02 reduces calcium carbonate, which prevents creatures from forming shells and building reefs. In fact, existing shells will start to dissolve. Oysters and mussels will not be able to build shells. Crabs and lobsters? Your great-grandchildren may wonder what they tasted like.
Carbon dioxide concentrated in the oceans is making seawater acidic. Many of the zooplankton, small animals at the base of the food web, have skeletons that won’t form in these conditions, and sea-life further up the food chain – fish, mammals and seabirds that rely on zooplankton for food will also perish. No food – no life. One billion people rely on seafood for their primary source of protein. Many scientific reports document that worldwide, humans are already consuming more food than is being produced. The implications are obvious.
The issue of Ocean Acidification is causing irreversible loss to species and habitats, and acidification trends are happening up to ten times faster than projected. We want you to know what this means, how it affects all of us, and what we can do about it.
Today, the atmospheric concentration of C02 is about 387 parts per million (ppm) and increasing at 2 ppm per year. If left unaddressed, by 2040 it is projected to be over 450 ppm, and marine scientists believe the collapse of many ocean ecosystems will be irreversible. Acidification has other physiological effects on marine life as well, including changes in reproduction, growth rates, and even respiration in fish.
Tropical and coldwater corals are among the oldest and largest living structures on earth; the richest in terms of biodiversity, they provide spawning areas, nursery habitat and feeding grounds for a quarter of all species in the sea. Coral reefs are at risk! As C02 concentrations increase, corals, shellfish and other species that make shells will not be able to build their skeletons and will likely become extinct.
The good news is we can fix this problem. But, as you guessed, it will be difficult. Ocean Acidification is caused by increased C02 in the atmosphere. Solving one will solve the other. The House of Representatives has acted, passing HR 2454, the Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security Act”, but it was severely weakened. Now the Senate has announced that it will move similar legislation this fall. We need the Senate to join the House in its leadership, but to demand far greater emissions reductions than were able to pass the House.
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that in order to stabilize C02 in the atmosphere at 350 ppm by 2050, global carbon emissions need to be cut 85% below 2000 levels.”That’s a very tall order! And the way our political system works (or doesn’t) makes its tougher. It will take all of us to step up and take responsibility to make this happen.
Here is what you can do: Contact your Senator now using ont of these techniques listed in order of effectiveness.
1. Visit your Senator at their local office. It is easy to make an appointment. Tell them your concerns about C02 and the oceans, and to move strong climate legislation immediately that will reduce our greenhouse gas concentrations to levels that will not threaten our oceans. The experience is rewarding. (Alternatively, drop a letter off at their local office.)
2. Call your Senator and leave a message urging action be taken to reduce C02 , address Ocean Acidification, and move strong climate legislation immediately that will reduce our greenhouse gas concentrations to levels that will not threaten our oceans.
3. Click on this link to send an email, which will go directly to your Senator based on your address:http://www.oceana.org/acid
You may use the letter provided, but it is more effective to edit it, and in your own words urge them to move strong climate legislation immediately that will reduce our greenhouse gas concentrations to levels that will not threaten our oceans.
Ocean Acidification is an issue we can do something about. We need a groundswell of informed citizens to get Congress to have the backbone to stand up to the entrenched interests of coal, oil, and gas and not compromise on the reduction of C02. We also need real leadership to aggressively create jobs using sustainable technologies. The choice is ours. We can solve this or not. What we do know is that the future facing our children, grandchildren and indeed all of humankind depends on our decision.
Please join us in sharing this letter with others. We appreciate your taking the time to contact your Senators; it is easy to do and effective.
Thank you for your support.
Randy Repass
Chairman
West Marine
Sally-Christine Rodgers
Board Member
Oceana
A more complete report on ocean acidification here: http://oceana.org/fileadmin/
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Just in case you missed this on Pharyngula...
I must say I enjoyed it a lot better than the videos made for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Obey Your Cat Overlords...
awww... did anyone who has a cat ever question it? Now this study shows that cats DO control or manipulate their owners. If you've ever wondered who's in control, you or your cat, a new study points to the obvious. It's your cat.
Household cats exercise this control with a certain type of urgent-sounding, high-pitched meow, according to the findings.
This meow is actually a purr mixed with a high-pitched cry. While people usually think of cat purring as a sign of happiness, some cats make this purr-cry sound when they want to be fed. The study showed that humans find these mixed calls annoying and difficult to ignore...
...Setting up the experiments wasn't easy. While the felines used purr-cries around their familiar owners, they were not eager to make the same cries in front of strangers. [LiveScience.com ]
My own cat has a vast repertoire of sounds from a chirp/chittering that means "I'm going to get you, bird!" to a purr which means "pet me more!" to a cry that means "I need attention NOW" to one that means "I want FRESH water and MORE food" Considering she was a fairly silent kitten, I have to assume that this increasing vocal activity is a sign of extreme intelligence... and this monkey-think is darn well gonna do what her cat says. Kali is aptly named... and she has claws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
