The End of Fish

The New Republic: Aqualypse Now

"Eating a tuna roll at a sushi restaurant should be considered no more environmentally benign than driving a Hummer or harpooning a manatee. In the past 50 years, we have reduced the populations of large commercial fish, such as bluefin tuna, cod, and other favorites, by a staggering 90 percent. One study, published in the prestigious journal Science, forecast that, by 2048, all commercial fish stocks will have “collapsed,” meaning that they will be generating 10 percent or less of their peak catches. Whether or not that particular year, or even decade, is correct, one thing is clear: Fish are in dire peril, and, if they are, then so are we."

Atheism

It's often argued - by people who feel their beloved superstitions are under threat - that atheists are people without a moral compass, who cannot appreciate the wonders of creation, and whose arguments involve just as much faith as those of the religions they criticize. This view of the faithless is here soundly rebutted by Christopher Hitchens:

And here is the point, about myself and my co-thinkers. Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because they are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake...

We are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe: we have music and art and literature, and find that the serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Eliot than in the mythical holy books. Literature, not scripture, sustains the mind and - since there is no other metaphor - also the soul. We do not believe in heaven or hell, yet no statistic will ever find that without these blandishments and threats we commit more crimes of greed or violence than the faithful. (In fact, if a proper statistical inquiry could ever be made, I am sure the evidence would be the other way.)

We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true - that religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow.

-Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great, 5-6.

They Know Not What They Protest

Notes on the "arguments" (I use the term loosely) made by protesters at today's "tea party" in Washington:

"Fascism": is a totalitarian form of government. Fascists don't like freedom of speech. If the Obama administration were fascist, you wouldn't be marching; you'd be tear-gassed and shot. QED.

"Socialism": Yawn. Still haven't cracked that dictionary, have you?

"Communism": also a totalitarian form of government, and also not known for its peaceful tolerance of loud, angry criticism. And see "Socialism".

"Where's the Birth Certificate?": Right here, you jackass. Do you need to see his placenta, too?

"You Lie, You Lie" [chanted]: Sorry, no. Joe Wilson's puerile outburst has been shown to be unequivocally, totally wrong to anyone who can read at a fourth-grade level. But don't let intransigent stupidity stop you from adopting a pithy rallying cry!

Obama as the Joker, with the word "SOCIALISM" written underneath: Where the hell did this come from, anyway? How does it make even the slightest bit of sense? The Joker is a sadistic anarchist who fights justice and sows chaos; socialism is an egalitarian economic system. Whatever you think of either, they're opposites in both methods and goals. Obama is a liberal, so I can understand (but not excuse) the harebrained accusations of socialism, but... the Joker? What?

Obama as Hitler: So Hitler, like Obama, was... an anti-war, bleeding-heart liberal? Do you not get the History Channel?

"Death Panels": Are you people deaf, or stupid? I'll go with stupid.

"Born free, taxed to death": And how's it working out for you to pay double what other countries pay for the same quality of care? You hate letting money go to the government, but you're content to be reamed by a flawed insurance industry? To each his own!

"Health Rationing": is an inherent aspect of any insurance system. Your point?

American flags flown upside-down: Well look at that - 'hating America' isn't just for liberals anymore! Have you forgotten the shame-on-you rhetoric you used against critics of Bush for eight years?

"Government-run healthcare": you know, if you chose to get your news from a source other than ranting loons, you might learn that this plan IS NOT GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTHCARE. A minor detail, to be sure.

Truth is Funnier Than Fiction

As an extension of my last post, here are two actual, verbatim quotes:

"Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people; they do it because it's profitable."

-Barack Obama


"When he said tonight that insurance executives are bad people, that took me back [sic] as a bit harsh!"

-Sean Hannity

Not the brightest bulb in the shop, are you, Sean?

In A Nutshell: Obama's Speech to Congress on Healthcare

Obama: This plan is NOT government-run healthcare. The public option will be a self-sufficient competitor within the PRIVATE insurance industry.

Republican response: Government-run healthcare is bad.


Obama: The plan will not add to the deficit.

Republican response: Mr. President, this isn't a good time to increase the deficit.


Obama: Medicare is vital. Ignoring the rising costs of healthcare will push Medicare into a crisis. This plan will help to protect Medicare.

Republican response: We disagree with Obama's plan to gut Medicare.


Obama: The plan will NOT cover illegal aliens.

Republican response: "YOU LIE!" (?!?)


Obama: We will explore ways to end frivolous malpractice suits.

Republican response: We encourage the president to find ways to end frivolous malpractice suits.



Obama: "Death panels" are a ridiculous fantasy.

Republican response: (Obstinate silence)


Obama: By the way, stop making up crap like that.

Republican response: Hm?

The Importance of Punctuation

On the Woodside Employment Consultants website, they advertise themselves as follows:

Certified Small Woman Owned Business Enterprise

This is a declarative sentence: a small woman, who has some kind of certification, owned a business enterprise.

Good for her!

While I have nothing against small women in business, I do not think that this was their intended meaning. If the people at Woodside knew some basic rules of punctuation, they could have avoided embarrassment by writing:

Certified, Small, Woman-Owned Business Enterprise

"Not My President" Redux

We've already seen conservatives shift their position on criticism of the president: formerly an anti-American, terrorist-abetting sin under Bush, criticizing the president is now patriotic enough to warrant Tea Party reenactments.

But another double standard has become apparent with the incomprehensible endurance of the "Birther" movement. Under Bush, conservatives would roll their eyes every time a liberal made a snide comment about the 2000 election.

"He's the President. Get over it," they would say.

Yet now, against all tangible proof and sound logic, some conservatives continue to protest Obama's legitimacy because he's allegedly a foreigner without a birth certificate.

Even though we know he's not a foreigner. We have his birth certificate. Which you can view online.

So both Bush and Obama have had the legitimacy of their elections brought into question by their opponents. The difference is the 2000 election was so contestable that the Supreme Court had to decide it, whereas the results of the 2008 election are disputed only by people desperate enough to argue that a Certificate of Live Birth is not a Birth Certificate.

Happy Fourth!

On July 4, 1776, the Congress of the United States of America formally adopted the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain.

But the actual vote for independence had occurred two days earlier, on July 2. This was the day that John Adams predicted "will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival." Instead, we commemorate our declaration of the resolution for independence, not the resolution itself.

Nor is the Fourth the day on which the Declaration of Independence was signed. Although dated July 4, the Declaration would actually be signed a month later, on August second.

The Brits finally got word of it later in August. They were not amused.

The Women of Iran

CNN: Iranian women stand up in defiance, flout rules

A young Iranian woman named Neda is gunned down in one of the most iconic images of the last week. Another walks down the street, defiantly showing off her hair and body in a revealing dress. And still another woman says she's not scared of paramilitary forces -- no matter how many times she gets beaten.

Amid the clashes and chaos, there has been a recurring scene on the streets of Tehran: Women, in their scarves and traditional clothing, at the heart of the struggle. Some are seen collecting rocks for ammunition against security forces, while video showed one woman trying to protect a fallen pro-government militiaman wounded in the government crackdown.

Karim Sadjadpour, an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the image of Neda and other women at the protests showed the difference from the 1979 revolution. "The iconic pictures from the revolution 30 years ago were bearded men. This shows the new face of Iran -- the young women who are the vanguards of Iran."

All of those defying the Iranian regime deserve applause, but the women of Iran deserve special acclaim. As this and other news stories show, their defiance is having twice the effect of everyone else's - which is appropriate, as they have twice as much to rebel against.

A Sign of Subservience

BBC: Sarkozy speaks out against burka

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has spoken out strongly against the wearing of the burka by Muslim women in France.

"We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity," Mr Sarkozy told a special session of parliament in Versailles.

"The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic," the French president said.

Apologists for the burka sometimes argue that it empowers, not oppresses - that by covering herself, a woman ensures that she is judged according to her ideas and not according to her looks.

When I hear this specious nonsense, I always think: what "ideas"? What ideas can she have if she is deprived of an education, as so many Muslim women are? What if she gets the "idea" to do something crazy or unspeakable - like divorce her husband?

Sarkozy is right on here. Of course the burka oppresses women; sexism doesn't get more explicit!

The burka robs a woman of her identity and completes the process by which she is transformed from an autonomous individual into the property of her father or husband.

Sarkozy is wrong about one thing, though: the burka is a sign of religion. Arbitrary injustice is the kind of thing that religion does best.

Hero vs. Hero Prime

Through technology or genetic mutations, a man acquires special powers. He uses his powers to defeat his enemies. But then, he must face his ultimate adversary - someone who has the same powers and abilities he does, except BETTER!

Sound familiar? This is the plot that Marvel Comics films have been reproducing with gusto lately. And it's getting pretty damn tiresome.

IRONMAN: Guy builds an iron suit, flies around, blows things up. But then his nemesis builds a bigger and better iron suit! And they fight!

THE HULK: Guy gets big and green when he's angry. His nemesis plays with science to make himself get bigger and greener! And they fight!

WOLVERINE ORIGINS: Guy has fast-regenerative tissue and a metal-coated skeleton. His nemesis assembles a Franken-mutant who has these abilities, plus teleportation, plus diamond skin, plus a bunch of other neat tricks. And they fight!

BO-RING. Is this cookie-cutter plot the only one Marvel can be bothered to use anymore? There are countless other ways you could bring a superhero film to an exciting climax. The whole hero-fights-a-new-and-improved-version-of-himself trope has got to go.

Google: Invading Your Public Privacy

CNN: Google Street View blacked out in Greece

These uproars over Google Street View "invading privacy" seem like so much self-important nonsense. What could Google Street View reveal about your home that anybody couldn't readily see from a public road anyway?

There have been concerns that Google Street View will help "criminals scouting for burglary targets." I got news for you: if burglars want to scout out houses, they don't need a computer to do it. Google isn't telling them anything about your house they wouldn't have already known. You may find that comforting or you may find it unsettling, but there it is.

And if these images taken from a public road can encroach on privacy, what's next? Should we ban sidewalks in residential areas, since any shady character walking down the street can have ocular access to the exterior of your house?

Not funny

You know that hideous joke about why the woman had two black eyes - because her man had to tell her twice?

In Saudi Arabia, that's not just a repulsive attempt at humor. It's a legal opinion.

CNN: Saudi judge: It's OK to slap spendthrift wives

Arab News, a Saudi English-language daily newspaper based in Riyadh, reported that Judge Hamad Al-Razine said that "if a person gives SR 1,200 [$320] to his wife and she spends 900 riyals [$240] to purchase an abaya [the black cover that women in Saudi Arabia must wear] from a brand shop and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment."

Al-Razine "also pointed out that women's indecent behavior and use of offensive words against their husbands were some of the reasons for domestic violence in the country," it added.

Swine Flu

A hundred days into the new administration, Obama-related headlines had stopped carrying the punch they used to. People were also becoming numb to reports about the financial crisis. The media needed something new and scary.

So they soiled their pants with glee when Mexico began reporting an "outbreak" of swine flu. A pandemic scare! We haven't had one of those since avian flu became passe!

It's not a serious threat. It's the FLU. Just because it has the word "swine" in front of it doesn't make it the bubonic frakking plague.

There are still under 1000 cases worldwide, and an even smaller number of deaths. And most of those deaths, I think it's safe to say, testify not to the deadly nature of swine flu, but to the inadequacy of the Mexican healthcare system.

Yet people will panic when they're told to panic - and if you tell them not to panic, they'll panic anyway. One of the most vile manifestations of this daft herd mentality has been the mass killing of pigs, particularly in Egypt and Iraq. These killings have nothing to do with preventing the actual spread of the disease; anyone who's actually educated herself on the issue knows knows that, whatever its origins, the virus is spread from HUMAN to HUMAN. No - these mass killings are simply barbaric measures to make ignorant people feel safer.

In a few months, this exercise in scaring ourselves will be forgotten, and we can go back to fearing genuine threats to our well-being, like courts allowing men to marry each other, or presidents with foreign-sounding middle names, or immigrants stealing our much-sought-after janitorial and dishwashing careers.

Fascism and Tyranny: Look Those Up, Too

They’re marching us to a brand of non-violent fascism. Or to put it another way, they’re marching us to 1984. Big Brother … Like it or not, fascism is on the rise.
-Glenn Beck, April 2009

To Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and others warning of the rise of totalitarianism in America:

Do you know what 'irony' is? Let me put it this way: YOUR OWN SUCCESS REFUTES YOUR ARGUMENTS. If America were a tyranny, your vicious attacks on the government would get you shot in the head - or, if fortunate, "disappeared" to some bleak internment hellscape.

Have you ever actually *read* 1984, Glenn? Do you know what Big Brother would do to someone as critical of the government as yourself? I'll give you a hint: it involves your face, a narrow, enclosed space, and some very hungry rats.

You see, tyranny cannot tolerate dissent. That's what makes it a tyranny. You, however, are strongly - even excessively - critical of the government, and instead of being beaten, tortured, and killed, you are enjoying money, fame, and success.

Q.E.D. Thank you for proving yourselves wrong.

Where was your alarmist shrieking about tyranny during the Bush administration? Obama's bailouts and healthcare reform smack of totalitarianism, but secret prisons, mandated torture, and warrantless arrests and wiretaps - just healthy aspects of any free, democratic society?

Go buy a dictionary - you've got a lot to look up. Start with the letter 'i': 'irony', 'inconsistency,' and 'imbecilic'.

Socialism: Look It Up

For months, opponents of the Obama administration - from top Republicans, to jowlsey radio hosts, to participants in modern-day "tea parties" - have accused the Democrats of bringing "socialism" to America.

As Paul Krugman pointed out a few days ago, nowadays "the charge of socialism is being thrown around only because “liberal” doesn’t seem to carry the punch it used to."

Since this word has gained such currency in recent political discourse, it might be worthwhile to, you know, actually... LOOK IT UP.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry:
so·cial·ism
Pronunciation:
\ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1837

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Not one of the above definitions fit the current government. From bailouts to healthcare reform, nothing the Democrats are doing involves "governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution"; nor are we abolishing private property; nor are we transitioning to communism (despite the apocalyptic howling of the right-wing pundits).

With all the hot air coming out of Fox News and the "tea parties" it's been instigating, it's easy to forget that Americans - even now - have one of the lightest tax burdens of any first-world country. And that as a percentage of GDP, our federal government is smaller than those of most European countries. And that we have a lower minimum wage and fewer employee benefits than most other first-world countries.

Socialism? Are you kidding?

From Politico:

Misaligned Meccan mosques make muslims mad

BBC: Mecca mosques "wrongly aligned"

Some 200 mosques in Islam's holiest city, Mecca, point the wrong way for prayers, reports from Saudi Arabia say.

[P]eople looking down from recently built high-rises in Mecca found the niches in many older mosques were not pointing directly towards the Kaaba.

Some worshippers are said to be anxious about the validity of their prayers.

"Anxious about the validity of their prayers." Like someone worrying about her luck because she threw a pinch of salt over the wrong shoulder.

So, does Allah break out a protractor, and reject your prayers if your orientation is a few degrees off? What about all those people far away from Mecca who just pray toward the Middle East - what if they overshoot and their prayers land in India? Can Vishnu sign for them, and send them to Allah's forwarding address?

A hard world to be ludicrous in

Kurt Vonnegut's novel Mother Night is the fictional memoirs of an American, Howard Campbell, who works as an Allied spy in Goebbel's propaganda ministry under the Third Reich. While working as a spy, he creates a good deal of propaganda for the Nazis, and a central question of the book is whether, in doing so, he did more harm than good.

At one point he writes the following, which refers to Nazism but which could just as easily apply to any religious or political system of dogmatic belief:

I had hoped, as a broadcaster, to be merely ludicrous, but this is a hard world to be ludicrous in, with so many human beings reluctant to laugh, so incapable of thought, so eager to believe and snarl and hate. So many people wanted to believe me!

Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile.

- Mother Night, Ch. 29

This is CNN

The current headline on the CNN website reads, "Giant lizards kill unsuspecting fishermen."

By contrast, the current headline on BBC - which, I will remind you, is a British news agency - is, "US to boost Mexico border defence."

I've had it with CNN. They limit their headlines almost exclusively to US news, no matter how trivial - except, of course, when they hear of a couple Komodo dragon attacks in Indonesia, which they parlay into a banner headline exaggerating the phenomenon to Godzilla proportions.

Philosophy Quotations Explained: "I think, therefore I am"

"The proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
- Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, II.

"Ego cogito, ergo sum..."
- Rene Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, Part 1, Article 7

"I think, therefore I am," is perhaps the most famous quote from all of modern philosophy. When the quote is taken out of context, however, it may seem that Descartes is magically thinking himself into existence, or that he's making some snooty statement about the philosopher's raison d'etre - that the meaning of life is to think.

This latter misinterpretation is spread further by witty slogans on t-shirts and bumper stickers advertising all sorts of hobbies - e.g., "I ski, therefore I am."

But Descartes wasn't talking about how much he liked thinking. He was actually trying to establish the foundations of knowledge - what we can know with certainty.

In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes's project is to find some fundamental proposition that is beyond doubt, and then use it as a starting point from which to derive everything that we know. Descartes writes:

All that I have, up to this moment, accepted as possessed of the highest truth and certainty, I received either from or through the senses. I observed, however, that these sometimes misled us; and it is the part of prudence not to place absolute confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived. (Meditations, I.)

Descartes goes on to point out that everything we perceive is subject to doubt, because we could be dreaming, or our thoughts could even be subject to the manipulations of an evil demon (think a 17th-century version of the Matrix).

So given that our senses always can be deceiving us, can we know anything with certainty? Yes, Descartes says: we know, with certainty, that we are thinking. Even if we are dreaming - even if we're trapped in the Matrix and don't know it - we at least know that we are thinking. And because we know we are thinking, we know that we - in some manner or form - exist. I think, therefore I am. Cogito ergo sum.

Philosophers since his day have split a lot of epistemological hairs over the Cogito and whether it actually proves what Descartes wants it to prove. But his radical project of doubting everything, and applying mathematical logic to problems of knowledge and reality, still makes Descartes the father of modern philosophy.