The United States Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, decided that “Reverend” Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church’s picketing of soldier’s funerals carrying signs such as “God hates fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” was protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
Judge Samuel Alito dissented.
This is one of those rulings that makes you grind your teeth. Albert Snyder, the father of Matthew Snyder who died in Iraq, sued the church for “emotional distress” after it picketed his son’s funeral and posted a poem on its web site attacked how Matthew’s parents had raised their son.
Snyder originally won an $11 million judgment against the church, which was later reduced to $5 million, but the decision was overturned by a Federal Court in Virginia which also assessed Snyder $16,000 in legal fees which he refused to pay until the Supreme Court had ruled on the case.
The legal fees are almost a moot point because Bill O’Reilly has said that he’s going to pay them if Snyder loses. This is probably the first thing O’Reilly and I ever agreed upon.
I understand the theory that if everyone’s speech isn’t protected then no one’s speech is protected and the idea of supporting the right of people to say things you don’t like, but there are limits. As I said the last time, the issue wasn’t WHAT Phelps was saying but WHERE he was saying it.
Veteran’s Groups, forty-eight states and 42 U.S. Senators supported Snyder claiming that what the Westboro Church was doing amounted to “psychological terrorism” but it didn’t do any good.
The conclusion in the decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts was as follows:
“Westboro addressed matters of public import on public property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. It did not disrupt Mathew Snyder’s funeral, and its choice to picket at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech. Because this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”
Judge Alito in his dissent said:
“Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.
Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right…The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree.”
I cannot agree either. Remember the old saying, your rights end where my rights begin. The court got this one wrong.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Conservatives with their heads where the sun don’t shine
So what else is new?
The latest conservative absurdity is playing itself out in Tennessee where a state legislator from Murfreesboro has introduced legislation that would make following some portions of the Islamic Shariah law a felony.
The bill was provided by the Eagle Forum and, apparently, was drafted by an Arizona lawyer by the name of David Yerushalmi. This dodo represented “Stop the Madrassa” in NYC a while back in the witch hunt over the assignment of Arab American Debbie Almontaser as principal of a dual language Arabic-English elementary school. In that case, despite repeated assurances that it was a public school with no intention of teaching Islam, the group managed to get Almontaser replaced but did not stop the school from being opened anyway.
Of course the result, despite all the hysteria, was a perfectly benign public school that was part of a larger dual language school program in the city.
This time around, according to Yerushalmi, "The legislation simply states that Shariah that follows the law of jihad, which calls for the violent overthrow of the Tennessee and U.S. government, is the Shariah that is at issue.”
And you’re a lawyer? Here’s a news flash for you sport, it’s already illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of a state or the U.S. government. That would make your legislation redundant if that’s all it covers.
There are two things I’ve found conservatives good at, lying and coming up with really stupid ideas based upon complete misconceptions. This looks to me like a little engaging in the former in order to cover the extent of the latter.
The First Amendment Center has called the bill a "really distorted understanding of Shariah law."
Again, I have to ask, so what else is new? Conservatives are famous for making decisions and coming up with policies based upon really distorted understandings. Would you like a few examples? Let’s try Slavery, Segregation, Gay Marriage, Evolution, Health Care Reform, Fiscal Policy, War and Peace, Economics and so on and so forth.
The world would be a dramatically different place if they would take their heads out from their rear ends and look up THE FACTS before forming their opinions. Of course that would require reading and thinking, neither of which are skills conservatives are very good at.
The latest conservative absurdity is playing itself out in Tennessee where a state legislator from Murfreesboro has introduced legislation that would make following some portions of the Islamic Shariah law a felony.
The bill was provided by the Eagle Forum and, apparently, was drafted by an Arizona lawyer by the name of David Yerushalmi. This dodo represented “Stop the Madrassa” in NYC a while back in the witch hunt over the assignment of Arab American Debbie Almontaser as principal of a dual language Arabic-English elementary school. In that case, despite repeated assurances that it was a public school with no intention of teaching Islam, the group managed to get Almontaser replaced but did not stop the school from being opened anyway.
Of course the result, despite all the hysteria, was a perfectly benign public school that was part of a larger dual language school program in the city.
This time around, according to Yerushalmi, "The legislation simply states that Shariah that follows the law of jihad, which calls for the violent overthrow of the Tennessee and U.S. government, is the Shariah that is at issue.”
And you’re a lawyer? Here’s a news flash for you sport, it’s already illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of a state or the U.S. government. That would make your legislation redundant if that’s all it covers.
There are two things I’ve found conservatives good at, lying and coming up with really stupid ideas based upon complete misconceptions. This looks to me like a little engaging in the former in order to cover the extent of the latter.
The First Amendment Center has called the bill a "really distorted understanding of Shariah law."
Again, I have to ask, so what else is new? Conservatives are famous for making decisions and coming up with policies based upon really distorted understandings. Would you like a few examples? Let’s try Slavery, Segregation, Gay Marriage, Evolution, Health Care Reform, Fiscal Policy, War and Peace, Economics and so on and so forth.
The world would be a dramatically different place if they would take their heads out from their rear ends and look up THE FACTS before forming their opinions. Of course that would require reading and thinking, neither of which are skills conservatives are very good at.
Let’s talk Libya
Mommar Gadhafi has made it clear that he doesn’t intend to be the latest domino in the Arab World. The protests in Libya have quickly become violent as forces loyal to Gadhafi appear trying to quell the latest unrest.
At least one Libyan city, Zawiya, has been taken by the rebels and an assault to retake the city appears to have failed. There are reports that elements of the army have joined the gathering rebellion. At least two Libyan pilots are reported to have fled to Malta rather than bomb their own countrymen.
In the meantime the U.N. is levying sanctions and American and European Union military forces appear to be moseying into the area just in case.
I don’t know where this one is headed but it doesn’t look encouraging.
In the tiny country of Bahrain the government appears ready to negotiate with protesters. I suspect the problem is going to be finding someone that can speak with authority for the people in the street. In Saudi Arabia the government is reported to be showering gifts on the populace to head off any possible disturbances there where, at least so far, things have been quiet.
Overall a dose of democracy in the Arab World could be a good thing or it could be a disaster. I don’t think democracy is the right sort of government for everyone. I mean, look at how Americans tend to screw it up by electing people like Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul. The danger of course is either a slide into theocracy or the emergence of a new strongman after it becomes obvious that things aren’t going to get enormously better overnight.
Still, a least for the moment, we can hope that things turn out positively but I’m not all that optimistic.
At least one Libyan city, Zawiya, has been taken by the rebels and an assault to retake the city appears to have failed. There are reports that elements of the army have joined the gathering rebellion. At least two Libyan pilots are reported to have fled to Malta rather than bomb their own countrymen.
In the meantime the U.N. is levying sanctions and American and European Union military forces appear to be moseying into the area just in case.
I don’t know where this one is headed but it doesn’t look encouraging.
In the tiny country of Bahrain the government appears ready to negotiate with protesters. I suspect the problem is going to be finding someone that can speak with authority for the people in the street. In Saudi Arabia the government is reported to be showering gifts on the populace to head off any possible disturbances there where, at least so far, things have been quiet.
Overall a dose of democracy in the Arab World could be a good thing or it could be a disaster. I don’t think democracy is the right sort of government for everyone. I mean, look at how Americans tend to screw it up by electing people like Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul. The danger of course is either a slide into theocracy or the emergence of a new strongman after it becomes obvious that things aren’t going to get enormously better overnight.
Still, a least for the moment, we can hope that things turn out positively but I’m not all that optimistic.
The Eye of the Beholder
It seems Iran is upset with the logo for the 2012 London Olympics. So upset they’re threatening a boycott.
Now anyone with a sense of artistic style would be upset with the logo because, to be quite honest, it looks like stuff shoved hastily into a closet. But the Iranians aren’t concerned with condoning sloppiness, they see a far darker implication.
Now anyone with a sense of artistic style would be upset with the logo because, to be quite honest, it looks like stuff shoved hastily into a closet. But the Iranians aren’t concerned with condoning sloppiness, they see a far darker implication.The Iranians claim that the logo spells out the word “Zion” and is therefore racist.
Well, I guess if you start in the upper left that could be a “Z;” then go down to a lower case “I” with the dot displaced to its right side; then go catty corner to the upper right where we find a filled in “O;” finally it’s straight down to a sort of drunken “N” and, voila, “Zion.”
You have got to be kidding me.
If this isn’t a conspiracy by the art world to get the dumb looking thing scrapped, than I say screw them. Let them stay home if that’s what makes them happy.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Facts and Opinions
I’ve been down this road a few times before. Concept, there are “facts” and there are “opinions.” And, guess what, they are different things.
A fact is anything that can be objectively verified. You cannot challenge a fact once it has been established as accurate. You can challenge its accuracy, but once its accuracy has been established, you have to deal with it.
Allow me to provide an example. In a conversation about global warming I made the statement that a Pew Research study showed that 80% of scientists accept that global warming is occurring. Someone “challenged my numbers.” Well, you can’t challenge what I said because it is an absolute fact. The Pew Research study did exist and 80% was the number it published. You can challenge Pew Research’s methodology or conclusions or whatever, but that’s much harder than challenging what you thought was my opinion.
If I had simply said “80% of scientists accept global warming,” then the challenge, as stated, would have been appropriate. If I couldn’t produce a citation, then it’s simply my opinion and, by definition, opinions are subjective. Even if I could produce a citation, it might just be the opinion of someone else.
Now, it’s been my experience that Liberals understands this more than Conservatives (yes, that is an opinion that you would be within your rights to challenge). It’s also been my experience that the reason for this (here comes another opinion) is that the evidence is more often on the Liberal side.
To the Liberal, Correct = True. To the Conservative, Correct = Moral and, unfortunately, True is not always the same thing as Moral. The Conservative tends to look at things through a prism of subjective morality. The Liberal tends to look at things through prism of objective truth (there’s another opinion you can challenge to your heart’s content). Keep in mind however that either the Conservative’s Morality or the Liberal’s Truth can be challenged as wrong.
Why do I say this? Well, let’s consider some of the hot button issues shall we?
Abortion
To the Conservative this is murder and therefore morally wrong = Subjective Morality. To the Liberal there are cases where an abortion may be necessary = Objective Truth. So who decides when, if ever, an abortion is necessary?
Religion
To a Conservative, faith is a virtue = Subjective Morality. To a Liberal, show me the evidence = Objective Truth.
Evolution
To a Conservative, the bible says it and that settles it = Subjective Morality. To a Liberal, the scientific evidence indicates…=Objective Truth.
Global Warming
To a Conservative, God is in charge and man cannot undo God’s creation = Subjective Morality. To a Liberal, the scientific evidence indicates…=Objective Truth.
Vaccinations
To a Conservative, my mommy sense tells me… = Subjective Morality. To a Liberal, the scientific evidence indicates…=Objective Truth.
Are you beginning to see a pattern here? One more.
Balancing the Budget
To a Conservative, cut taxes (especially for the rich), reduce spending and depend upon Supply Side Tax Growth = Wishful Thinking Stupidity. To a Liberal, raise taxes and keep spending = More Wishful Thinking Stupidity.
Ok, so that one didn’t precisely work out.
The reality is that none of these positions are facts. All of them are simply opinions and opinions can always be challenged. Whether the opinion is driven by one’s view of morality or one’s view of reality doesn’t really matter. It’s still all a matter of opinion.
It’s been my experience that both Liberals and Conservatives tend to forget that little point and often equate opinion with knowledge. Perhaps that’s why we no longer seem to be able to arrive at a working compromise.
A fact is anything that can be objectively verified. You cannot challenge a fact once it has been established as accurate. You can challenge its accuracy, but once its accuracy has been established, you have to deal with it.
Allow me to provide an example. In a conversation about global warming I made the statement that a Pew Research study showed that 80% of scientists accept that global warming is occurring. Someone “challenged my numbers.” Well, you can’t challenge what I said because it is an absolute fact. The Pew Research study did exist and 80% was the number it published. You can challenge Pew Research’s methodology or conclusions or whatever, but that’s much harder than challenging what you thought was my opinion.
If I had simply said “80% of scientists accept global warming,” then the challenge, as stated, would have been appropriate. If I couldn’t produce a citation, then it’s simply my opinion and, by definition, opinions are subjective. Even if I could produce a citation, it might just be the opinion of someone else.
Now, it’s been my experience that Liberals understands this more than Conservatives (yes, that is an opinion that you would be within your rights to challenge). It’s also been my experience that the reason for this (here comes another opinion) is that the evidence is more often on the Liberal side.
To the Liberal, Correct = True. To the Conservative, Correct = Moral and, unfortunately, True is not always the same thing as Moral. The Conservative tends to look at things through a prism of subjective morality. The Liberal tends to look at things through prism of objective truth (there’s another opinion you can challenge to your heart’s content). Keep in mind however that either the Conservative’s Morality or the Liberal’s Truth can be challenged as wrong.
Why do I say this? Well, let’s consider some of the hot button issues shall we?
Abortion
To the Conservative this is murder and therefore morally wrong = Subjective Morality. To the Liberal there are cases where an abortion may be necessary = Objective Truth. So who decides when, if ever, an abortion is necessary?
Religion
To a Conservative, faith is a virtue = Subjective Morality. To a Liberal, show me the evidence = Objective Truth.
Evolution
To a Conservative, the bible says it and that settles it = Subjective Morality. To a Liberal, the scientific evidence indicates…=Objective Truth.
Global Warming
To a Conservative, God is in charge and man cannot undo God’s creation = Subjective Morality. To a Liberal, the scientific evidence indicates…=Objective Truth.
Vaccinations
To a Conservative, my mommy sense tells me… = Subjective Morality. To a Liberal, the scientific evidence indicates…=Objective Truth.
Are you beginning to see a pattern here? One more.
Balancing the Budget
To a Conservative, cut taxes (especially for the rich), reduce spending and depend upon Supply Side Tax Growth = Wishful Thinking Stupidity. To a Liberal, raise taxes and keep spending = More Wishful Thinking Stupidity.
Ok, so that one didn’t precisely work out.
The reality is that none of these positions are facts. All of them are simply opinions and opinions can always be challenged. Whether the opinion is driven by one’s view of morality or one’s view of reality doesn’t really matter. It’s still all a matter of opinion.
It’s been my experience that both Liberals and Conservatives tend to forget that little point and often equate opinion with knowledge. Perhaps that’s why we no longer seem to be able to arrive at a working compromise.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Assault on the Unions
Republican Governor Scott Walker, backed by a Republican legislature, is attempting to strip state workers in Wisconsin of the right to collectively bargain.
Here we go again. The Republicans have no problem with protecting, or even enhancing, the wealth of the upper 5% or 10% on the economic ladder and doing so by screwing the middle and working classes.
I continue to be amazed at how the Right Wing under 80 IQ trailer part idiots in this country, sometimes known as the Republican base, will stand up and cheer not restoring a 3% income tax increase on the wealthiest Americans, and at the same time cheer stripping American workers of the right to protect their jobs and wages.
Who’s side are you on anyway?
Even if there are significant budget issues, the state’s workforce shouldn’t be asked to shoulder an unfair share of the burden in addressing those issues.
Now let’s talk about what really concerns me.
The Wisconsin State Journal claims that nonpartisan budget figures indicate that Walker is actually creating an artificial deficit in the latest budget with lavish spending items on special interests allied with his administration.
You got that one? Any budget issues are due to “LAVISH SPENDING ITEMS ON SPECIAL INTERESTS!”
Now, this is an accusation levied by one newspaper, and I personally have no way of knowing if this accusation is true, but one would think that the Wisconsin electorate would DEMAND the resolution of this accusation before anything is allowed to move forward.
In the meantime the Democratic legislators have left the state in order to ensure that the State Senate doesn’t have the necessary quorum for a vote. Unbelievably I see Right Wing assholes calling them cowards. You will excuse me, but that’s called fighting evil anyway you can.
The world is upside down.
In Washington the Republicans ensure that the rich get to keep their 3% tax reduction, based in part on an argument that it would have only raised $35 billion in revenue, but the Republicans bally-hoo themselves as saviors of the Republic because they’re going to cut $65 billion in services to the middle and working classes.
So, the $35 billion from the rich was going to cripple the economy but the $65 billion isn’t? I don’t necessarily have a problem with the cuts. As a matter of fact I agree with a lot of them. But far too many of them, like what’s going on in Wisconsin, smack of being politically motivated.
“NPR and PBS are honest and don’t lie for the Republican cause like Fox News? Well goddamn, we can’t have that, cut their funding.”
“Planned parenthood provides sex education and birth control advice? Well goddamn, that upsets the Religious Right which votes Republican 99% of the time. Kill the funding for Planned Parenthood even if it means more unwanted pregnancies which would mean more abortions.”
“What’s that? More abortions? Goddamn, that’s even worse than birth control, let’s make sure no tax dollars are available for abortions. So what if poor women die from lack of a medically critical abortion, back alley abortions or self-abortions. They don’t vote for us anyway.”
That’s the Republican version of democracy, free speech and caring for those unable to care for themselves. Jesus would weep. It’s lucky for him that he doesn’t exist.
To everyone that voted Republican, and is not in the top 5% of income earners, YOU ARE A MORON.
Here we go again. The Republicans have no problem with protecting, or even enhancing, the wealth of the upper 5% or 10% on the economic ladder and doing so by screwing the middle and working classes.
I continue to be amazed at how the Right Wing under 80 IQ trailer part idiots in this country, sometimes known as the Republican base, will stand up and cheer not restoring a 3% income tax increase on the wealthiest Americans, and at the same time cheer stripping American workers of the right to protect their jobs and wages.
Who’s side are you on anyway?
Even if there are significant budget issues, the state’s workforce shouldn’t be asked to shoulder an unfair share of the burden in addressing those issues.
Now let’s talk about what really concerns me.
The Wisconsin State Journal claims that nonpartisan budget figures indicate that Walker is actually creating an artificial deficit in the latest budget with lavish spending items on special interests allied with his administration.
You got that one? Any budget issues are due to “LAVISH SPENDING ITEMS ON SPECIAL INTERESTS!”
Now, this is an accusation levied by one newspaper, and I personally have no way of knowing if this accusation is true, but one would think that the Wisconsin electorate would DEMAND the resolution of this accusation before anything is allowed to move forward.
In the meantime the Democratic legislators have left the state in order to ensure that the State Senate doesn’t have the necessary quorum for a vote. Unbelievably I see Right Wing assholes calling them cowards. You will excuse me, but that’s called fighting evil anyway you can.
The world is upside down.
In Washington the Republicans ensure that the rich get to keep their 3% tax reduction, based in part on an argument that it would have only raised $35 billion in revenue, but the Republicans bally-hoo themselves as saviors of the Republic because they’re going to cut $65 billion in services to the middle and working classes.
So, the $35 billion from the rich was going to cripple the economy but the $65 billion isn’t? I don’t necessarily have a problem with the cuts. As a matter of fact I agree with a lot of them. But far too many of them, like what’s going on in Wisconsin, smack of being politically motivated.
“NPR and PBS are honest and don’t lie for the Republican cause like Fox News? Well goddamn, we can’t have that, cut their funding.”
“Planned parenthood provides sex education and birth control advice? Well goddamn, that upsets the Religious Right which votes Republican 99% of the time. Kill the funding for Planned Parenthood even if it means more unwanted pregnancies which would mean more abortions.”
“What’s that? More abortions? Goddamn, that’s even worse than birth control, let’s make sure no tax dollars are available for abortions. So what if poor women die from lack of a medically critical abortion, back alley abortions or self-abortions. They don’t vote for us anyway.”
That’s the Republican version of democracy, free speech and caring for those unable to care for themselves. Jesus would weep. It’s lucky for him that he doesn’t exist.
To everyone that voted Republican, and is not in the top 5% of income earners, YOU ARE A MORON.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Watson
I watched the “Watson Challenge” on “Jeopardy!” the last couple of nights.
Watson is a computer developed by IBM that, by using plain language recognition and deep information search algorithms, can actually compete like a human contestant in the quiz show “Jeopardy!”
The opponents for Watson were Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter, both of whom had won several million dollars playing “Jeopardy!” and are the unchallenged champions of the game. Or at least the unchallenged human champions of the game.
The competition took place over three nights and covered two full rounds of Jeopardy! At stake was $1.5 million dollars. $1 million for the winner, $300 thousand for second and $200 thousand for third.
It was a massacre. Watson crushed the two Champs winning a total of $77,147 over the two rounds compared to Jennings’ $24,000 and Rutter’s $21,600.
It was absolutely amazing to watch the computer convert the quirky “Jeopardy!” clues into answers, which were of course properly phrased as a question, returned in a pleasant, quiet male voice. After a while I thought Alex Trebek was going to start asking Watson about his background and family.
The win was a stunning victory for IBM Research and opens the door for literally thousands of potential applications down the road for this technology. Perhaps the most important potential application would be for medical diagnostics where most of the information is only available in plain language descriptions.
Watson wasn’t perfect and, while he ran roughshod over his two human opponents in the first round, Jennings and Rutter made it a bit of a dogfight in the second round. But, in the end, Watson was unstoppable. Despite occasionally coming up with the wrong answer, and occasionally not being able to isolate the answer before his opponents, it was clear who was king of the hill. The funniest moments came with Watson’s bizarre dollar amounts put up for the Daily Doubles he uncovered. His bets of highly uneven amounts, such as $1,236, brought chuckles from the audience at IBM Research where the shows were taped.
IBM indicated that Watson’s winnings of $1 million would be given to charity and Jennings and Rutter also indicated that they would donate half of their prize money to charity.
It was impressive and a lot of fun as well. Hats off to IBM and hats off to “Jeopardy!” and ABC for taking part in the challenge.
Watson is a computer developed by IBM that, by using plain language recognition and deep information search algorithms, can actually compete like a human contestant in the quiz show “Jeopardy!”
The opponents for Watson were Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter, both of whom had won several million dollars playing “Jeopardy!” and are the unchallenged champions of the game. Or at least the unchallenged human champions of the game.
The competition took place over three nights and covered two full rounds of Jeopardy! At stake was $1.5 million dollars. $1 million for the winner, $300 thousand for second and $200 thousand for third.
It was a massacre. Watson crushed the two Champs winning a total of $77,147 over the two rounds compared to Jennings’ $24,000 and Rutter’s $21,600.
It was absolutely amazing to watch the computer convert the quirky “Jeopardy!” clues into answers, which were of course properly phrased as a question, returned in a pleasant, quiet male voice. After a while I thought Alex Trebek was going to start asking Watson about his background and family.
The win was a stunning victory for IBM Research and opens the door for literally thousands of potential applications down the road for this technology. Perhaps the most important potential application would be for medical diagnostics where most of the information is only available in plain language descriptions.
Watson wasn’t perfect and, while he ran roughshod over his two human opponents in the first round, Jennings and Rutter made it a bit of a dogfight in the second round. But, in the end, Watson was unstoppable. Despite occasionally coming up with the wrong answer, and occasionally not being able to isolate the answer before his opponents, it was clear who was king of the hill. The funniest moments came with Watson’s bizarre dollar amounts put up for the Daily Doubles he uncovered. His bets of highly uneven amounts, such as $1,236, brought chuckles from the audience at IBM Research where the shows were taped.
IBM indicated that Watson’s winnings of $1 million would be given to charity and Jennings and Rutter also indicated that they would donate half of their prize money to charity.
It was impressive and a lot of fun as well. Hats off to IBM and hats off to “Jeopardy!” and ABC for taking part in the challenge.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Creationism in the Classroom
Two researchers from Penn State University have published an article in the January 28th issue of Science in which they claim that only 28% of High School Biology teachers were what they termed “Advocates of Evolutionary Biology” while 13% were “Advocates of Creationism.” The other 60% they concluded were neutral.
Needless to say this created a bit of a stir.
Personally however I found the conclusions a little hard to accept so I downloaded and reviewed the raw data.
The article was based upon a survey of 926 science teachers conducted between March and May of 2007. The survey consisted of a series of multiple choice questions. The Penn State Researchers focused in on a group of questions related to the teaching of Evolution and Creationism.
I understand their approach but I’m not sure it’s valid. In order to be categorized as an Advocate of Creationism, one had to devote at least some classroom time to teaching it and agree with (1) Creationism or Intelligent Design is presented as a valid scientific theory or (2) it is presented that many reputable scientists view Creationism or Intelligent Design as a valid alternative to Evolution or both.
On the other hand, in order to be classified as an “Advocate of Evolutionary Theory,” one had to agree with (1) the broad consensus that Evolution is fact is presented and (2) Evolution serves as the unifying theme of the course and disagree with (3) it is possible to offer an excellent biology class with no mention of Darwin or Evolution. In addition, at least two of the three answers had to be the strong position of “Strongly Agree” for (1) and (2) and “Strongly Disagree” for (3).
I’m amazed that 28% met that criteria.
When one looks at the raw data, the picture is perhaps not as bleak but still a bit concerning.
Let’s start with the fact that 14% of the respondents declared that they personally believed that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.”
Given that, is the 13% number so surprising?
All the following statements only include states with at least 10 respondents.
States that had the most teachers saying that they believed God created humans as is within the last 10,000 years were Oklahoma with 54%, Tennessee with 45% and Louisiana with 40%. States with 0% that believed that man was created in the last 10,000 years were Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Oregon. Of the larger states the percentage of High School Biology teachers that said they believed man was created as is within the last 10,000 years was, in California 6.7%, in New York 7.7%, in Texas 27%, in Florida 13% and in Michigan 9.3%. In Indiana it was 16% and In New Jersey 0%.
Of all respondents, 74% agreed that they emphasize the broad scientific consensus that Evolution is fact. The only state where 100% of the respondents said that they teach Evolution as fact was Utah (Utah? WTF?). Other states over 80% were Ohio 90%, Minnesota 89%, Kentucky 86% (Kentucky? WTF?), Massachusetts 85%, South Dakota 85%, New Jersey 83% and Kansas 82% (Kansas?).
The states where the fewest teachers taught that Evolution was considered a scientific fact were Alabama with 54%, followed by Nebraska with 55% and then Arizona with 60%. In Indiana 65% taught it as fact compared to 83% in New Jersey.
This brings us to how many teachers teach that Creationism or Intelligent Design is valid science. Of all respondents, 15% said that they teach Creationism as science and a valid alternative to Evolution. The states where the most teachers taught Creationism as valid science were Alabama 39%, Georgia 28%, Kansas 27% and Texas 26%.
The states where the fewest taught that were Connecticut 0%, Oregon 0%, Virginia 0%, Missouri 4.2% and California 6.7%. In New Jersey 16.2% taught Creationism was science and in Indiana 16.1%. Now isn’t that embarrassing?
As for whether Creationism or Intelligent Design is viewed by many reputable scientists as a valid scientific alternate to Evolution, 17.6% overall said they taught that. The states where the most teachers taught it were Arkansas 44%, Texas 37%, Alabama 31% and Louisiana and Maryland both 30%.
The states where the least teachers taught it were Oregon 0%, Virginia 4.0%, Illinois 5.9% and Ohio 6.5%. In New Jersey 18.9% taught that Creationism or Intelligent Design is recognized by many reputable scientists and in Indiana 22.6% taught that.
Now, like all surveys, there are two types of questions here. Some are related to your opinion and some are related to your knowledge of facts. The question as to whether Creationism or Intelligent Design is valid science, asks for an opinion and, apparently, 17.6% of the science teachers in the survey think that it is. Personally, I think they’re wrong but they’re entitled to their opinion.
However, the question about whether many reputable scientists recognize Creationism or Intelligent Design as valid science is really a matter of fact. I don’t know of any reputable scientists that accept Creationism as valid science; there are a handful that appear to accept Intelligent Design as valid science. Therefore when students are taught that “many reputable scientists” recognize Creationism or Intelligent Design as valid science, they are being given false information.
The fact that these are supposedly Science Teachers gives one pause doesn’t it?
Even in states like Massachusetts 15.4%, New York 11.5%, New Jersey 18.9% and California 8.9%, students are being told that “many reputable scientists” view Creationism or Intelligent Design as valid science and this is just flat out not true.
While I may not agree with the articles numbers and categorization, I can’t help but agree with its conclusion that we still have a ways to go here. Winning in the courts is not the same thing as winning on Main Street.
Needless to say this created a bit of a stir.
Personally however I found the conclusions a little hard to accept so I downloaded and reviewed the raw data.
The article was based upon a survey of 926 science teachers conducted between March and May of 2007. The survey consisted of a series of multiple choice questions. The Penn State Researchers focused in on a group of questions related to the teaching of Evolution and Creationism.
I understand their approach but I’m not sure it’s valid. In order to be categorized as an Advocate of Creationism, one had to devote at least some classroom time to teaching it and agree with (1) Creationism or Intelligent Design is presented as a valid scientific theory or (2) it is presented that many reputable scientists view Creationism or Intelligent Design as a valid alternative to Evolution or both.
On the other hand, in order to be classified as an “Advocate of Evolutionary Theory,” one had to agree with (1) the broad consensus that Evolution is fact is presented and (2) Evolution serves as the unifying theme of the course and disagree with (3) it is possible to offer an excellent biology class with no mention of Darwin or Evolution. In addition, at least two of the three answers had to be the strong position of “Strongly Agree” for (1) and (2) and “Strongly Disagree” for (3).
I’m amazed that 28% met that criteria.
When one looks at the raw data, the picture is perhaps not as bleak but still a bit concerning.
Let’s start with the fact that 14% of the respondents declared that they personally believed that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.”
Given that, is the 13% number so surprising?
All the following statements only include states with at least 10 respondents.
States that had the most teachers saying that they believed God created humans as is within the last 10,000 years were Oklahoma with 54%, Tennessee with 45% and Louisiana with 40%. States with 0% that believed that man was created in the last 10,000 years were Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Oregon. Of the larger states the percentage of High School Biology teachers that said they believed man was created as is within the last 10,000 years was, in California 6.7%, in New York 7.7%, in Texas 27%, in Florida 13% and in Michigan 9.3%. In Indiana it was 16% and In New Jersey 0%.
Of all respondents, 74% agreed that they emphasize the broad scientific consensus that Evolution is fact. The only state where 100% of the respondents said that they teach Evolution as fact was Utah (Utah? WTF?). Other states over 80% were Ohio 90%, Minnesota 89%, Kentucky 86% (Kentucky? WTF?), Massachusetts 85%, South Dakota 85%, New Jersey 83% and Kansas 82% (Kansas?).
The states where the fewest teachers taught that Evolution was considered a scientific fact were Alabama with 54%, followed by Nebraska with 55% and then Arizona with 60%. In Indiana 65% taught it as fact compared to 83% in New Jersey.
This brings us to how many teachers teach that Creationism or Intelligent Design is valid science. Of all respondents, 15% said that they teach Creationism as science and a valid alternative to Evolution. The states where the most teachers taught Creationism as valid science were Alabama 39%, Georgia 28%, Kansas 27% and Texas 26%.
The states where the fewest taught that were Connecticut 0%, Oregon 0%, Virginia 0%, Missouri 4.2% and California 6.7%. In New Jersey 16.2% taught Creationism was science and in Indiana 16.1%. Now isn’t that embarrassing?
As for whether Creationism or Intelligent Design is viewed by many reputable scientists as a valid scientific alternate to Evolution, 17.6% overall said they taught that. The states where the most teachers taught it were Arkansas 44%, Texas 37%, Alabama 31% and Louisiana and Maryland both 30%.
The states where the least teachers taught it were Oregon 0%, Virginia 4.0%, Illinois 5.9% and Ohio 6.5%. In New Jersey 18.9% taught that Creationism or Intelligent Design is recognized by many reputable scientists and in Indiana 22.6% taught that.
Now, like all surveys, there are two types of questions here. Some are related to your opinion and some are related to your knowledge of facts. The question as to whether Creationism or Intelligent Design is valid science, asks for an opinion and, apparently, 17.6% of the science teachers in the survey think that it is. Personally, I think they’re wrong but they’re entitled to their opinion.
However, the question about whether many reputable scientists recognize Creationism or Intelligent Design as valid science is really a matter of fact. I don’t know of any reputable scientists that accept Creationism as valid science; there are a handful that appear to accept Intelligent Design as valid science. Therefore when students are taught that “many reputable scientists” recognize Creationism or Intelligent Design as valid science, they are being given false information.
The fact that these are supposedly Science Teachers gives one pause doesn’t it?
Even in states like Massachusetts 15.4%, New York 11.5%, New Jersey 18.9% and California 8.9%, students are being told that “many reputable scientists” view Creationism or Intelligent Design as valid science and this is just flat out not true.
While I may not agree with the articles numbers and categorization, I can’t help but agree with its conclusion that we still have a ways to go here. Winning in the courts is not the same thing as winning on Main Street.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Fox News Strikes Again
A survey by Maryland University has revealed the total misinformation that impacted the last election. Basically the Republicans lied and the electorate bought it. Who were the most misinformed? Fox News viewers were by far the most misinformed about national events. And, surprise, surprise, they were always misinformed to the conservative Republican side of the issue.
In case you haven’t noticed, the Republicans lie and Fox News swears to it.
Now guess which folks tended to be the least misinformed? Those who got their news from Public Broadcasting (NPR and PBS). I guess that explains why the Republicans are trying so hard to kill the appropriations for those two organizations.
Let’s get to the numbers shall we.
The Reality: Most economists that have studied the effect of the stimulus package estimate that it has created between 2.0 and 2.5 million jobs.
The Misinformation: 88% of the general public, and 91% of those who watch Fox News, believed the Republican line that it created very few jobs or it actually lost jobs. The least misinformed viewers were MSNBC, "only" 64% got it wrong.
The Reality: The CBO has concluded that the health care reform bill would either not raise the budget deficit or slightly reduce it.
The Misinformation: 53% of the general public, and 72% of those who watch Fox News, believe that economists felt it would increase the budget deficit. The least misinformed viewers were Public Broadcasting, only 40% got it wrong.
The Reality: The U.S. economy began to recover in the 4th quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then.
The Misinformation: 55% of the general public, and 72% of those who watch Fox News, believe the economy is still getting worse. The least misinformed viewers were Public Broadcasting, only 34% got it wrong.
The Reality: Since January of 2009 (under the Obama Administration) Federal Income Taxes have gone down.
The Misinformation: 38% of the general public, and 49% of those who watch Fox News, believe that taxes have gone up. The least misinformed viewers were CNN, only 26% got it wrong.
An informed electorate is essential to the proper working of a democracy. Based upon this study, the American electorate just elected members of congress under gross misconceptions of the state of the economy which was cited as the single most important issue.
One more point, although it probably had nothing to do with the elections, The National Academy of Sciences has concluded unambiguously that climate change is occurring. Note that this has nothing to do with whether or not they are right, but simply with what is the scientific view. Well, incredibly, 60% of Fox News viewers believe that either scientists do not believe that climate change is occurring or that scientists are evenly divided.
The list goes on and on. The only conclusion that any intelligent human being can reach is that Fox News is purposely skewing their “news” content. Either that or they’re incredibly incompetent. Either way, we’d all be much better off if people stopped watching them altogether.
In case you haven’t noticed, the Republicans lie and Fox News swears to it.
Now guess which folks tended to be the least misinformed? Those who got their news from Public Broadcasting (NPR and PBS). I guess that explains why the Republicans are trying so hard to kill the appropriations for those two organizations.
Let’s get to the numbers shall we.
The Reality: Most economists that have studied the effect of the stimulus package estimate that it has created between 2.0 and 2.5 million jobs.
The Misinformation: 88% of the general public, and 91% of those who watch Fox News, believed the Republican line that it created very few jobs or it actually lost jobs. The least misinformed viewers were MSNBC, "only" 64% got it wrong.
The Reality: The CBO has concluded that the health care reform bill would either not raise the budget deficit or slightly reduce it.
The Misinformation: 53% of the general public, and 72% of those who watch Fox News, believe that economists felt it would increase the budget deficit. The least misinformed viewers were Public Broadcasting, only 40% got it wrong.
The Reality: The U.S. economy began to recover in the 4th quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then.
The Misinformation: 55% of the general public, and 72% of those who watch Fox News, believe the economy is still getting worse. The least misinformed viewers were Public Broadcasting, only 34% got it wrong.
The Reality: Since January of 2009 (under the Obama Administration) Federal Income Taxes have gone down.
The Misinformation: 38% of the general public, and 49% of those who watch Fox News, believe that taxes have gone up. The least misinformed viewers were CNN, only 26% got it wrong.
An informed electorate is essential to the proper working of a democracy. Based upon this study, the American electorate just elected members of congress under gross misconceptions of the state of the economy which was cited as the single most important issue.
One more point, although it probably had nothing to do with the elections, The National Academy of Sciences has concluded unambiguously that climate change is occurring. Note that this has nothing to do with whether or not they are right, but simply with what is the scientific view. Well, incredibly, 60% of Fox News viewers believe that either scientists do not believe that climate change is occurring or that scientists are evenly divided.
The list goes on and on. The only conclusion that any intelligent human being can reach is that Fox News is purposely skewing their “news” content. Either that or they’re incredibly incompetent. Either way, we’d all be much better off if people stopped watching them altogether.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Mubarak Resigns
Well, let's hear it for the power of the people. Much to my surprise, President Mubarak of Egypt failed to weather the storm and has resigned.
Exactly what happens now is a bit unclear. At the moment the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is in charge but, at least so far, the Army appears committed to civilian rule and an open election of the next president. Of course that could take a while.
Before we begin celebrating a victory for democracy, allow me to make the point that, according to Pew Research, 82% of Egyptian Muslims think it' proper to stone an adulterer to death. You got that one? And considering just about everyone there is Muslim, that's close enough to 82% of the entire population.
Democracy requires an electorate whose heads are not completely up their asses. Democracy could turn into a nightmare in Egypt the same way it's a nightmare in Mississippi and Oklahoma.
Let's not forget that lurking in the background is the Muslim Brotherhood. They may not be Al-Quida but I don't trust them one bit. The world probably got a little more dangerous on Friday but that's not necessarily a bad thing. A true working democracy in Egypt would be a great leap forward for the region and perhaps that possibility makes it all worth while.
What the U.S. needs to do is support the Egyptian's attempt to build a working democracy even if things are a little rough to begin with. I think Obama is smart enough to do that, but I'm not sure of the Republicans in Congress.
Exactly what happens now is a bit unclear. At the moment the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is in charge but, at least so far, the Army appears committed to civilian rule and an open election of the next president. Of course that could take a while.
Before we begin celebrating a victory for democracy, allow me to make the point that, according to Pew Research, 82% of Egyptian Muslims think it' proper to stone an adulterer to death. You got that one? And considering just about everyone there is Muslim, that's close enough to 82% of the entire population.
Democracy requires an electorate whose heads are not completely up their asses. Democracy could turn into a nightmare in Egypt the same way it's a nightmare in Mississippi and Oklahoma.
Let's not forget that lurking in the background is the Muslim Brotherhood. They may not be Al-Quida but I don't trust them one bit. The world probably got a little more dangerous on Friday but that's not necessarily a bad thing. A true working democracy in Egypt would be a great leap forward for the region and perhaps that possibility makes it all worth while.
What the U.S. needs to do is support the Egyptian's attempt to build a working democracy even if things are a little rough to begin with. I think Obama is smart enough to do that, but I'm not sure of the Republicans in Congress.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Alvin Plantinga’s Free Will Defense
Alvin Plantinga is a philosopher that developed what is known as the “Free Will Defense” to address the Problem of Evil.
The Problem of Evil has been attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus and is typically quoted as follows:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? If he is neither able nor willing, then why call him God?”
Plantinga’s summarizes his defense as follows:
“A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if he does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, he must create creatures capable of moral evil; and he can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so.”
Get it?
It seems that most philosophers accept Plantinga’s argument as resolving the Problem of Evil.
A number of noted philosophers, including Anthony Flew, disagree and have criticized the argument because it assumes what is known as an “incompatibilist view” which postulates that free will and determinism are incompatible. Apparently they hold that “free will” and determinism are compatible.
I don’t buy that one. I have to admit that I consider free will and determinism incompatible so I’m not impressed with that criticism.
So, is the Problem of Evil resolved?
No, for three reasons. First, let’s consider the proposition “A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all.”
What would be more valuable, a world were 51% of the freely performed actions were morally good or a world where 52% of the actions were morally good? What about 52% versus 53%? 53% versus 54%?
Allow me to suggest that the fewer the number of evil actions, the more valuable the world. Given unlimited resources, I could create an environment for people where they may still retain the ability to do evil, but it would be extremely unlikely they would choose to do so because there would be no need.
If I were a God, I think I would also refrain from creating sociopaths or psychopaths who are almost guaranteed to do evil.
Yet God apparently chooses not to do either of these things. Instead we get a world with limited resources. A world in which it is a struggle to simply survive, never mind be happy, and he chooses to create creatures virtually guaranteed to do evil.
Second, let’s consider the question of choosing to do evil versus the ability to execute that choice.
If I knew that someone had kidnapped a child with the intent of torturing and abusing that child and I was capable of taking action to prevent it, you can be damn sure I would prevent it. I think it’s safe to say that 99% of humanity, including those currently locked up for choosing to do evil, would prevent it as well.
The free choice has been made. By allowing the execution of that choice I maintain there is no added value. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God should know about the intended evil action, be capable of stopping the action and desire to stop the action. I suspect convincing the parents of the child that allowing the execution of the freely chosen evil action was more “valuable” would be a long, hard sell.
Third, and by far the most damning objection, is that Plantinga’s argument only accounts for “moral evil,” evil perpetrated by human beings. It does not address “Natural Evil” such as tornados, earthquakes and plagues.
Plantinga’s response to this objection is that it is possible that these things are caused by non-human creatures with free will. In other words, devils and demons and jinns oh my! My immediate reaction upon hearing this idiocy was to simply toss the whole argument into the trash. But that would have been a sort of reverse argument from authority. What is important is what is said, not who said it. Just because the source has some ideas too stupid to be taken seriously (don’t we all?) shouldn’t invalidate everything he says.
So, the bottom line is I’m not impressed. I may not be a philosopher (how does one become a philosopher anyway?) but I have my share of intelligence. Perhaps God could not have created a world with no evil, but he should have been able to do a hell of a lot better than he did.
One other question. If God cannot create a world with no evil, does that mean that there is evil in Heaven? If there is, why is it Heaven? If there isn’t, then Plantinga’s proposition is false isn’t it?
The Problem of Evil has been attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus and is typically quoted as follows:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? If he is neither able nor willing, then why call him God?”
Plantinga’s summarizes his defense as follows:
“A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if he does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, he must create creatures capable of moral evil; and he can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so.”
Get it?
It seems that most philosophers accept Plantinga’s argument as resolving the Problem of Evil.
A number of noted philosophers, including Anthony Flew, disagree and have criticized the argument because it assumes what is known as an “incompatibilist view” which postulates that free will and determinism are incompatible. Apparently they hold that “free will” and determinism are compatible.
I don’t buy that one. I have to admit that I consider free will and determinism incompatible so I’m not impressed with that criticism.
So, is the Problem of Evil resolved?
No, for three reasons. First, let’s consider the proposition “A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all.”
What would be more valuable, a world were 51% of the freely performed actions were morally good or a world where 52% of the actions were morally good? What about 52% versus 53%? 53% versus 54%?
Allow me to suggest that the fewer the number of evil actions, the more valuable the world. Given unlimited resources, I could create an environment for people where they may still retain the ability to do evil, but it would be extremely unlikely they would choose to do so because there would be no need.
If I were a God, I think I would also refrain from creating sociopaths or psychopaths who are almost guaranteed to do evil.
Yet God apparently chooses not to do either of these things. Instead we get a world with limited resources. A world in which it is a struggle to simply survive, never mind be happy, and he chooses to create creatures virtually guaranteed to do evil.
Second, let’s consider the question of choosing to do evil versus the ability to execute that choice.
If I knew that someone had kidnapped a child with the intent of torturing and abusing that child and I was capable of taking action to prevent it, you can be damn sure I would prevent it. I think it’s safe to say that 99% of humanity, including those currently locked up for choosing to do evil, would prevent it as well.
The free choice has been made. By allowing the execution of that choice I maintain there is no added value. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God should know about the intended evil action, be capable of stopping the action and desire to stop the action. I suspect convincing the parents of the child that allowing the execution of the freely chosen evil action was more “valuable” would be a long, hard sell.
Third, and by far the most damning objection, is that Plantinga’s argument only accounts for “moral evil,” evil perpetrated by human beings. It does not address “Natural Evil” such as tornados, earthquakes and plagues.
Plantinga’s response to this objection is that it is possible that these things are caused by non-human creatures with free will. In other words, devils and demons and jinns oh my! My immediate reaction upon hearing this idiocy was to simply toss the whole argument into the trash. But that would have been a sort of reverse argument from authority. What is important is what is said, not who said it. Just because the source has some ideas too stupid to be taken seriously (don’t we all?) shouldn’t invalidate everything he says.
So, the bottom line is I’m not impressed. I may not be a philosopher (how does one become a philosopher anyway?) but I have my share of intelligence. Perhaps God could not have created a world with no evil, but he should have been able to do a hell of a lot better than he did.
One other question. If God cannot create a world with no evil, does that mean that there is evil in Heaven? If there is, why is it Heaven? If there isn’t, then Plantinga’s proposition is false isn’t it?
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
I keep running into this thing which theists seem to view as the holy grail. Well, you will excuse me but I’m not all that sure.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a logical argument attempting to demonstrate the existence of God. It is an argument championed by possibly the leading contemporary Christian Apologist Dr. William Lane Craig. The argument, as described by Craig, is as follows:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
There are a whole host of objections floating around to this argument but note something interesting, even if you accept the argument as valid, it only establishes that the Universe had a cause and not what that cause was nor that the cause, whatever it was, still exists.
The objection I find most entertaining was put forward by Dan Barker. Allow me to paraphrase Barker’s argument.
The premise, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause,” implies that there are two sets of things. Set BE which contains all the things which “Began to Exist” and NBE which contains all of the things which did “Not Begin to Exist.”
Now let’s consider NBE. Where the theist is going with this argument is that NBE consists of only the Primal Cause and that this Primal Cause is God. But if that’s the case, then the first premise becomes indistinguishable from “Everything but God had a cause.” This therefore assumes the existence of God in the premise and makes the argument circular.
There are also objections to the first premise based upon counter examples that appear to exist at the quantum level. Radioactive decay appears to be a random, causeless function. Carbon 14 decays into Carbon 12, but it’s a random occurrence. There is no particular “cause” at the instant it occurs.
Note that I don’t present these objections as demonstrating the invalidity of the Kalam argument, as I’m sure Craig has counter-arguments to the counter-arguments, but simply to point out that it’s not as easy as it might first appear.
Personally I find the whole gist of the argument reeking of fun with semantics. If one considers the Universe the set of all things, then saying the Universe began to exist implies that all things began to exist. But any cause must exist prior to its effect so therefore the Universe is not the set of all things. But if the Universe is not the set of all things, then where are these things that are not part of the Universe?
Clearly the theist implies these things include God, the Angels, Heaven and Hell, but this simply addresses what they are and not where they are. There is also the issue of Time. Time is a element of the Universe. Before the Universe existed the concept of Time is meaningless so how did these things outside the Universe differentiate between events such as the fall of Lucifer and the Creation without having them all occurring simultaneously and ad-infinitum.
I’m also not personally acquainted with everything that “began to exist,” so I can’t make the definitive statement that “Whatever begins to exist had a cause.” Such a statement would require exhaustive knowledge. I don’t have it and neither does Craig.
Words are meant as descriptions of reality but have no reality of their own. They can however be used to describe non-reality. Consider every fantasy story that has ever been written. The Kalam Cosmological Argument strikes a sour note with me. It seems to be just words without any reality behind them. A thought experiment that represents the worst form of philosophy because it is not supported by any foundation beyond the words. It’s all smoke and mirrors, all sound and fury but signifying nothing.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a logical argument attempting to demonstrate the existence of God. It is an argument championed by possibly the leading contemporary Christian Apologist Dr. William Lane Craig. The argument, as described by Craig, is as follows:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
There are a whole host of objections floating around to this argument but note something interesting, even if you accept the argument as valid, it only establishes that the Universe had a cause and not what that cause was nor that the cause, whatever it was, still exists.
The objection I find most entertaining was put forward by Dan Barker. Allow me to paraphrase Barker’s argument.
The premise, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause,” implies that there are two sets of things. Set BE which contains all the things which “Began to Exist” and NBE which contains all of the things which did “Not Begin to Exist.”
Now let’s consider NBE. Where the theist is going with this argument is that NBE consists of only the Primal Cause and that this Primal Cause is God. But if that’s the case, then the first premise becomes indistinguishable from “Everything but God had a cause.” This therefore assumes the existence of God in the premise and makes the argument circular.
There are also objections to the first premise based upon counter examples that appear to exist at the quantum level. Radioactive decay appears to be a random, causeless function. Carbon 14 decays into Carbon 12, but it’s a random occurrence. There is no particular “cause” at the instant it occurs.
Note that I don’t present these objections as demonstrating the invalidity of the Kalam argument, as I’m sure Craig has counter-arguments to the counter-arguments, but simply to point out that it’s not as easy as it might first appear.
Personally I find the whole gist of the argument reeking of fun with semantics. If one considers the Universe the set of all things, then saying the Universe began to exist implies that all things began to exist. But any cause must exist prior to its effect so therefore the Universe is not the set of all things. But if the Universe is not the set of all things, then where are these things that are not part of the Universe?
Clearly the theist implies these things include God, the Angels, Heaven and Hell, but this simply addresses what they are and not where they are. There is also the issue of Time. Time is a element of the Universe. Before the Universe existed the concept of Time is meaningless so how did these things outside the Universe differentiate between events such as the fall of Lucifer and the Creation without having them all occurring simultaneously and ad-infinitum.
I’m also not personally acquainted with everything that “began to exist,” so I can’t make the definitive statement that “Whatever begins to exist had a cause.” Such a statement would require exhaustive knowledge. I don’t have it and neither does Craig.
Words are meant as descriptions of reality but have no reality of their own. They can however be used to describe non-reality. Consider every fantasy story that has ever been written. The Kalam Cosmological Argument strikes a sour note with me. It seems to be just words without any reality behind them. A thought experiment that represents the worst form of philosophy because it is not supported by any foundation beyond the words. It’s all smoke and mirrors, all sound and fury but signifying nothing.
Monday, February 07, 2011
Super Bowl XLV
Ok, so age and treachery didn’t triumph although I was hoping Big Ben could pull it off in the last two minutes there. Three turnovers were just too much to overcome and Rashid’s Mendenhall’s fumble was probably the ultimate turning point.
With the final score 31-25 Packers over the Steelers, I finish up at 8-3 for the NFL play-offs this year. Hey, it could have been worse.
Speaking of things that could have been worse, SB XLV had its share.
Let’s start with the fans that thought they had tickets to the game. Apparently, Jerry “The Hitman” Jones,added some 15,000 temporary seats in his bid for a SB attendance record. Unfortunately some were apparently deemed unsafe and about 1,200 fans showed up at the game only to find they had no seats.
At first the luckless fans weren’t even allowed entry into the stadium but ultimately some 850 got seats. Another 400 were given access to a club area where they could watch on monitors or go to a standing room only section. The NFL has promised to refund three times the $800 face value of the tickets. The problem with that is some of these folks paid as much as $3,000 for the seats and then there are the travel expenses.
Next we learned that Christina Aguilera doesn’t know the words to the Star Spangled Banner. To be honest however, her mangling of the lyrics was the highlight of what I can only call a spectacularly uninspired performance. Man did she suck.
That brings us to the halftime show which had to be one of the worst I can remember. Does the phrase “cardboard cutouts yelling at you” conjure up an image? It was absolutely terrible as well as, given the probable average age of the fans in the stands, terribly age inappropriate. Holding off the second half for that garbage was downright criminal.
Luckily it was a good game and, when all is said and done, that’s what will be remembered. Ok, let’s move on to the draft.
With the final score 31-25 Packers over the Steelers, I finish up at 8-3 for the NFL play-offs this year. Hey, it could have been worse.
Speaking of things that could have been worse, SB XLV had its share.
Let’s start with the fans that thought they had tickets to the game. Apparently, Jerry “The Hitman” Jones,added some 15,000 temporary seats in his bid for a SB attendance record. Unfortunately some were apparently deemed unsafe and about 1,200 fans showed up at the game only to find they had no seats.
At first the luckless fans weren’t even allowed entry into the stadium but ultimately some 850 got seats. Another 400 were given access to a club area where they could watch on monitors or go to a standing room only section. The NFL has promised to refund three times the $800 face value of the tickets. The problem with that is some of these folks paid as much as $3,000 for the seats and then there are the travel expenses.
Next we learned that Christina Aguilera doesn’t know the words to the Star Spangled Banner. To be honest however, her mangling of the lyrics was the highlight of what I can only call a spectacularly uninspired performance. Man did she suck.
That brings us to the halftime show which had to be one of the worst I can remember. Does the phrase “cardboard cutouts yelling at you” conjure up an image? It was absolutely terrible as well as, given the probable average age of the fans in the stands, terribly age inappropriate. Holding off the second half for that garbage was downright criminal.
Luckily it was a good game and, when all is said and done, that’s what will be remembered. Ok, let’s move on to the draft.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Give me proof…
A not unusual “challenge” that many Creationists put on the table for advocates of Evolution takes the form “show me absolute proof, with 100% certainty, that…” any number of things ranging from how a given biological feature evolved to what existed prior to the Big Bang. Yes, I know the Big Bang is Cosmology and not Evolution but Creationists tend to confuse Evolution, Cosmology, Abiogenesis and atheism with sickening regularity.
There are several fallacies in these “challenges.”
The most obvious is that nothing in the natural world can be proven with 100% certainty. Absolute proof is only possible within the framework of mathematical systems. It is unattainable in the natural world. One can come close to absolute certainty, but the natural world deals in inference and probabilities.
The second fallacy is this that there is somehow something inherently wrong with saying “I don’t know.” If you don’t know, that’s ok. Perhaps someday you will know.
The final fallacy is what is known as a “false dichotomy.” In a false dichotomy questions are presented in an “either-or” manner which assumes only two possibilities. Since there are only two possibilities, if one can be proven FALSE that validates the second as TRUE.
The problem with that approach is that in the natural world there are a multitude of possibilities. Proving evolution wrong does not prove Creationism, or anything else for that matter, right.
There are several fallacies in these “challenges.”
The most obvious is that nothing in the natural world can be proven with 100% certainty. Absolute proof is only possible within the framework of mathematical systems. It is unattainable in the natural world. One can come close to absolute certainty, but the natural world deals in inference and probabilities.
The second fallacy is this that there is somehow something inherently wrong with saying “I don’t know.” If you don’t know, that’s ok. Perhaps someday you will know.
The final fallacy is what is known as a “false dichotomy.” In a false dichotomy questions are presented in an “either-or” manner which assumes only two possibilities. Since there are only two possibilities, if one can be proven FALSE that validates the second as TRUE.
The problem with that approach is that in the natural world there are a multitude of possibilities. Proving evolution wrong does not prove Creationism, or anything else for that matter, right.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Florida Federal Judge says Health Reform Law Unconstitutional
A Federal Judge in Florida has, apparently with some reluctance, has declared the Health Care Reform bill unconstitutional.
To quote Federal Judge Roger Vinson:
"... I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."
This is an interesting twist. States force individuals to buy auto insurance if they wish to drive. Of course not having auto insurance doesn't keep people from driving. Guess who ends up paying if they have an accident and injure someone? The other insured drivers do. That's you and me. A part of our insurance payments establish a fund to cover accidents caused by uninsured drivers.
Now unless uninsured people who get sick are denied medical attention, us, the insured folks, will end up paying for that as well.
I'm not seriously proposing we deny uninsured people medical care so I guess that's the way it will have to be. I'm not about to instruct a Federal Judge on the law either. Undoubtedly the Obama Administration will appeal. I find it hard to believe they will prevail now that two judges have declared the individual mandate unconstitutional.
There comes a time in every game when the right move is to drop back 15 and punt. That time may have come for the current Health Care Reform legislation.
To quote Federal Judge Roger Vinson:
"... I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."
In other words you can't force someone to buy Health Insurance.
This is an interesting twist. States force individuals to buy auto insurance if they wish to drive. Of course not having auto insurance doesn't keep people from driving. Guess who ends up paying if they have an accident and injure someone? The other insured drivers do. That's you and me. A part of our insurance payments establish a fund to cover accidents caused by uninsured drivers.
Now unless uninsured people who get sick are denied medical attention, us, the insured folks, will end up paying for that as well.
I'm not seriously proposing we deny uninsured people medical care so I guess that's the way it will have to be. I'm not about to instruct a Federal Judge on the law either. Undoubtedly the Obama Administration will appeal. I find it hard to believe they will prevail now that two judges have declared the individual mandate unconstitutional.
There comes a time in every game when the right move is to drop back 15 and punt. That time may have come for the current Health Care Reform legislation.
Egyptian Protests Still Going
Clearly Egyptian President Mubarak has become a man under siege. Some sources have reported that he is on the verge of giving up and resigning as President.Certainly nothing he has tried appears to have mollified the protesters. This could be big trouble.
Egypt is arguably the most religious country in the world. Open and free elections there could quite well turn the country over to the Muslim Brotherhood which is a fundamentalist Islamic group.
Democracy is not for everyone. As a matter of fact, I’m beginning to think that it’s not for anyone. I’m leaning toward an oligarchy of sorts where the right to vote is a privilege that needs to be earned rather than a right to which any idiot that happens to be born within the borders is entitled. And no, I’m not proposing a Star Troopers kind of requirement; I was thinking more along the lines of verifying basic knowledge on civics, history and how the government works.
But I digress.
Back to Egypt. Clearly Mubarak’s regime is teetering on the edge. Earlier I said that I didn’t think he was going anywhere and he is certainly fighting tooth and nail, but for every hole in plugs, two more appear to open. I still don’t think the end is a foregone conclusion but he better come up with something soon.
In the meantime I see that the under 80 IQ trailer park set, also known as the Republican Base, is blaming Obama for this. Blaming? Isn't Democracy a good thing? Oh well, never expect consistency from either a moron or a conservative. Oh, wait a minute, moron and conservative are redundant aren't they?
Egypt is arguably the most religious country in the world. Open and free elections there could quite well turn the country over to the Muslim Brotherhood which is a fundamentalist Islamic group.
Democracy is not for everyone. As a matter of fact, I’m beginning to think that it’s not for anyone. I’m leaning toward an oligarchy of sorts where the right to vote is a privilege that needs to be earned rather than a right to which any idiot that happens to be born within the borders is entitled. And no, I’m not proposing a Star Troopers kind of requirement; I was thinking more along the lines of verifying basic knowledge on civics, history and how the government works.
But I digress.
Back to Egypt. Clearly Mubarak’s regime is teetering on the edge. Earlier I said that I didn’t think he was going anywhere and he is certainly fighting tooth and nail, but for every hole in plugs, two more appear to open. I still don’t think the end is a foregone conclusion but he better come up with something soon.
In the meantime I see that the under 80 IQ trailer park set, also known as the Republican Base, is blaming Obama for this. Blaming? Isn't Democracy a good thing? Oh well, never expect consistency from either a moron or a conservative. Oh, wait a minute, moron and conservative are redundant aren't they?
Friday, January 28, 2011
Arizona Law on Birth Rights
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
This amendment was passed in order to guarantee that freed slaves and their offspring would be American Citizens. It’s unlikely that at the time anyone considered the question of the offspring of illegal immigrants.
Historically the phrase as been interpreted to simply mean that, other than under a few exceptions, if you are born within the territory of the United States, then you are an American citizen. Republicans in Arizona are preparing to challenge that interpretation.
Several bills have been introduced in the state legislature to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. Today, they would automatically be granted citizenship based upon the simple fact of being born here. Under the Arizona bills they would not.
How can they do this? Isn’t this in violation of the 14th Amendment and therefore the U.S. Constitution? Well, perhaps. What the Arizona legislators are really doing is setting up a challenge to the traditional interpretation in the Supreme Court and they are basing that challenge on the phrase “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
What exactly does that phrase mean? Well, suppose a visiting pregnant monarch gave birth prematurely? It might be a little awkward to say that the monarch’s child, and perhaps heir to a foreign throne, is a citizen of the United States.
The issue of course is that the visiting monarch is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States and neither are diplomats. In the landmark case “U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark” in 1898 the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment must be interpreted based upon English Common Law and included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.
Unfortunately, if one goes back to the actual debates related to the 14th Amendment in 1866 one can make the case that the phrase is actually synonymous with the phrase “not subject to any foreign power.” This was precisely the phrase used in the Civil Rights act Of 1866 passed by the same Congress as the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights act declared a citizen to be “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”
So, if that’s what they meant, why isn’t that what they said?
Possibly because there was an intent to change the citizenship definition by expanding it. What about the children of legal immigrants? Many countries maintain the principle that children born to their citizens are likewise citizens and subject to their jurisdiction. Would they be excluded from American citizenship if their parents had immigrated here and not yet taken out American citizenship?
What about an American with a foreign bride (which happens with some regularity given our military adventures abroad)? Any child born to such a union could be claimed by the brides home nation. Would the child then be “subject to a foreign power” and not entitled to natural born citizenship?
The Supreme Court decision made it simple. Other than the three exceptions noted, if you’re born here, you’re an American citizen, and a natural born citizen at that, eligible one day to sit in the Oval Office as President.
Now I’m sure Conservatives will claim that this is an egregious case of Judicial Activism and the court creating law rather than interpreting it. Perhaps, but if the law isn’t allowed to grow with the times, it ceases to provide justice; if it ceases to provide justice, then it is bad law and unworthy of being considered what the Constitution says.
To my mind the Arizona legislators are wrong and, hopefully, the current Supreme Court will agree with the court of 1898 and see it that way as well.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
This amendment was passed in order to guarantee that freed slaves and their offspring would be American Citizens. It’s unlikely that at the time anyone considered the question of the offspring of illegal immigrants.
Historically the phrase as been interpreted to simply mean that, other than under a few exceptions, if you are born within the territory of the United States, then you are an American citizen. Republicans in Arizona are preparing to challenge that interpretation.
Several bills have been introduced in the state legislature to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. Today, they would automatically be granted citizenship based upon the simple fact of being born here. Under the Arizona bills they would not.
How can they do this? Isn’t this in violation of the 14th Amendment and therefore the U.S. Constitution? Well, perhaps. What the Arizona legislators are really doing is setting up a challenge to the traditional interpretation in the Supreme Court and they are basing that challenge on the phrase “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
What exactly does that phrase mean? Well, suppose a visiting pregnant monarch gave birth prematurely? It might be a little awkward to say that the monarch’s child, and perhaps heir to a foreign throne, is a citizen of the United States.
The issue of course is that the visiting monarch is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States and neither are diplomats. In the landmark case “U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark” in 1898 the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment must be interpreted based upon English Common Law and included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.
Unfortunately, if one goes back to the actual debates related to the 14th Amendment in 1866 one can make the case that the phrase is actually synonymous with the phrase “not subject to any foreign power.” This was precisely the phrase used in the Civil Rights act Of 1866 passed by the same Congress as the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights act declared a citizen to be “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”
So, if that’s what they meant, why isn’t that what they said?
Possibly because there was an intent to change the citizenship definition by expanding it. What about the children of legal immigrants? Many countries maintain the principle that children born to their citizens are likewise citizens and subject to their jurisdiction. Would they be excluded from American citizenship if their parents had immigrated here and not yet taken out American citizenship?
What about an American with a foreign bride (which happens with some regularity given our military adventures abroad)? Any child born to such a union could be claimed by the brides home nation. Would the child then be “subject to a foreign power” and not entitled to natural born citizenship?
The Supreme Court decision made it simple. Other than the three exceptions noted, if you’re born here, you’re an American citizen, and a natural born citizen at that, eligible one day to sit in the Oval Office as President.
Now I’m sure Conservatives will claim that this is an egregious case of Judicial Activism and the court creating law rather than interpreting it. Perhaps, but if the law isn’t allowed to grow with the times, it ceases to provide justice; if it ceases to provide justice, then it is bad law and unworthy of being considered what the Constitution says.
To my mind the Arizona legislators are wrong and, hopefully, the current Supreme Court will agree with the court of 1898 and see it that way as well.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Of Tunisia and Egypt
Tunisia’s dictator has been toppled thanks to the Army’s refusal to put down protesters and now similar demonstrations have broken out in Egypt.
On the surface this is reminiscent of the domino effect in the Eastern European countries in the 1980s but I wouldn’t get too excited. I doubt Mubarak is going anywhere and the jury is still out on whether Tunisia can manage to become the first Arab democracy.
The whole concept of democracy sort of runs counter to the Islamic culture of unquestioned divine authority. Still, stranger things have happened. We shall see what we shall see.
On the surface this is reminiscent of the domino effect in the Eastern European countries in the 1980s but I wouldn’t get too excited. I doubt Mubarak is going anywhere and the jury is still out on whether Tunisia can manage to become the first Arab democracy.
The whole concept of democracy sort of runs counter to the Islamic culture of unquestioned divine authority. Still, stranger things have happened. We shall see what we shall see.
Monday, January 24, 2011
The Super Bowl
Oh boy, 2-0 for the Championship games and 8-2 overall for the play-offs. If I didn’t know better, I’d start to think I actually know what I’m talking about.
The reality of the situation is given the “parity” that the NFL has come pretty close to achieving, every game is probably not much better than a 55-45 breakdown and in the play-offs it probably drops pretty close to a 50-50 proposition.
Still, it feels good to finally get the better of my pet goat Frankie in predicting the NFL. He’s been sulking out back ever since Roethlisberger completed that 4th quarter pass which clinched it for the Steelers.
One word about Jay Cutler, personally I would never question a player's assessment as to whether he’s too injured to play. If Jay says he couldn’t play, I believe him, and that should be the end of the discussion. I’d like to get some of the blog wusses that are complaining about him out on the field for about 15 minutes. That would be more than enough time to shut them up. Let's not forget that we're talking about the man's livlihood here and there are many more games yet to be played.
So now, ta-da, on to the Super Bowl.
The Packers are the early favorite, not because Las Vegas believes they’re the better team, but simply because of the betting patterns up until now.
To my mind Aaron Rodgers looked like a much cooled off Quarterback against the Bears defense. Roethlisberger on the other hand did what needed to be done when it needed to be done.
As for the running game, two words, Rashard Mendenhall. He gives the Steelers the balance that I think is going to desert the Packers. Yes, their running game has been better than expected during the play-offs, but I think the Steelers will shut it down.
There’s no question that Rodgers and his talented receiver corps are capable of carrying the game without much of a running attack against most teams, but I don’t think they can do it against the Steelers.
Remember the old saying, "Experience and treachery will win out over youth and talent when all the chips are on the line." Well, all the chips are on the line. The Steelers will manage just enough offense to win. Let's call it 24-20 in favor of big Ben and the Steelers.
The reality of the situation is given the “parity” that the NFL has come pretty close to achieving, every game is probably not much better than a 55-45 breakdown and in the play-offs it probably drops pretty close to a 50-50 proposition.
Still, it feels good to finally get the better of my pet goat Frankie in predicting the NFL. He’s been sulking out back ever since Roethlisberger completed that 4th quarter pass which clinched it for the Steelers.
One word about Jay Cutler, personally I would never question a player's assessment as to whether he’s too injured to play. If Jay says he couldn’t play, I believe him, and that should be the end of the discussion. I’d like to get some of the blog wusses that are complaining about him out on the field for about 15 minutes. That would be more than enough time to shut them up. Let's not forget that we're talking about the man's livlihood here and there are many more games yet to be played.
So now, ta-da, on to the Super Bowl.
The Packers are the early favorite, not because Las Vegas believes they’re the better team, but simply because of the betting patterns up until now.
To my mind Aaron Rodgers looked like a much cooled off Quarterback against the Bears defense. Roethlisberger on the other hand did what needed to be done when it needed to be done.
As for the running game, two words, Rashard Mendenhall. He gives the Steelers the balance that I think is going to desert the Packers. Yes, their running game has been better than expected during the play-offs, but I think the Steelers will shut it down.
There’s no question that Rodgers and his talented receiver corps are capable of carrying the game without much of a running attack against most teams, but I don’t think they can do it against the Steelers.
Remember the old saying, "Experience and treachery will win out over youth and talent when all the chips are on the line." Well, all the chips are on the line. The Steelers will manage just enough offense to win. Let's call it 24-20 in favor of big Ben and the Steelers.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
The NFL Championship Games
I was riding high there for a while last weekend. There I was going into the Jets-Patriots game 3-0 for the Divisional Play-offs and 6-1 overall basking in the confident glow that Tom Brady and company were going to put away the Jets as I had predicted.
Ooops! Well, I guess 6-2 isn’t that bad.
Hey, I’ve got one more right than I had through the Super Bowl last year and there are still three games to go. Unfortunately I’m quite capable of getting all three of them wrong. So, let’s get to the Championship Games shall we?
AFC Championship Game
Jets at Steelers
Hmmm, what to do here? The Jets beat the Steelers during the regular season and just managed to beat Payton Manning and Tom Brady on consecutive weekends. They seem to have the Golden glow this season. Things just seem to go right for them. On the other side, the Steelers seem a bit worn around the edges. I should go with the Golden Boy Jets, but I’m not. I’m staying on the dark side. Ben and the Steelers send the Jets home.
NFC Championship Game
Packers at Bears
I’ve never seen a quarterback as hot as Aaron Rodgers. The Packers have built up an incredible head of steam and I think they’re going to flatten the Bears. When in doubt, go with the best quarterback and I’ll take Rodgers over Cutler any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I’m going with the Packers.
Ooops! Well, I guess 6-2 isn’t that bad.
Hey, I’ve got one more right than I had through the Super Bowl last year and there are still three games to go. Unfortunately I’m quite capable of getting all three of them wrong. So, let’s get to the Championship Games shall we?
AFC Championship Game
Jets at Steelers
Hmmm, what to do here? The Jets beat the Steelers during the regular season and just managed to beat Payton Manning and Tom Brady on consecutive weekends. They seem to have the Golden glow this season. Things just seem to go right for them. On the other side, the Steelers seem a bit worn around the edges. I should go with the Golden Boy Jets, but I’m not. I’m staying on the dark side. Ben and the Steelers send the Jets home.
NFC Championship Game
Packers at Bears
I’ve never seen a quarterback as hot as Aaron Rodgers. The Packers have built up an incredible head of steam and I think they’re going to flatten the Bears. When in doubt, go with the best quarterback and I’ll take Rodgers over Cutler any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I’m going with the Packers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
