This is a must-share video I found through this Bad Astronomy post (which I found via this Twitter comment). It shows a politician calling a spade a spade.

Thank you Barney Frank.

This quiz has been floating around Facebook for a while, but doesn’t display there nicely. I thought I’d put it here for your amusement. I think it turned out pretty accurately.

With all the media coverage of the health care reform bill and the conflict between the two sides I found myself asking this question, why do we need health care reform? When I ask myself that question I feel it is my duty to then education myself on the matter and that is what I did.  Let me give you a quick run down of facts that I gathered from various places such as, the National Coalition on Health Care, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Economic Policy Institute.

• The average annual premiums for family coverage increased $5,791 in 1999 to $12,680 in 2008¹
• During that same period, the average annual worker contributions to the premium increased 120% compared to an increase of 44% in inflation and 29% increase in wages²
• According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, insurance premiums are increasing at a rate of 4 times the rate of wage increase²
• 2.7 million fewer people under the age of 65 had employer provided health insurance in 2007 compared to 2000 a 5.4% decline³
• The U.S. population saw a growth in the number of people who had a health care burden in excess of 10% of disposable income from 15.8% to 19.2%³
• In 2000 5.7% of total compensation was spent on health insurance premiums by the end of 2006 the spending amounted to 7.2%, all while wages fell 2.5% as a share of total compensation³

After reading all these facts and figures and the other accompanying material I quickly realized exactly why we need reform, the question is what is the “right” reform? Is it a one-payer system, an overhaul of the current private system or some hybrid?  I don’t have an answer to that question but what I do know is that what we have now isn’t working.

References:

1. Kaiser/HRET Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Benefits, 1999-2008
2. National Coalition on Health Care – Facts on Health Care Costs 2008 (pdf)
3. Gould, Elise – The State of Working America pg 335, 336 & 348 (pdf)

I’m a bit of a definition junkie. I think it comes from studying philosophy. It seems that most of the big questions are difficult to answer because the terms involved turn out to be so ill-defined. Thus much of the efforts in philosophy is not really aimed at answering the big questions, but precisely defining the words and concepts in the question. If that is achieved the answer usually falls right out.

So I’ve recently been thinking about the term “Godless” – often used as a derogatory term for agnostics and atheists. Literally it means “without god” but carries with it a very negative connotation. It suggests non-believers lack something or are missing something desirable. Think of the term ‘penniless’ for comparison.

That doesn’t accurately describe an atheist’s feeling on the matter at all. We do not feel like we are lacking anything for we don’t desire a god at all (such would be pointless as they are almost certainly fiction). I wanted a better term and found it in an unlikely place.

It turns out, couples who do not want children are in a similar situation. They are often described as being ‘childless’ though they don’t feel they are lacking anything. Thus they’ve adopted the term ‘childfree‘. Similarly, I’ve been using the term ‘godfree’.

Strictly speaking, ‘Godless’ and ‘godfree’ mean the same thing: “without god(s)”; though the capital ‘G’ implies monotheism and the lowercase is exclusive of polytheistic deities as well. Yet they have different connotations. Being something-less means one is without something desired. Being something-free means one is without something undesired. People who do not want caffeine in their soda will drink ‘caffeine-free’ soda, those who want children but are unable to have them are ‘childless’. Atheists, by and large, do not want any gods and do not have any. Thus the term ‘godfree’ is more appropriate.

It has occurred to me that precisely defining these terms in this way has a very interesting consequence. To understand it, you’ll have to adopt my point of view for a moment. Go ahead, it won’t hurt… There! A little uncomfortable, I’m sure, but you won’t have to wear it long. Now notice that there are no gods. Good. What’s that mean for religious people? They are without any gods for none exist but they desire a god (or gods). Which term, ‘Godless’ or ‘godfree’ is more appropriate? Using the definitions described above, you’ve guessed it….

…Religious people are the Godless ones!

Thanks for reading whether you’re godfree or Godless.

Scott posted one of those “learn more about you” questions on his blog and I decided to participate. This one is relatively simple:

Rules: Don’t take too long to think about it. Fifteen books you’ve read that will always stick with you. First fifteen you can recall in no more than 15 minutes.

1. Dune by Frank Herbert – Utterly compelling story that’s stuck with me
2. Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card – Another compelling story with a definite dark side
3. Snow Crash by Neil Stephenson – To call this one thought provoking is an understatement
4. Inferno by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle – Taught me that reading can be extremely fun
5. Watership Down by Richard Adams – Who new a story about rabbits could be so dramatic
6. Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous by George Berkeley – Taught me that the obviously absurd may not be as absurd as first thought
7. Meditations of First Philosophy by René Descartes – I learned that doubt is one of the best tools we have to create knowledge
8. The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan – I for one welcome our new corn overlords
9. Foundation Series by Isaac Asimov – Read these so long ago that I’ve forgotten much of thier content, but I remember the love I had for them
10. The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien – This has been read to me at least twice in my life. The level of intimacy created by such an act is profound
11. Lord of the Rings Trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien – These were also read to me
12. Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky – First classic that I choose to read
13. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins – Helped me refine my theological thinking and enabled me to be more out about my atheism
14. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis – Reminded me that just because it’s Christian doesn’t automatically make it foolish
15. Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter – Felt like I was in the presence of a genius the entire time I read it. I wish I understood more of it

And I thought 15 would be difficult to come up with. They are listed in a very particular order – the order in which I thought of them. The downside is that since coming up with these initial ones, I keep thinking of so many more that have impacted my thinking. If these were listed by importance, I’d definitely have to include “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for His Hat” by Oliver Sacks, “Rethinking Life and Death” by Peter Singer, and “Utilitarianism” by John Stuart Mill. These books along with a few others in my list helped me rebuild a worldview after freeing myself from religion.

I’m sure there are so many others that slipped my mind today for whatever reason. What’s your list?

Kate Hopkins runs one of my favorite food blogs, Accidental Hedonist (second only to my close friend’s The Way the Cookie Crumbles). Hopkins is also the author of the overly-subtitled book: 99 Drams of Whiskey: The Accidental Hedonist’s Quest for the Perfect Shot and the History of the Drink. Back in the Spring, she posted an offer to her readers who have their own blogs: agree to dedicate a post to reviewing her new book and receive a free copy. Wait a moment. I like whiskey. I like books. I have a blog. So I requested a copy. Several weeks later, it arrives.

The book is equal parts travel log, history, and whiskey review. Hopkins’ writing style is informal, personal, and very easy to read. She seamlessly moves from, say, her visit to a distillery to the drink’s impact on local culture and laws then back to the distillery for the tasting. It felt like I was traveling with her to Ireland, Scotland, Canada, and America. All the while, we discussed the drink that we both love. This tone may be off-putting to those who are snobbish serious about whiskey but it suited me just fine. Taste is such a subjective experience that is unconsciously influenced by things other than the drink. I am skeptical that tasting ‘experts’ can objectively identify taste subtleties.

One aspect of the book that I value greatly is that Hopkins describes the context of every one of her whiskey tastings. I knew what her mood was, where she was, who she was with, how the whiskey was presented, etc. This is in stark contrast to the ‘professionals’ who all-too-often leave these things out claiming objectivity. Being aware of the entire situation definitely allowed me to better evaluate her opinions. Also helpful are the more formal reviews of some of the whiskeys interspersed with the text. This included a brief description followed by a section for the nose, taste, finish, and character.

I’ve done a little studying of whiskey’s history. Yet I was still able to learn a lot from 99 Drams. Most of my research has been around the history of the production of whiskey. Hopkins includes a history of cultural influences, taxation, the business history, the impact of the Temperance Movement in general and Prohibition in particular. It’s rocky history gave me an even grater appreciation for the drink.

I’m no stranger to whiskey (nor am I any kind of expert); it’s been my adult beverage of choice for a few years now. Yet I was able to learn many new things about it from 99 Drams of Whiskey. In addition to the historical aspects, I learned some commonalities about my favorite whiskeys and that there is an emerging approach to distilling that is comparable to micro-brewing for beers. I’ve even identified a few whiskeys I’d like to try. Overall, I enjoyed Hopkins’ book very much and would recommend it to anyone who enjoys or is even interested in whiskey. Everyone but the snobs; they’ll just get annoyed.

… if what you’re mocking is pseudoscience and/or superstition. The target of this lovely video? Homeopathy.

Found this on Bad Astronomy via Weird Things.

About once a week, I visit my favorite liberal propaganda website to reinforce many of my political opinions. One of the articles this week was about the debate over marijuana legalization. It was definitely written from the anti-prohibition viewpoint, so my thoughts were very nicely echoed.

It was then that I realized that I’ve never mentioned my stance on drug policy on my blog! This must be rectified. So here it is. I’m for the legalization of any drug for recreational use that isn’t highly addictive. This means I support the legalization of marijuana. The reasons are the same as the relatively well-known ones. Just in case you don’t know them, I’ll list them here.

• reduce violence associated with large black markets
• generate revenue through taxation
• end major portion of a failed and costly drug ‘war’
• is less harmful to one’s health than already legal recreational drugs
• end part of racist drug policy and enforcement
• able regulate to create a safe product

The first point is the most important to me. Even if the drug was habit-forming, I’d rather have addicts than bodies. High demand combined with prohibition for any substance has one inevitable effect: It creates a black market run by organized crime syndicates that invariably are violent. Combine that with the fact that the drug is harmless to one’s health and that it makes economic sense should make this policy change a no-brainer.

So why do people oppose legalization? Here are the reasons I know of:

Read the rest of this entry »

This is just too funny not to share. Thanks to Podblack Cat for sharing it with me.

Recently, Roger Ebert wrote a wonderful essay about death – his death in particular. Overall, I think his attitude towards his own demise is a very healthy one. It also shows that one can approach the end of life fearlessly without any belief in an afterlife.

I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear. I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state. What I am grateful for is the gift of intelligence, and for life, love, wonder, and laughter.

He goes on to write:

But certainly, some readers have informed me, it is a tragic and dreary business to go into death without faith. I don’t feel that way. “Faith” is neutral. All depends on what is believed in. I have no desire to live forever. The concept frightens me.

I’ve had that very same fear when I did believe in an afterlife. Another option, annihilation, is much more appealing. My reasoning is captured in a Nietzsche quote, “Against boredom the gods themselves fight in vain.” Immortality sounds more like a burden than bonus to me. Others go even further, “I prefer not continuing to exist merely at the whim of a deity.”

The entire essay is well worth the read. Also of interest is a discussion of personal death that took place after this essay was posted on Dawkins’s website. It’s good insight into how non-believers think about their own inevitable demise.

On a side note, Ebert links to an interesting religious quiz in his essay. It’s purpose is to rank worldviews according to their compatibility with your beliefs. You can see my results below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »