Am I the only one who doesn’t really like it? It is sort of cute from a historical perspective, but if someone asks you about it and what it means, I don’t think it really helps them understand quantum mechanics any better. Besides it is just a poor example. A cat’s wavefunction is way way WAY too unstable to ever be put into a superposition of states.
I really want to support the U.S. action. I do. Gaddafi is a tyrant and a nutjob. I think this rebellion has a better chance of success with the help from the U.S. and the rest of the coalition.
Here’s the ‘but.’ There are other rebellions going on. Why aren’t we helping them? The answer is that it is not in our interest. Take Bahrain. The government has met protests with violence. Bahrain is good friends with Saudi Arabia, our ally and petroleum pusher. So we won’t help out Bahrain’s people no matter how fucked they are because it isn’t in our interest.
For me this delegitimizes any claim to our actions being for moral or humanitarian good. It’s just the big U.S. doing what it always does, using the military to further its interest.
Part of me says, “Who the cares as long as it saves some peoples’ lives?” The other part says, “Acting morally when it suits you isn’t really acting morally at all.” So I don’t know. What do you think?
An investigation found that sexual abuse occurred in ALL of Belgian’s Catholic Churches:
Investigators, working with the support of the Belgian Catholic Church received 475 complaints of child abuse committed in the 1950s through to the late 1980s by Catholic clergy.
“We can say that no…
I don’t know what else to say about this. It happens so often that I think we are now jaded to it. Just think for a moment though, about how many lives have been ruined. Think about the pain and shame that the victims feel. Think about the horror you would feel being sodomized as a child. Think about the rage and pain the parents feel.
Now consider all that, and think about the cowardly cover ups and callous disregard the church has shown.
When Republicans profited from the miserable economy to sweep up huge wins in last fall’s election, most political watchers figured they knew what was coming: budget cuts, privatization of more government functions, and tax cuts for the wealthy. The push to dismantle public sector unions has been a bit of a surprise, but not a jarring one.
But what seems to have thrown everyone — save for a handful of embittered and neglected pro-choice activists — for a loop is the way Republican lawmakers at both the national and state levels have focused so intently on the uteruses of America. Republicans appear to believe that the women of America have wildly mismanaged these uteruses in the four decades since the Supreme Court gave them control over them — and now that Republicans have even a little bit of power, they’re going to bring this reign of female tyranny over uteruses to an end.
After all, the Republican House speaker, John Boehner, has identified limiting women’s access to abortion and contraception as a “top priority” — this with the economy is in tatters and the world in turmoil. Boehner’s and the GOP’s abortion fixation raises an obvious question: Why now, when there are so many other pressing issues at stake?
On CNN. It follows the story of a congregation of Muslims in Tennessee as they face opposition from the townsfolk about the building of a Mosque.
As an atheist I always feel a bit strange talking about this matter. I am so used to trying to peel religion apart, to exposing it’s illogical nature and the damage I think it does to society. So how can I use the same breath to defend the rights of these people to build a mosque where they please? Easy.
Its their fucking right. They own the land, and they can do what they want with it. Plus there is this little thing called the Bill of Rights that guarantees freedom of religion. If a bunch of people want dance naked in a circle and worship the sun god, its no ones business to stop them. You can say to them as I do, that it is all a big waste of time and there is no sun god, but I don’t want to live in a world where the government tells you what to believe, how to dress, and what to do with your own property as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.
I knew this would be inevitable. I thought it would be Paul or Rubio who would try to step up and be the “GOP Obama.” (Young Senator who is riding a large wave of recent support from the “grassroots” to presidential nomination)
If Paul or Rubio gets it, don’t be surprised if they go the same route that Obama did, and choose an older congressmen who ran for president before to be his running mate.
I don’t know a damn thing about Rubio. I am conflicted about Paul. On the one hand, he is a nut and would be a terrible President. On the other hand, because he is a nut he might be easy for a Democrat to run against. On the third hand, maybe a Rand Paul Presidency would make the country realize that it needs to get its shit together. Like waking up next to someone unpleasant after a bender.
I have an uncle who claims to be a Libertarian. I regularly enjoy shouting down his little blurbs on Facebook.
My uncle holds a lot of views that other Americans who claim to be Libertarian have:
Taxes are bad
Government is bad
Poor people are lazy
Rich people have worked hard to get their money
The problem is, none of this really has anything to do with what modern philosophers call Libertarianism. Now I am just an amateur moral philosopher, but don’t think I miss the mark to far by saying that the axiom of Libertarianism is to maximize people’s freedom. We’ll set aside how good or bad our axiom is and see if the above views agree with that.
Are taxes bad? An old Libertarian calculation goes as follows. You work to make money, taxes take your money, so taxes are slavery. This is fallacious of course, because in a democracy we (at least theoretically) consent to be governed and therefore taxed. Does government spend taxes badly? Well yes and no, of course. Let’s get more specific and talk about the things that so-called Libertarians really don’t like. These are mostly social programs like public healthcare and Planned Parenthood. Those who work hard should not have to support those who do not as my uncle would say. So standing by the axiom of increasing freedom, how does the claim of “taxes are bad” stand up? Having available healthcare and education in a culture means that the culture is more upwardly mobile. If you are born poor, but have access to good quality education and healthcare you stand a better chance of being able to do what you want with your life. You are better able to pull yourself up with “your bootstraps.” Ironically, this is something most so-called Libertarians extol, but it rarely happens.
The best indicator of how much money someone will one day make is how much money their parents had. If even 20% of those born poor were later able to become upper-class or upper-middle-class we would live in a much free-er and more upwardly mobile society.
What many conservatives in the United States call Libertarianism fails by its own axioms. There are societies that collect very little tax and have limited government. I don’t think I would like to live in any of them. Jamaica, Burkina Faso, Kazakhstan? Are these places of great personal liberty? Are they home to entrepreneurs who come from nothing to become captains of industry? No. They are impoverished. The people are poor and have little prospect of changing their lot in life. What many conservatives call Libertarianism isn’t a coherent moral or political philosophy, it is just a list of dogmas and prescriptions.
Less than a year ago, a drilling rig exploded off the coast of the United States, killing 11 workers and pouring 4 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. No natural disaster caused this tragedy. It was entirely man-made. President Obama halted deep-water drilling but lifted the moratorium less than six months later. On Friday, while fielding questions about Japan’s nuclear reactors, he proudly noted that his administration, under new, stricter rules, had “approved more than 35 new offshore drilling permits.”
That’s how we deal with tragedies in the oil business. Accidents happen. People die. Pollution spreads. We don’t abandon oil. We study what went wrong, try to fix it, and move on.
Contrast this with the panic over Japan’s reactors. For 40 years, they’ve quietly done their work. Three days ago, they were hit almost simultaneously by Japan’s worst earthquake and one of its worst tsunamis. Not one reactor container has failed. The only employee who has died at a Japanese nuclear facility since the quake was killed by a crane. Despite this, voices are rising in Europe and the United States to abandon nuclear power. Industry analysts predict that the Japan scare, like Chernobyl, will freeze plant construction.
Early reports said four Japanese plants were in trouble. Now it appears only two were disabled. Early reports said three employees had radiation sickness. Now we’re hearing only one is sick, and even in that case, the radiation dose appears relatively low. Two reactor buildings exploded, but these were explosions of excess hydrogen, not nuclear fuel, and neither of them ruptured the inner containers that encase the reactor cores. Some radiation has leaked, but according to measurements outside the plants, the amount so far is modest. Any leak is bad, and the area of contamination, even at low rates, will probably spread. Japan needs our sympathy and our help. But let’s not exaggerate the crisis.
In advanced countries like Japan and the United States, nuclear plants are built to standards no drilling rig can touch. If a sensor, cable, or power source fails, another sensor, cable, or power source is available. Containers of steel or concrete envelop the reactors to prevent massive radiation leaks. Chernobyl didn’t have such a container. Three Mile Island did. That’s why Three Mile Island produced no uncontrolled leakage or injuries.
If Japan, the United States, or Europe retreats from nuclear power in the face of the current panic, the most likely alternative energy source is fossil fuel. And by any measure, fossil fuel is more dangerous. The sole fatal nuclear power accident of the last 40 years, Chernobyl, directly killed 31 people. By comparison, Switzerland’s Paul Scherrer Institutecalculates that from 1969 to 2000, more than 20,000 people died in severe accidents in the oil supply chain. More than 15,000 people died in severe accidents in the coal supply chain—11,000 in China alone. The rate of direct fatalities per unit of energy production is 18 times worse for oil than it is for nuclear power.
Certainly interesting. I can imagine if I had worked on a theory for decades, I would be a bit bummed if it turned out to be wrong. That is how science works, though. I for one will be excited to see how things turn out.
So, let me get this straight...Charlie Sheen can make a "porn family", Kelsey Grammar can end a 15 year marriage over the phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE. Yet, the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really? Reblog if you are proud to support equal rights.