More Iraq Links

From Chris Floyd:

• As Iraqis See It
• CSI Iraq
  

The Edge's Annual Question for 2008

What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Among my favorites:

• Sherry Turkle
• Richard Dawkins
• Any of those scientists who are beginning to reject Platonism

This is Hell: 7/28/2007

This is Hell

Read the Report

A bit of real reporting in action

Hey! A candidate gets some "tough" questioning!

More Links & Reading

• http://www.opencongress.org/
• Dawkins: 12 Misunderstandings of Kin Selection
• http://www.mahablog.com/2008/01/12/brain-wiring/
• http://leiterreports.typepad.com/
  

Wonder where I get my links? Well, my favorites are to the right there, but here is a nice list for y'all:

• http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/
• http://www.crooksandliars.com/
• http://crookedtimber.org/
• http://boingboing.net/

It's Business Time!!

Anime for Jonathan Coulton's Code Monkey

More Links that might be of Interest

• Big Pharma spends more on ads than dev
• Capital Punishment
  
• My discussion re: Capital Punishment
• Scientific Explanation
• bloggingheads.tv: Liberty vs. Security
• The myth of sectarianism - The policy is divide to rule

Update:

• Krugman on 'political prediction markets'
  
• Comment on Glenn Greenwald's Salon blog re: Obama
• On Bi-partisanship and discussion
  

Christian Nusslein-Volhard: Coming to Life, How Genes Drive Development

A great flash presentation as an overview of her book.

Again, evolution is fact. Tell your neighbor.

Philosophy Bites: G.A. Cohen on Inequality of Wealth

Letter on Reinhard's: The Moral Landscape of 'Juno'

David Reinhard just can not understand why anyone does good:

Oh, the characters generally do the right, life-affirming thing in the end. But I'm not sure they -- or anyone else in "Juno" -- could tell you why. There are no moral or ethical structures to guide them. There's no overarching belief system. The characters are at the mercy of their feelings.
. . .
An actual belief system provides a sturdier moral foundation, though I'll admit it might not go over big in a hip movie about teenage pregnancy. It might smack too much of morality and, egads, religion.

Uggh.

Here was my letter:

I have read all the "New Atheists" books (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens) but I must say David Reinhard's piece ('Random acts of kindness, senseless acts of beauty?', Jan. 6) almost has me convinced as to the benefit of religion. He says that without an "actual belief system", eg. religion, good deeds are inexplicable. The "New Atheists" assert that, basically, our moral intuitions come to us via evolution. But I am beginning to wonder. Thank goodness for religion! Undoubtedly, without it Reinhard would be raping and killing as desired.

Tally: Week of Dec. 28 - Jan. 3

Letters Received: 449
Letters Published: 71

Most Popular Topic: The Bush administration
Number of Letters: 56
Opposed: 50
Support: 6

Second Most Popular Topic: The presidential campaign
Number of Letters: 34

Klein stumps for vapidity

Ezra Klein here analyzes the speeches of Obama, Edwards, and Clinton:

Listening to her speech, it occurred to me that there's a second, less thematic, way to separate the various candidate's speeches: Scope. Obama speaks at the level of narrative. Edwards speaks of individuals. Clinton speaks of governance. Because of that, her speeches are less grabbing than theirs, but convey a greater impression of competence. Listening to the three of them, I tend to buy Hillary's argument that, on a technical level, she'd be better at this governance thing. But being president is only partially about carrying out your daily duties and greeting foreign dignitaries. It's also about inspiring the populace, moving them forward, mobilizing the population to press for change that would be impossible within the current contours of the political landscape.

As you may recall, one of George Bush's slogans was this exactly: "Moving America Forward".

• inspiring the populace - Well, Obama is never gonna get my vote if the main modality to do so is via inspiration. First, I do not find him inspiring; nor any of the candidates. Second, I work to not be inspired in politics. Instead, try reading various candidates' speeches. Or go and read the 2000/2004 presidential debates. Then decide who has substance. Third, too much Chomsky has convinced me that Americans place too much "hope" in their leaders and not enough in themselves. Part of Obama's rhetoric is on this topic exactly. At the top of his website right now is: I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... I'm asking you to believe in yours. I suppose this is the inspiring part. Just does not inspire me. I want substance.
  
• moving them forward - What does this mean? I recall a discussion with a Bush supporter in 2004. I asked "Why Bush?" Answer: "He is moving us forward." Requests for further detail only elicited the same answer.
• mobilizing the population to press for change - It may be the case that he is the candidate most likely to "mobilize" people. But for many of the same reasons above, I will just not be one. Nor am I convinced he is terribly mobilizing anyway.
  

Here is a comment on Obama.

Another god Debate

Does god exist?

Debate with Rabbi David Wolpe.

Blogs

• http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/
• http://driftglass.blogspot.com/
• http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/
• http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
• http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/
• http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/
• http://bluegirlredmissouri.blogspot.com/
• http://www.regressiveantidote.net/