*Please note that I cannot confirm the true existence of ‘Ban Bossy’ or ‘Bossy’. The conversation may be purely satirical.
Didgya: I would like to thank, Ban Bossy and Bossy for having this, no doubt, spirited discussion on whether to allow Bossy to retain her position in the youth vernacular.
Ban Bossy: Yes, of course.
Bossy: It is not a question, but thanks anyway.
Didgya: OK, Ban Bossy, what is your best reason on excluding Bossy?
Ban Bossy: First of all, by her mere presences, others good influences like Leadership and Aspiration, will only spend time with the boys. They have told me this over and over again. Also without them Self Esteem will never associate with the girls.
Bossy: Wrong. You contradict yourself. If Leadership and Aspiration only hang out with boys, then how is it that you and me both know them well? On another note, me and Leadership might look similar but are much different from each other. I know that you have confused us many times in the past.
Ban Bossy: Then why is it that I never see you together?
Bossy: That is your problem, you are looking for either one or the other. Once you find one of us, you stop looking.
Didgya: To get us back on track, Bossy, how about Self Esteem?
Bossy: We are BFF’s as far as i’m concerned.
Ban Bossy: I would say that you ‘think’ you are friends…
Bossy: Wrong again. I and whoever else that tries to associate with Self Esteem, can. I am not stopping anyone.
Didgya: Ban Bossy, do you think that it is possible that Bossy is a scapegoat for other negative players, young ladies have to deal with? Such as Sexism and Discrimination.
Ban Bossy: To me, those two are just as bad as Bossy herself but have proven to be difficult to get rid of. Why should we not exclude Bossy and maybe those two will follow.
Bossy: I find it insulting to be so flippantly associated with those two. I admit that I can be unpleasant and obnoxious at times but I am my own entity. Not to be conflated with anyone else we spoke of today.
Didgya: Thank you ladies for clearing up your positions today. Hopefully, in the futures, we can bring together all of players involved to get a complete picture of the situation before taking ineffective and over simplistic action.
(Note: I found it difficult to understand both sides equally but I find it important to not straw-man one side. I can empathize but not agree. )
When the Arizona SB 1062 bill was vetoed by Republican Governor Jan Brewer, many (including me) were relieved. The bill seemed to support blatant discrimination under the cover of ‘free exercise of religion’. On the actual bill it reads:
2. “exercise of religion ” means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
For the religious this probably seems like a reasonable protection. They fear having to accept people that are inherently unacceptable in their beliefs. Also a fear of their holy places being infiltrated if they accept certain people in their businesses. Fear from change and tradition. Unfortunately, included are the bigots who use their religion to segregate and discriminate. Many times we feel that all who would support them are of of the last ilk but people are well versed in cognitive dissonance and fail to see the ramifications for themselves. For example, someone quoting anti-gay scripture in Leviticus but ignoring similar passages about not wearing blended fabric. In scripture both are equally wrong yet I find it unlikely that I will be turned away for my polo shirt. Selection bias combined with the ability to manufacture any belief system possible, negates any type of special right to discriminate. I would find it interesting to find out how two religions directly opposing each other would be? Which side would the law be on?
Another part of the bill would protect the religious from:
D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding…
This overprotection would empower bigotry and leave the discriminated against no legal recourse. Some might say that the refused customer could just take their business elsewhere. In a large metropolitan area, that is an option but in a small community where resources are controlled by a small nucleus of businesses owners, there would be no option other than to to move. Making an already insular community more isolated and displaced people who’s only crime is non conformity.
When entering into a public business it is inherent that an array of differing people are going to access that business. It is not an infringement for you to treat them equally. If not, make your business private and only available to others in your belief system. Let people who truly treat people equally have the right to benefit from a public business.
Great blog about Kepler and the math involved in verifying exo-planets
For 3 months a year, the TNG telescope on the island of La Palma turns its high-precision spectrometer (HARPS-N) towards the constellations of Cygnus and Lyra. This is the field of view that NASA’s Kepler space telescope stared at for more than 3 years, detecting thousands of potential new exoplanets using the transit method. There the TNG scans hundreds of Kepler’s potentially planet-holding stars looking for tiny changes in their radial velocity. If detected, this signal will indicate the presence of a real planet, confirming once and for all what Kepler first hinted at many months before. This is the process that, up until now, has been used to definitively find the majority of Kepler’s 211 planets.
That appeared to change in the blink of an eye this week with the confirmation of 715 new planets using a new catch-all statistical technique. But how did…
View original post 782 more words
Today, as I flipped through my local AM station, (yes I listen to AM sometimes!), I caught a rant from a ‘conservative’ host about Americans obsession with government provided medications and having some sort of neurosis. I am not including their name since I can not remember the exact words used but the main implication is commonly spouted by their ilk. They use this strawman to represent the weak minded, sheep like fools, lining up to receive their unneeded medication (your paying for! )and imaginary mental illness.
Of course people like this exist, or at least we perceive them that way. We see them in grocery stores, department stores and using public parks and hospitals. Our common response is to categorize them as the ‘different’ or ‘opposite’ to you. People like our above mentioned host, use this disconnect to scapegoat and blame our common political and social problems on this character. Drawing a accusatory narrative to them as supporters of whatever target issue or politician they deem unacceptable. The juxtaposition of common sense to obvious corruption is clear as the host echoes your own sentiment on the matter.
This manipulation is clearly an inflation of our fears, paranoia and primal instincts. If this mirage of truth was true, where does the tax paying workers come from? If we were truly overrun with these leeches of society, it would fall from the overwhelming weight of running the infrastructure.
I fully admit this is an assertion driven rant on my part so let me point out some weaknesses in the blog.
1. I pick on conservatives and liberals are just as guilty.
2. Accused this to be a common tactic. I imagine some of them are sincere.
3. I assume people like this are spotted by sight and that people pay attention to things like that so I can make a point.
4. I imply that ‘common sense’ and ‘obvious corruption’ are dichotomous when they could happen inclusively.
5. My conclusion lacks hard data and draws from a ‘false premise’.
Being as skeptical with yourself is just as important as you are with others.
Written while listening to Tool
Having a productive conversation on Twitter can be challenging, to say the least. Currently I am engaged with a user about Quantum Physics. Initially he expressed, to another user, that his reason was invalid since you cannot prove ‘reason’ exist materially and then stated ‘reason’ proves a deity. He moved away from that position to then assert a ‘cosmic mind’ existed proven by Quantum physics. I admit that I am not an expert in physics so I focused on this point, since the claim seemed to be a provable one and I was willing to accept the evidence. When I did ask for proof, he provided a fascinating video: Double Slit Experiment It basically says that an electron behaved differently when observed or measured. Still I found this repeatable experiment lacking a direct correlation in proving the extraordinary claim of a ‘cosmic mind’. He then argued that, ” yes, how else does it change from a wave to a particle? what changes it from a wave to a particle?” and I do not have a clue but it is a huge logical jump to assign a ‘mind’ to a reaction. People are good at humanizing nature and giving it attributes that we express. Greek Mythologies contains gods with unashamedly human features. They also were credited with affecting the weather, health and about any unexplained happenstance. Science is helping to remove these false associations. Meteorology, science based medicine and rigorous skepticism has closed the information gap of many of these issues but it is unlikely, moreover, unrealistic that every mystery will be solved or is solvable.
What I believe his point is that there are currently unexplained processes, shown by Qutantum Physics and he has reasoned out that a mind is at work here. I find that there are to many assumptions to agree with his view. The dichotomy of Assumed Knowledge/Unknown Knowledge is not only found here but with debates about the origins of the universe/life,morals and purpose. My assumption is that the unknown is unnerving to people. Evolution has equipped us with this problem solving, reality deriving brain that could not possible process every mystery that confronts us as humanity’s knowledge base grows exponentially. It is easier to assign arbitrary answers instead of admitting, the humble truth of ignorance.
Follow the Dichotomy Blog on TwitterMy Tweets