Sometimes I forget that I'm an expert.
Seriously! I know more about evolutionary biology and ecology than a good, solid 99.9% of the population (notice that that number still leaves room for at least 300,000 people above me in America, or 6,000,000 worldwide, so I feel pretty safe in making the assertion). I can explain not only the basic concepts like selective pressure and genetic drift - "basic" being relative since I imagine no more than one person in ten would even recognize those to me commonplace phrases - but figure out carrying capacities and projected growth rates, hypothesize about the evolutionary pressures driving speciation of creatures I've never seen before, and discuss at length the life and works of Thomas Hunt Morgan and Rosalind Franklin. I can understand articles in professional medical journals and peer-reviewed genetics journals by building on basic principles. I can understand the risks of the various carcinogens we hear warnings about every day because I know the mechanisms by which they damage DNA and the effects different types of mutation can have on genes.
So why did I feel the need to brag about myself today? Well, the thing is, I don't think it's just me. I think there are an awful lot of potential experts out there who, for reasons of self esteem, caution, or distraction, simply don't share what they know, and that's a damn shame.
I thought about this while I was listening to the Skeptics' Guide, which I've mentioned a few times lately. Every show, Steve Novella, the host and a practicing and teaching neurologist, gives his friends and panelists three science news articles to choose from, one of which is a fake he invented before the show, and they have to try to figure out which is the sham. They also go over real science news in every podcast. My own unusual talent came to mind while I was listening to them discuss evolutionary principles in relation to some rather dubiously legitimate theory advanced by a British "scientist," and mentally adding to and expanding upon virtually everything they said. I suddenly realized that it wasn't fair of me to be disappointed in these people and their coverage of the story; after all, they're not trained in this kind of theory like I am, and even Steve's education in evolution was probably both cursory and quite some time ago, before medical school. That's not to say they don't keep up with science news, because they do, but that's not the same as the rigorous, formal training you get in a genuine course of study. I had had that, and they hadn't, and for once in my life - and it's a rarity for me, because, falsely or not, I tend to be pretty humble about the validity and authority of what I know if it's ever questioned - I felt like I knew a lot about something. It was pretty nice! I actually felt like sharing what I know, instead of just worrying that, well, obviously someone will know more than me.
I think more people need to have that experience. We all know things, and generally there are at least one or two things that any given person knows well. Certainly, yes, a lot of what we know will be wrong, especially about things that are outside our area of expertise, and maybe even to a surprising degree within it. But who cares? How will you ever know unless you share?
It's funny that if you frequent discussion boards, social gatherings, and anywhere else where folks talk, especially if they're really getting into it, you'll generally find people willing to get upset over and try to sound authoritative about just about anything except what they do. Sure that's not always the case; there are no doubt plenty of people willing to just beat you down with whatever perceived authority they have. And, of course, there is the infamous "PhD effect," whereby those who are bestowed with that title seem to relinquish their ability to ever admit fault or ignorance. But by and large, people really like to argue about politics, religion, sports, and any of countless other things on which very few of us are actually expert.
So I'm going to go out of my way tomorrow to get into a situation in which I can really make a contribution. I'm going to join a discussion or find some questions I can answer where I can, for once, actually talk about evolutionary biology, and do it in a way that's actually constructive. If it works out, maybe I'll make a habit of it. Collaborative knowledge is the foundation of human society, and I figure maybe it's time I joined in.
After all, I know things.
What are you an expert in?
Monday, December 10, 2007
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Hey, Mitt "Religion in America" Romney
Let me tell you something, you pompous double-dealing cult-addled bigot: I don't need faith to be an American, to be moral, or to be damned well free, and that means I don't need you. You will never be my president, that I guarantee. I heard everything you said, especially the parts that were unspoken, and you damned well will not get away with it, you son of a bitch.
Let's go over a few key points of Mr. Romney's fine address, shall we?
"Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty."
You'll come to see, soon enough, that by "religious liberty," Mitt doesn't mean "freedom of religion." He means "our liberty, which is religious in nature." It sounds like semantics, but it's a damned important distinction, and one that I don't think he made accidentally.
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us."
Romney makes frequent use of this device in his speech; he refers repeatedly to an unspecified "some" or "people" who, it seems, are naysayers. He never clarifies who these people supposedly are, nor why they take such conveniently pessimistic viewpoints. It's almost as if he's - *gasp* - setting up a series of straw men to attack in order to make himself look proactive and strong.
"In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our Constitution,' he said, 'was made for a moral and religious people.'"
This is, I'll admit, a clever non sequitur. Like Einstein's famous and oft-misquoted lines about "the mind of God" or how God does or does not gamble, Adams' reference to "religion" is significantly more complex than its literal meaning. Einstein was partial to using "God" as a poetic means of referring to the workings of the universe, an interpretation verified quite clearly by his open and quite plain disavowal of any actual belief in a "personal God." In a similar manner, I think that Adams' association with the other Founders, and his participation in the founding of the American republic - a secular republic inspired by the thinkers of the Enlightenment - demonstrates quite clearly that when he refers here to "religion" he's using it in the parlance of his time to indicate ethics, decency, and civilization. It's disingenuous to assume that because of this casual statement, Adams would agree with Romney's implicit assertion that without religion, one can be neither American or moral.
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
This follows on the heels of Romney's Adams quote, and continues to draw on that as a referent. Regarding that: it's particularly reprehensible to cast backwards to long-outdated modes of speech and thought and then use them out of context to frame modern debate. In the first half of the 20th century, "white" was a complimentary adjective indicating decency, generosity, and thoughtfulness. I would not, however, expect to hear Mr. Romney say that "morality requires whiteness just as whiteness requires morality," as racism is rather less popular in today's political discourse than is crass manipulation of voters' religious belief.
"Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate."
There's that mysterious and pinch-mouthed "some" again. Where do they get off being so negative, anyway?
"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions."
Okay, this one's just an out-and-out lie. Romney gave this speech to and for the benefit of conservative Christians, for the express purpose of letting them know that he's their man. Pundits know this. His political advisers admit this. That is the known context of this speech. Romney's entire purpose in this address was to let the conservative Christian lobby know in no uncertain terms that they would, in fact, "exert influence on presidential decisions." This is the subtext of the entire address, and to say it's not is just sickeningly dishonest.
"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest."
This is really the one bright spot in the speech. I'll be the first to say that if Romney were elected, and he did keep this promise, he'd be entirely worthy of praise for it and probably a fine President. Unfortunately, the context leaves me rather pessimistic about that coming to pass. He says here that he won't serve interest groups, and yet he's running on a Republican ticket, which is at this point no more than a forced welding together of five different powerful coalitions of interest groups. Forgive me if I remain skeptical.
"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it's more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. ... Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy."
Boy, those "some" just won't leave this guy alone, huh? Wait... who were "some" again? Oh, that's right. Some straw men.
"Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."
Then why have they elected them over and over again for the last forty or fifty years at least? Ba-dum tsch!
"What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. ... There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution."
So, let me see if I'm straight on what just happened here: first, he described and explained his church's distinctive doctrine on Jesus. Then, he insisted that in spite of what "some" straw men wanted, he would not describe and explain his distinctive doctrines.
Right. And let's not forget that in spite of his protestations against a "religious test," he's giving a speech for the sole purpose of reassuring voters about his religion.
"...No movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people."
Indeed, Mr. Romney. Indeed. And this is why our nation is pitiably backwards in "movements of conscience" regarding things like sex education, stem cell research, gay marriage, and the right to die. These movements of conscience, movements intended to better the world for everyone, do not in fact speak to religious conviction, and religious conviction would rather have a backwards, suffering world in line with its own dogma than give one inch of ground to humanism and conscience. So, in fact, you are correct in this, but not, I do not think, in the way you meant.
"...[I]n recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
Hoo boy. This one's a doozy.
Okay. First off, we have those ubiquitous secular straw men, here seen attacking the very right to virtuous faith of the simple, forthright American people. "Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life"? Well, actually... yes. That's exactly correct, Mr. Romney. That's what the separation of church and state means, so long as you're using "public" to mean "governmental." Wait, what's that? You're deliberately confusing two meanings of "public," pulling a bait-and-switch between "in sight of or in community with other people" and "affecting the affairs of all the people"? Oh. I see. That's not very honest of you, Mr. Romney.
And come on. Intent on establishing a religion of secularism? What does that even mean? Might as well accuse "some" of being intent on establishing "the government of anarchy" or "the education of ignorance" or "the up of down."
Let go of the bogeyman of the secular "war on faith," Mr. Romney. It's simply not there. Those of us in this nation who aren't religious want people's personal beliefs to stay personal, yes, but that's a damned far cry from illegalizing God or establishing a "religion of secularism."
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'under God' and in God, we do indeed trust."
Note carefully the non sequitur in the middle of this quip. Romney goes from the assertion that religion can't be "eliminated" from American life - which is true, and which is yet another straw man, since I doubt you'll find many Americans who want to forbid the public practice of religion, and since that's most definitely not the stance of any of Romney's immediate opponents - to the idea that we are a nation under God. He jumps from one idea to the other as if they were logically connected, but they are, in fact, nothing of the sort. It's a false equivalence: the logical structure of this statement implies that to disagree that we are "under God" - a Christian nation - is to attempt to ban religion.
"Non sequitur" means "does not follow." I think that adequately covers it.
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places."
I don't know about you, but to me, what he just said was, "The Judeo-Christian God should be established in all facets of American public life." I'm fairly sure that violates the... what was it? Oh, yes: the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
No one really wants to remove creches and menorahs from public places, Mitt. From courthouses, sure; religious paraphernalia have no place in the law. But from "public places"? Like, what, streetcorners? Yards? Who is it, exactly, that wants that, Mitt? Is it your straw men?
"No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty."
I'm thinking Mitt failed History class in high school; or maybe he's just using a bit of hyperbole because he doesn't really care what, say, colonialized Africa and India, or the people of China, have suffered? Surely he wouldn't be saying something this offensively false and jingoistic for cynical political gain, would he?
"America took nothing from that century's terrible wars - no land from Germany or Japan or Korea, no treasure, no oath of fealty."
He's referring here to the 20th century, and I just have to ask: America may not have been in the Triple Entente, but do you really think that we had nothing to do with the crippling reparations that were forced on Germany and, in fact, drove them into the economic desperation that led to World War II? I know that's a nitpicky point, but once again I'm just pointing out that I think he may be engaging in a bit of liberty with the truth for his own gain, and I can't really stomach that.
"Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.
It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator."
Pardon me, Mitt, but I think you may have your timeline a little off-kilter there. I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights predated Brigham Young.
"You can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me."
Once again, a false equivalence, this time an implication that a "believer in religious freedom" is equivalent to a "person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty." That's not just a false equivalence, it's actually pretty close to the opposite of the truth. Why are you so damn dishonest, Romney?
"We do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."
Just so long as you have it. And it involves praying to a single god. And its morals align with ours. And you believe in small government with a powerful executive, outlawing abortion, and a young earth created by divine intervention.
Gag.
"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God, they founded this great nation."
...So that they, wealthy white elitist landowners, might lower their tax burden. Amen.
Now, don't get me wrong: I respect the Founders. They really were brilliant men, blessed with both insight and foresight. They just weren't who Romney is implying they were.
--------------------------------------------------------
So that's it. That's the "Symphony of Religion" speech of 2007. That's the address where Mitt Romney made it quite clear that he is, in fact, a party-line conservative Christian, who's willing to distort facts and prey on the faith of Americans to win office; where he made it clear that anyone not of the Judeo-Christian tradition is not American and not entitled to liberty; where he employed more logical fallacies than I could conveniently count, including a veritable army of straw men.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I feel sick.
Let's go over a few key points of Mr. Romney's fine address, shall we?
"Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty."
You'll come to see, soon enough, that by "religious liberty," Mitt doesn't mean "freedom of religion." He means "our liberty, which is religious in nature." It sounds like semantics, but it's a damned important distinction, and one that I don't think he made accidentally.
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us."
Romney makes frequent use of this device in his speech; he refers repeatedly to an unspecified "some" or "people" who, it seems, are naysayers. He never clarifies who these people supposedly are, nor why they take such conveniently pessimistic viewpoints. It's almost as if he's - *gasp* - setting up a series of straw men to attack in order to make himself look proactive and strong.
"In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our Constitution,' he said, 'was made for a moral and religious people.'"
This is, I'll admit, a clever non sequitur. Like Einstein's famous and oft-misquoted lines about "the mind of God" or how God does or does not gamble, Adams' reference to "religion" is significantly more complex than its literal meaning. Einstein was partial to using "God" as a poetic means of referring to the workings of the universe, an interpretation verified quite clearly by his open and quite plain disavowal of any actual belief in a "personal God." In a similar manner, I think that Adams' association with the other Founders, and his participation in the founding of the American republic - a secular republic inspired by the thinkers of the Enlightenment - demonstrates quite clearly that when he refers here to "religion" he's using it in the parlance of his time to indicate ethics, decency, and civilization. It's disingenuous to assume that because of this casual statement, Adams would agree with Romney's implicit assertion that without religion, one can be neither American or moral.
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
This follows on the heels of Romney's Adams quote, and continues to draw on that as a referent. Regarding that: it's particularly reprehensible to cast backwards to long-outdated modes of speech and thought and then use them out of context to frame modern debate. In the first half of the 20th century, "white" was a complimentary adjective indicating decency, generosity, and thoughtfulness. I would not, however, expect to hear Mr. Romney say that "morality requires whiteness just as whiteness requires morality," as racism is rather less popular in today's political discourse than is crass manipulation of voters' religious belief.
"Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate."
There's that mysterious and pinch-mouthed "some" again. Where do they get off being so negative, anyway?
"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions."
Okay, this one's just an out-and-out lie. Romney gave this speech to and for the benefit of conservative Christians, for the express purpose of letting them know that he's their man. Pundits know this. His political advisers admit this. That is the known context of this speech. Romney's entire purpose in this address was to let the conservative Christian lobby know in no uncertain terms that they would, in fact, "exert influence on presidential decisions." This is the subtext of the entire address, and to say it's not is just sickeningly dishonest.
"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest."
This is really the one bright spot in the speech. I'll be the first to say that if Romney were elected, and he did keep this promise, he'd be entirely worthy of praise for it and probably a fine President. Unfortunately, the context leaves me rather pessimistic about that coming to pass. He says here that he won't serve interest groups, and yet he's running on a Republican ticket, which is at this point no more than a forced welding together of five different powerful coalitions of interest groups. Forgive me if I remain skeptical.
"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it's more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. ... Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy."
Boy, those "some" just won't leave this guy alone, huh? Wait... who were "some" again? Oh, that's right. Some straw men.
"Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."
Then why have they elected them over and over again for the last forty or fifty years at least? Ba-dum tsch!
"What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. ... There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution."
So, let me see if I'm straight on what just happened here: first, he described and explained his church's distinctive doctrine on Jesus. Then, he insisted that in spite of what "some" straw men wanted, he would not describe and explain his distinctive doctrines.
Right. And let's not forget that in spite of his protestations against a "religious test," he's giving a speech for the sole purpose of reassuring voters about his religion.
"...No movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people."
Indeed, Mr. Romney. Indeed. And this is why our nation is pitiably backwards in "movements of conscience" regarding things like sex education, stem cell research, gay marriage, and the right to die. These movements of conscience, movements intended to better the world for everyone, do not in fact speak to religious conviction, and religious conviction would rather have a backwards, suffering world in line with its own dogma than give one inch of ground to humanism and conscience. So, in fact, you are correct in this, but not, I do not think, in the way you meant.
"...[I]n recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
Hoo boy. This one's a doozy.
Okay. First off, we have those ubiquitous secular straw men, here seen attacking the very right to virtuous faith of the simple, forthright American people. "Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life"? Well, actually... yes. That's exactly correct, Mr. Romney. That's what the separation of church and state means, so long as you're using "public" to mean "governmental." Wait, what's that? You're deliberately confusing two meanings of "public," pulling a bait-and-switch between "in sight of or in community with other people" and "affecting the affairs of all the people"? Oh. I see. That's not very honest of you, Mr. Romney.
And come on. Intent on establishing a religion of secularism? What does that even mean? Might as well accuse "some" of being intent on establishing "the government of anarchy" or "the education of ignorance" or "the up of down."
Let go of the bogeyman of the secular "war on faith," Mr. Romney. It's simply not there. Those of us in this nation who aren't religious want people's personal beliefs to stay personal, yes, but that's a damned far cry from illegalizing God or establishing a "religion of secularism."
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'under God' and in God, we do indeed trust."
Note carefully the non sequitur in the middle of this quip. Romney goes from the assertion that religion can't be "eliminated" from American life - which is true, and which is yet another straw man, since I doubt you'll find many Americans who want to forbid the public practice of religion, and since that's most definitely not the stance of any of Romney's immediate opponents - to the idea that we are a nation under God. He jumps from one idea to the other as if they were logically connected, but they are, in fact, nothing of the sort. It's a false equivalence: the logical structure of this statement implies that to disagree that we are "under God" - a Christian nation - is to attempt to ban religion.
"Non sequitur" means "does not follow." I think that adequately covers it.
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places."
I don't know about you, but to me, what he just said was, "The Judeo-Christian God should be established in all facets of American public life." I'm fairly sure that violates the... what was it? Oh, yes: the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
No one really wants to remove creches and menorahs from public places, Mitt. From courthouses, sure; religious paraphernalia have no place in the law. But from "public places"? Like, what, streetcorners? Yards? Who is it, exactly, that wants that, Mitt? Is it your straw men?
"No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty."
I'm thinking Mitt failed History class in high school; or maybe he's just using a bit of hyperbole because he doesn't really care what, say, colonialized Africa and India, or the people of China, have suffered? Surely he wouldn't be saying something this offensively false and jingoistic for cynical political gain, would he?
"America took nothing from that century's terrible wars - no land from Germany or Japan or Korea, no treasure, no oath of fealty."
He's referring here to the 20th century, and I just have to ask: America may not have been in the Triple Entente, but do you really think that we had nothing to do with the crippling reparations that were forced on Germany and, in fact, drove them into the economic desperation that led to World War II? I know that's a nitpicky point, but once again I'm just pointing out that I think he may be engaging in a bit of liberty with the truth for his own gain, and I can't really stomach that.
"Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.
It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator."
Pardon me, Mitt, but I think you may have your timeline a little off-kilter there. I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights predated Brigham Young.
"You can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me."
Once again, a false equivalence, this time an implication that a "believer in religious freedom" is equivalent to a "person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty." That's not just a false equivalence, it's actually pretty close to the opposite of the truth. Why are you so damn dishonest, Romney?
"We do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."
Just so long as you have it. And it involves praying to a single god. And its morals align with ours. And you believe in small government with a powerful executive, outlawing abortion, and a young earth created by divine intervention.
Gag.
"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God, they founded this great nation."
...So that they, wealthy white elitist landowners, might lower their tax burden. Amen.
Now, don't get me wrong: I respect the Founders. They really were brilliant men, blessed with both insight and foresight. They just weren't who Romney is implying they were.
--------------------------------------------------------
So that's it. That's the "Symphony of Religion" speech of 2007. That's the address where Mitt Romney made it quite clear that he is, in fact, a party-line conservative Christian, who's willing to distort facts and prey on the faith of Americans to win office; where he made it clear that anyone not of the Judeo-Christian tradition is not American and not entitled to liberty; where he employed more logical fallacies than I could conveniently count, including a veritable army of straw men.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I feel sick.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Beer Review: World Wide Stout
Last night, I finally got my hands on a bottle of Dogfish Head's World Wide Stout. Now, this has been a long-awaited event for me, since I'm a huge fan of that Delaware craft brewery and a huge fan of big, bold stouts, but the World Wide was never distributed anywhere I could get it before now. When I saw it in the cooler down at Bottleworks, I very nearly squealed with glee. I restrained myself only upon realizing that squealing with glee would probably result in the revocation of my license to drink stouts on grounds of weenieness.
Anyway, I picked up two bottles, and the ultimate verdict is that I will be picking up as many more as I can carry and cellaring them for a good year or three. World Wide, like everything else Dogfish has ever done as far as I can tell, is amazing.
First off, let's just go with the information on the bottle: it says that it's a very dark beer, and it is, though it's not as pitch-black as some toastier stouts, and that it's brewed with a ridiculous amount of barley. As to that, the stuff is a positively astonishing 20% alcohol by volume, so they are not kidding. One 12-ounce bottle of World Wide is enough to knock you for a loop if you're not careful. This is definitely a brandy snifter or tulip glass beer, by the way, not a pint glass.
I'll need to try another bottle to really reinforce my impression of the flavors, but there is a veritable symphony of them. I caught a strong mix of toffee and maybe raisin or currant (not surprising since raisins are one of Dogfish Head's favorite flavoring ingredients, although I don't know if there were actually any in this brew), but very little of the astringency and toastiness you usually expect in a really dark beer. As I mentioned, it wasn't pitch black, so I expect that lack of burnt character is due to relatively less black patent malt or whatever equivalent they might have used. A smaller amount of bittering hops, as well, compared to many other big stouts; it was definitely bittered, but not bitter. Surprisingly, there wasn't a lot of alcoholic bite to it, though the kick was evident in other ways - there was very little head on the pour, but there was a definite headiness to the mouthfeel.
This stuff is big, by the way. It is not for folks who think that Guinness is a stiff drink.
Anyway, while World Wide Stout was quite an experience straight off the shelf, I think with some time to age, mellow, and blend, it will be a positively sublime draught. An A- beer now, but with an anticipated appreciation to an A+ with cellaring.
Anyway, I picked up two bottles, and the ultimate verdict is that I will be picking up as many more as I can carry and cellaring them for a good year or three. World Wide, like everything else Dogfish has ever done as far as I can tell, is amazing.
First off, let's just go with the information on the bottle: it says that it's a very dark beer, and it is, though it's not as pitch-black as some toastier stouts, and that it's brewed with a ridiculous amount of barley. As to that, the stuff is a positively astonishing 20% alcohol by volume, so they are not kidding. One 12-ounce bottle of World Wide is enough to knock you for a loop if you're not careful. This is definitely a brandy snifter or tulip glass beer, by the way, not a pint glass.
I'll need to try another bottle to really reinforce my impression of the flavors, but there is a veritable symphony of them. I caught a strong mix of toffee and maybe raisin or currant (not surprising since raisins are one of Dogfish Head's favorite flavoring ingredients, although I don't know if there were actually any in this brew), but very little of the astringency and toastiness you usually expect in a really dark beer. As I mentioned, it wasn't pitch black, so I expect that lack of burnt character is due to relatively less black patent malt or whatever equivalent they might have used. A smaller amount of bittering hops, as well, compared to many other big stouts; it was definitely bittered, but not bitter. Surprisingly, there wasn't a lot of alcoholic bite to it, though the kick was evident in other ways - there was very little head on the pour, but there was a definite headiness to the mouthfeel.
This stuff is big, by the way. It is not for folks who think that Guinness is a stiff drink.
Anyway, while World Wide Stout was quite an experience straight off the shelf, I think with some time to age, mellow, and blend, it will be a positively sublime draught. An A- beer now, but with an anticipated appreciation to an A+ with cellaring.
The Golden Double Standard
Have you been hearing as much as I have about how upset various churches are about the cinema release of The Golden Compass? There's quite a hubbub surrounding it. It seems, you see, that the movie - I guess they're not so worried about the books the movie is based on, because, really, who reads any more, anyway? - "promotes atheism" and is thus a "direct attack on organized religion." Unlike the case of Harry Potter, in which they were in fact concerned about the books for some reason I don't quite follow, there does actually seem to be something to this particular accusation. Author Philip Pullman identifies himself as an atheist and no fan of religion, and having read the books, I can say two things quite definitely:
1) They're phenomenal, and everyone should pick them up. This is entirely independent of any religious issues surrounding them; they're just a really fun read. They're nominally children's books, but that only makes me wish I had kids to whom I could read them. Don't see the movie, either; from what I understand, the studio neutered some of the most integral plot ideas and made a disappointing hash of the entire thing. I particularly recommend the audiobook, for anyone interested in that format, because it's narrated by the author and a full cast of characters and for obvious reasons therefore does a superb job of capturing the spirit of the books.
2) There is definitely an anti-religious bias to the events in the story, but since this all takes place in a fantasy universe I really fail to see how that can be viewed as any sort of proselytizing. If anything, I think these books are more likely than almost any others I've encountered to lend to young readers a sense of wonder and curiosity that might lead them in virtually any direction, including to religion. Being rather unfavorably inclined toward religion myself, I actually rather hope that these books lead kids away from faith and dogma, but I just don't think it's the necessary case.
There's a larger issue here, though, that's being rather completely lost in the controversy: if the books are atheistic, so what? I didn't see worldwide outrage over the release of The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe, which is decidedly Christian. It's okay for children's movies to try to convert kids, but not to dissuade them?
Why?
Oh, I know why, trust me. That was a rhetorical question. I know that the Church and various Christian groups worldwide are quite fervently trumping up a "war on faith" to get upset about these days. Pope Ratzinger recently gave an address in which he said quite openly that atheism is directly responsible for most of the heinous evil in the world, even including the old nonsense about Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. (Let's just take a moment to address that, shall we, Joe? In the first part, all of the monsters you mention were motivated by essentially religious ideologies, and not some sort of evangelical atheism; and in the second part, you're quite conveniently forgetting some powerful counter-examples like the Inquisition and the Crusades. Or had those simply slipped your mind?) The release of a supposedly atheist movie at this time plays right into their hands, one more piece of evidence that the "godless secularists" are on the offensive, and this time, by God, they're attacking our children!
I hardly need say that this is utter hogwash. The issue is that it's beside the point even if it were true.
Obviously the Vatican is not a nation founded on religious freedom, and so the Pope can of course say whatever he likes. I really couldn't care a bit less what goes on over there. The issue is the effect it has over here. It's the American media that's propagating this nonsense about a "controversy," and it's American Christians who are up in arms about the movie's release and the Church's view on it, and this most certainly is a nation founded on religious freedom.
Let's say that the books do, as some claim, not only "promote atheism," but in fact "denigrate faith." Do you expect me to care? Did you see me rioting in the streets upon the release of The Polar Express, a film whose entire message was "Just believe!"? Do you see me boycotting the Narnia books or films, which are openly and unabashedly Christian apologism? As hard as it may be for these folks to understand, there are in fact any number of people who want nothing to do with religion and, indeed, don't view faith, much less a particular religion, as a virtue at all. This is allowed. That's what religious freedom means.
In short, my message for those offended by this film is this: GROW UP.
Yes, a story was released in popular media which disagrees with you philosophically. I know that's an unprecedented experience, but you're just going to have to deal with it. Adults do that, rather than throwing a fit about it. If you'd try being nonreligious for a month, you'd find that you have to get pretty good at dealing with it or simply spontaneously combust. So yes, Offended America, it's time to grow up and handle disagreement like functioning adults, instead of throwing a tantrum like spoiled children when someone, at long fucking last, violates your ridiculous double standard. If you don't like the film's perspective, here's an idea, free of charge: don't watch it.
And when it comes to that, I certainly won't. I've heard it's a cinematic mess, and I detest Hollywood in the first place. I'd much rather own the books.
ADDENDUM: The lovely and sagacious Rebecca Watson of Skepchick has tackled this issue as well, and provided a link to a Landover Baptist treatment of it. If you're not familiar with Landover Baptist, well... 1) You've probably been in cryonic stasis since the invention of the internet, and 2) I'll let you discover it for yourself. If nothing else, it's significantly more lighthearted (though even more caustically sarcastic) than my ill-tempered hand-waving.
1) They're phenomenal, and everyone should pick them up. This is entirely independent of any religious issues surrounding them; they're just a really fun read. They're nominally children's books, but that only makes me wish I had kids to whom I could read them. Don't see the movie, either; from what I understand, the studio neutered some of the most integral plot ideas and made a disappointing hash of the entire thing. I particularly recommend the audiobook, for anyone interested in that format, because it's narrated by the author and a full cast of characters and for obvious reasons therefore does a superb job of capturing the spirit of the books.
2) There is definitely an anti-religious bias to the events in the story, but since this all takes place in a fantasy universe I really fail to see how that can be viewed as any sort of proselytizing. If anything, I think these books are more likely than almost any others I've encountered to lend to young readers a sense of wonder and curiosity that might lead them in virtually any direction, including to religion. Being rather unfavorably inclined toward religion myself, I actually rather hope that these books lead kids away from faith and dogma, but I just don't think it's the necessary case.
There's a larger issue here, though, that's being rather completely lost in the controversy: if the books are atheistic, so what? I didn't see worldwide outrage over the release of The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe, which is decidedly Christian. It's okay for children's movies to try to convert kids, but not to dissuade them?
Why?
Oh, I know why, trust me. That was a rhetorical question. I know that the Church and various Christian groups worldwide are quite fervently trumping up a "war on faith" to get upset about these days. Pope Ratzinger recently gave an address in which he said quite openly that atheism is directly responsible for most of the heinous evil in the world, even including the old nonsense about Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. (Let's just take a moment to address that, shall we, Joe? In the first part, all of the monsters you mention were motivated by essentially religious ideologies, and not some sort of evangelical atheism; and in the second part, you're quite conveniently forgetting some powerful counter-examples like the Inquisition and the Crusades. Or had those simply slipped your mind?) The release of a supposedly atheist movie at this time plays right into their hands, one more piece of evidence that the "godless secularists" are on the offensive, and this time, by God, they're attacking our children!
I hardly need say that this is utter hogwash. The issue is that it's beside the point even if it were true.
Obviously the Vatican is not a nation founded on religious freedom, and so the Pope can of course say whatever he likes. I really couldn't care a bit less what goes on over there. The issue is the effect it has over here. It's the American media that's propagating this nonsense about a "controversy," and it's American Christians who are up in arms about the movie's release and the Church's view on it, and this most certainly is a nation founded on religious freedom.
Let's say that the books do, as some claim, not only "promote atheism," but in fact "denigrate faith." Do you expect me to care? Did you see me rioting in the streets upon the release of The Polar Express, a film whose entire message was "Just believe!"? Do you see me boycotting the Narnia books or films, which are openly and unabashedly Christian apologism? As hard as it may be for these folks to understand, there are in fact any number of people who want nothing to do with religion and, indeed, don't view faith, much less a particular religion, as a virtue at all. This is allowed. That's what religious freedom means.
In short, my message for those offended by this film is this: GROW UP.
Yes, a story was released in popular media which disagrees with you philosophically. I know that's an unprecedented experience, but you're just going to have to deal with it. Adults do that, rather than throwing a fit about it. If you'd try being nonreligious for a month, you'd find that you have to get pretty good at dealing with it or simply spontaneously combust. So yes, Offended America, it's time to grow up and handle disagreement like functioning adults, instead of throwing a tantrum like spoiled children when someone, at long fucking last, violates your ridiculous double standard. If you don't like the film's perspective, here's an idea, free of charge: don't watch it.
And when it comes to that, I certainly won't. I've heard it's a cinematic mess, and I detest Hollywood in the first place. I'd much rather own the books.
ADDENDUM: The lovely and sagacious Rebecca Watson of Skepchick has tackled this issue as well, and provided a link to a Landover Baptist treatment of it. If you're not familiar with Landover Baptist, well... 1) You've probably been in cryonic stasis since the invention of the internet, and 2) I'll let you discover it for yourself. If nothing else, it's significantly more lighthearted (though even more caustically sarcastic) than my ill-tempered hand-waving.
I have added many links!
I have added them to the humorously-titled links section on the right. Visit them.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Mighty suns
To the great surprise of absolutely no one, I have decided to apply to the University of Washington School of Oceanography. This will not be happening immediately, but it is nevertheless a decision, and one I'm fairly excited about. It's not a nebulous thing, either; I'd like to become involved in Project NEPTUNE, and to specialize in extremophile ecology. A chance to ship out on the R/V Thomas G. Thompson wouldn't be unwelcome, either. The Tommy, you might (or might not) be interested to know, is the identical twin - one of a set of quadruplets, actually - of the R/V Atlantis, out of Woods Hole, famed as the operating craft of DSV Alvin, the cute little submersible that's starred in so many marine exploration documentaries on the Discovery channel.
It's a tenuous connection about which to be so excited: the remote possibility of shipping out on a craft that was built identical to another famous ship that carries the vehicle that first discovered hydrothermal vent ecosystems. But goddammit, I am so excited.
Oh, and I've also, in an effort to improve my productivity and organize my thoughts, decided to write seven blog entries in the next seven days, not counting this one. If the daily thing works out well, I may just keep it up! I may also compromise on a bi-daily or MWF schedule, depending.
And in case anyone didn't catch it last time, allow me one more time to plug The Skeptics Guide To The Universe (and the James Randi Education Foundation, hosts and sponsors of The Amazing Meeting! Be there!) Further, in that vein, allow me to say that anyone who has not read Carl Sagan's eponymous The Demon-Haunted World is not really living. It's hard not to get shivers down your spine when, following an anecdote about Sagan's own childhood, you look up at the stars and realize that they are all, indeed, mighty suns in their own right, some orders of magnitude larger than the one that is the source of essentially everything we know.
Mighty suns.
It's a tenuous connection about which to be so excited: the remote possibility of shipping out on a craft that was built identical to another famous ship that carries the vehicle that first discovered hydrothermal vent ecosystems. But goddammit, I am so excited.
Oh, and I've also, in an effort to improve my productivity and organize my thoughts, decided to write seven blog entries in the next seven days, not counting this one. If the daily thing works out well, I may just keep it up! I may also compromise on a bi-daily or MWF schedule, depending.
And in case anyone didn't catch it last time, allow me one more time to plug The Skeptics Guide To The Universe (and the James Randi Education Foundation, hosts and sponsors of The Amazing Meeting! Be there!) Further, in that vein, allow me to say that anyone who has not read Carl Sagan's eponymous The Demon-Haunted World is not really living. It's hard not to get shivers down your spine when, following an anecdote about Sagan's own childhood, you look up at the stars and realize that they are all, indeed, mighty suns in their own right, some orders of magnitude larger than the one that is the source of essentially everything we know.
Mighty suns.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Dyspeptic's guide to disgruntlement
Have you ever heard something silly and thought, "Man, I dunno, that sounds kind of silly"? Well, then you need to get on board with the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe!*
Okay, I know that the name sounds a little pretentious, and, more importantly, I know you're thinking, "Skeptics? Well, shit, I know what to expect from them. Bunch of stuffy know-it-alls sitting around choking up the room with smugness and intellectual pretense." And I know that right now you're expecting me to make some sort of 'funny' comment like "And you'd be right!" or "Maybe that's true of me, but not everyone!" but I'm going to have to disappoint you. The SGU is really the kind of thing that podcasting - a technology I've been regrettably slow to adopt - was invented for.
Sure, they're a little heavy on repetition of the word "skeptical," but balanced against a weekly show that's charming, intelligent, thought-provoking, and entertaining, that's hardly a critical flaw. And you know what? I like "skeptical" (or "sceptical," if you prefer, you Anglophones). It's hard to talk about things like skepticism, empiricism, or, heaven forfend, materialism or atheism in American culture. To one degree or another, all of those words have been demonized, sometimes literally, to the point where you're as like as not to be viewed as a dangerous lunatic upon identifying yourself as any of them (outside of academia). Indeed, there are few accusations more poisonous to a public figure in American political rhetoric than "atheist," free religion guaranteed in our Constitution notwithstanding.
Try to set that aside, though. Recognize the visceral reaction you may have to these terms, examine it, and set it aside. Consider the word "skeptical" on its own merits, and not on whatever impression you may have of it from pervasive cultural media.
What's so bad about asking why?
Give it a try.
Those of you who know me (and I have a hard time imagining that any of you reading this don't) surely know by now that I've been skeptical of a lot of things for a long, long time. I won't claim that I've been an atheist skeptic since birth, because, well, I frankly didn't even think about that kind of thing until I was at least 8 or 9, apart from knowing, in a part of my mind, that Santa Claus was some kind of consensus joke that everyone surely knew wasn't real, but no one ever openly denied. I will say that as soon as relevant issues began coming to my nascent attention, I started questioning them, in a sort of childish, undeveloped way, and I never really stopped. Is it an intrinsic personality trait, then? Or did I just learn it early? I don't know. I do believe, now, that children can be taught critical thinking almost as soon as they can be taught language, and I think that I got a lot of that from my father. On some level, I think that gratitude for teaching me how to question things and how to start thinking is one major reason I always looked up to him despite rarely seeing him and despite all the many issues he's had in his own life.
There's a lesson there, I'm sure, about how children really do want to learn to be nerds if only you catch them early, but I'll save elaborating on it for another day.
* - for the less internet-comfortable (anyone who doesn't know what RSS is, this means you), you can also find and instantly subscribe to or download the podcast via iTunes with no more than a click or two
Okay, I know that the name sounds a little pretentious, and, more importantly, I know you're thinking, "Skeptics? Well, shit, I know what to expect from them. Bunch of stuffy know-it-alls sitting around choking up the room with smugness and intellectual pretense." And I know that right now you're expecting me to make some sort of 'funny' comment like "And you'd be right!" or "Maybe that's true of me, but not everyone!" but I'm going to have to disappoint you. The SGU is really the kind of thing that podcasting - a technology I've been regrettably slow to adopt - was invented for.
Sure, they're a little heavy on repetition of the word "skeptical," but balanced against a weekly show that's charming, intelligent, thought-provoking, and entertaining, that's hardly a critical flaw. And you know what? I like "skeptical" (or "sceptical," if you prefer, you Anglophones). It's hard to talk about things like skepticism, empiricism, or, heaven forfend, materialism or atheism in American culture. To one degree or another, all of those words have been demonized, sometimes literally, to the point where you're as like as not to be viewed as a dangerous lunatic upon identifying yourself as any of them (outside of academia). Indeed, there are few accusations more poisonous to a public figure in American political rhetoric than "atheist," free religion guaranteed in our Constitution notwithstanding.
Try to set that aside, though. Recognize the visceral reaction you may have to these terms, examine it, and set it aside. Consider the word "skeptical" on its own merits, and not on whatever impression you may have of it from pervasive cultural media.
What's so bad about asking why?
Give it a try.
Those of you who know me (and I have a hard time imagining that any of you reading this don't) surely know by now that I've been skeptical of a lot of things for a long, long time. I won't claim that I've been an atheist skeptic since birth, because, well, I frankly didn't even think about that kind of thing until I was at least 8 or 9, apart from knowing, in a part of my mind, that Santa Claus was some kind of consensus joke that everyone surely knew wasn't real, but no one ever openly denied. I will say that as soon as relevant issues began coming to my nascent attention, I started questioning them, in a sort of childish, undeveloped way, and I never really stopped. Is it an intrinsic personality trait, then? Or did I just learn it early? I don't know. I do believe, now, that children can be taught critical thinking almost as soon as they can be taught language, and I think that I got a lot of that from my father. On some level, I think that gratitude for teaching me how to question things and how to start thinking is one major reason I always looked up to him despite rarely seeing him and despite all the many issues he's had in his own life.
There's a lesson there, I'm sure, about how children really do want to learn to be nerds if only you catch them early, but I'll save elaborating on it for another day.
* - for the less internet-comfortable (anyone who doesn't know what RSS is, this means you), you can also find and instantly subscribe to or download the podcast via iTunes with no more than a click or two
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
