1. Why do I find animals scratching themselves so amusing?

2. Interesting.

3. Ding dong the witch is dead. An era has truly come to an end.

4. So I talk about wanting to get armor for my horse, but this is even more ridiculous.

5. Yay Missouri!

1. College is the perfect time to expand your mind and challenge your own views. You can’t do that if you’re constantly surrounded by people who agree with you.

I have to agree. That's the main reason I didn't go to a smaller liberal arts college. I might have fit in too well.

2. Sad. Sad sad sad sad sad. And more sad.

Also, Eureka Springs! Yay.

3. A decent article on atheists. Nothing earth-shattering or new, but one of the better pieces I've read in awhile.

Kansas City FreeThinkers hold monthly walks in a dog park and weekly coffee-house meet-ups, advertised online.

Sweet. I'll have to remember that for when I move back.

Some Christians find the billboards deeply offensive, especially at this time of year. In recent weeks, press releases from the religious right have accused atheists of "mocking" and "insulting" Christmas.

Okay. I'm personally not offended by Christmas stuff, even the fairly religious stuff, simply because I realize that a majority of the population celebrates it. But all you have to do is reverse the above position and it's identical to how atheists/non-believers could feel about any religious expression. And do we complain? Occasionally, and only recently. I think such complaints are justified when concrete issues of church-state separation are at stake. Otherwise, both sides can just suck it up and learn to live with disagreeing viewpoints.

Remember, children: expression of disagreement does not equal oppression.

4. First, this url amuses me. www.pbs.org/pastafarians? www.pbs.org/nihilists?

Second, it's a pretty good documentary about a fascinating cultural phenomenon. I thought it struck a decent balance between proponents and critics of the religion itself.

5. Missouri finally made up its mind, and I'm sad. Amazed at how close the vote was, but sad.

1. Michael Crichton died. He was responsible for most of the books I read as an 11-year-old. 'Congo' is still one of my favorite brainless reads (and one of my favorite terrible movies). Maybe now I'll get around to reading 'Next'....

2. Anyone wanna buy me a house? It's for a good cause....

3. Yay.

Even better:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will also work to change IDEA’s definition of “autism” to Autism Spectrum Disorders to ensure that all children diagnosed with ASD disorders receive the support they need.

Hopefully he continues to tap whatever knowledgeable resources he used to come up with that policy.

4. I need to actually read through all of this at some point. Lord knows I need to assign myself some more homework.

5. Wtf, Missouri?! When will you make up your mind?

1. Sulloway says four different studies, involving more than 5,000 subjects from five countries, also support this contentious view. "They have shown that first-borns are rated as being more conscientious, less agreeable, less extroverted – in the sense of being fun-loving and excitement-seeking – and less open to experience than later-borns," he says. "Several studies have shown that later-borns are judged to be the 'rebels' of the family and that they are actually more likely to rebel in real life."

Hmm. Definitely not true for my siblings and I, but I suppose it's true for my dad and his siblings.

two Swiss psychologists, Cecile Ernst and Jules Angst

Whoa. Where can I get a last name like that?

Harris explains that the strategies children learn to use at home to get along with siblings are not the same as those they employ outside home and in later life.

Not sure I agree here. Sure, kids behave differently in different social situations, but I doubt the in-home and away-from-home patterns are completely unconnected. Especially for only children who didn't have close cousins or friends of similar age early in life.

"What Sulloway is trying to explain here is the embarrassing fact – embarrassing not just to him but to all believers in the nurture assumption – that only children do not differ in any systematic way from children with siblings," Harris says. "These children have missed out on the experiences that play such an important role in Sulloway's theory: they haven't had to compete with their siblings for parental attention, and they haven't had to learn how to get along (or not get along) with a bossy older sister or a pesky younger brother. And yet their personalities are indistinguishable from those of children with siblings."

I beg to differ. The differences aren't huge, and they tend to disappear as school years progress, but they're there.

2. Oh good. Missouri and Kansas are doing their parts to further implement theocracy in our country.

3. Calm down, people. Jeez.

At her blog at http://itlovesyou.blogspot.com, Ariel Safdie has stated the statue is “intended to create discourse on the role of religion on public property.” Whether or not the statue was put up to ridicule the notion of religion influencing public policy I cannot prove. However, I do think it’s safe to say there are some out there who look at someone allowing his or her faith to influence his or her views on government to be as ridiculous as considering the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a respectable deity.

Um, that is in no way connected to the statement made by the statue's maker. "The role of religion on public property," in my mind, addresses government endorsement of one religion (or any religion) over another (or none). Not whether beliefs influence views on government.

While some may argue the statue was not locally done in effort to mock or belittle Christians, the idea of the spaghetti monster in its original context was proposed to do just that. In other words, the spaghetti monster concept was created to undermine the credibility of Intelligent Design as an alternative theory to Darwinian evolution.

When did "criticize" or "satirize" become synonymous with "undermine"? People criticize theories and ideas in academia all the time without vicious intent to "undermine" or overthrow said theories. Why is religion exempt from this?

In spite of their best efforts to appear as the objective, rational party, those opposed to Intelligent Design and the influence of religion upon the state have shown themselves to not be so “neutral” after all.

Again, confusion with language here. "Objective" and "rational" do not equate with or even imply "neutral".

Upholding something as tangible as the spaghetti monster affirms a connection to an ideology through a symbolic bond. This ideology holds that “separation of church and state” means one must divorce any conviction gained from religious faith from public policy[.]

Again. Complete misunderstanding. That's not what separation of church and state means at all. If you don't know the difference, go do some reading. I don't have the time or energy to elaborate here.

By a fallacious interpretation of the First Amendment, many in our society believe government cannot legislate based on ideas derived from ideologies deemed religious.

Yes, that's a fallacious interpretation. But church-state separationists don't ascribe to that interpretation. Sigh.

Okay. Fine. I'll elaborate briefly. I don't have a problem with someone legislating issues that overlap with religious issues if the resulting law doesn't limit or punish those who don't follow said religion themselves. Since the moral codes of many religions and sects resemble one another, it'd be damn near impossible to make laws without referencing morals that showed up in one religion or another. It's when those morals go beyond common sense and start oppressing people with different beliefs (say, prohibiting same sex marriage, or enforcing abstinence-only sex ed) that the church-state separationists get upset.

4. I just like the icon on the map here.

5. I believe that no linguist has ever said that comprehensibility implies standardness[.]

A nice little piece on language ideology there.

1. Sad.

“I don’t see how any human being could look at them for any prolonged period of time without getting physically ill… I thought I would throw-up if I looked at them any longer.”

First of all, how immature is that? Seriously. Grow up. And get yourself a spine while you're at it.

Second of all, how sheltered is this woman if she's so unused to facial piercings that she can't stomach the sight of them? Do we really want someone so ignorant and naive in a position of leadership?

Thirdly, would she have the same reaction to someone with a non-voluntary facial disfigurement? Or someone with facial modifications condoned or encouraged by their culture? She'd be crucified for that. What's the difference between these situations, really?

2. I don't think I know (or have ever known) Brown's motto. I'm not particularly motivated to look it up, either.

Impactful or not, does a college really need a motto? Quick: What's the slogan of your alma mater? An extremely informal and decidedly unscientific survey indicates that many people don't know.

See?

Reed College's underground slogan is "Communism, Atheism, Free Love." Students at Swarthmore College experience "Guilt Without Sex."

Heh. Imagine, I considered going to both of those schools. Shocking.

If pressed, I'd say Brown's motto would be something like "Figure it out your own damn selves" or "You may be about to make a huge mistake, but we're gonna let you go through with it because it's a learning experience."

3. Finally, a public monument I can stand behind.

More coverage here.

4. I like this kid, even if she gets her prepositions a bit mixed up:

“It’s cool ’cause you can, like, think freely by yourself,” [eight-year-old Jane Kovak] said.

And her parents:

As for Jane, her parents believe that her religious beliefs, or lack thereof, should be up to her.

“They have had many discussions about this, and we’ve had our discussions too,” said her mother. “I think that we just give our view, I always tell Jane that she has to make up her own mind, she has to experience her experiences — figure it out for herself.”

Shocking that I went to the "figure it out for your own damn selves" college, eh?

5. I always did enjoy a good blooper reel.

Bizarre Result

You're Missouri!

An admirer of the works of Mark Twain and the steamboat lifestyle, you
are happiest when floating gently down the river. You have a strong sense of
independence, a reverence for saints, and even look up to discredited explorers. With all
these traditional influences, it's no surprise you're at the center of everyone you know,
and are even considered a gateway to the future. If only you could stop drinking the
world's worst beer, you'd be set.


Take the State Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

A few random links.

1. This makes me proud to be a Missourian.

2. I hope this [dead link?] is supposed to be a joke.

3. What is the purpose of my existence?