Tennessee, protecting kids from the evil gays

Now I wish I had come across this sooner, as the news about it came out on the 21st of last month, but I had to mention it as it is a real threat to sanity. Tennessee, that ever so progressive state, has passed a bill from a committee to the state senate floor that would make it illegal to mention homosexuality in any way in schools before the ninth grade.

This bill is one that has been fought for by Republicans for the last six years. Created by Senator Stacey Campfield, and known as the "Don't say gay" bill, it states that:

"No public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality."

Because we all know, if you just ignore something you don't like (or make it illegal) it will go away. Have a kid who is coming to terms with their sexuality? To bad, you better hide it because Tennessee doesn't want to hear about it or help you. This is the kind of idiocy created by people who honestly think sexual orientation is a choice and roving bands of homosexuals are out to corrupt their children.

This is not the first bit of nuttery from Campfield. Previously, he made an attempt to pass a bill that would require death certificates to be given for aborted fetuses. He was also behind attempts to force women getting an abortion to look at ultrasound images, eliminate the state's pre-kindergarten program and also make it legal to carry a firearm onto a college campus. Yet he still has quite a bit of support from many Republicans, which just shows how bat-shit insane they really are.

Upon hearing this, George Takei made a comment on his twitter once again proving his brilliant wit:

TN bill will prevent teachers from using the word "gay" in class. In response, I'm lending them my name: "It's okay to be Takei."

I finally gain a little Common Sense

After years of having it on my to do list, I finally got around to reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense (and yes, I do know how groan inducing the title is, but I could not help myself). The reason for the long delay in doing so was partly my not coming across a copy for quite a while and when I did finally locate one, I had a few other things already in line to read.

I do find it odd that, throughout the years of American history courses I have taken, this has never been required reading. From all those years the only way it was ever mentioned was as an important pamphlet that argued for the American Revolution. No parts were ever shown from it, just that mention. I find that rather sad when you consider how much of an influence it really had in helping to sway the minds of so many towards the American cause, both foreign and domestic. It is made worse after one has actually read it as it helps to lay a better understanding of the situation then I have ever gained from any history course. One cannot help but see both the events and the timing of them (for which Paine argues considerably) as inevitable. As he states, any earlier and the colonies would not have had a sufficiently strong internal support system. Had it been any later, the few military minds left over from the French-Indian War would have died leaving the country without any war time knowledge.

Now I can see some possibly being put off by what they may see as religious connotations within this pamphlet. It is true there are myriad references to the bible and God, but these are not arguments for or against such things (as Paine notes). They are, instead, relics of the time and imagery of convenience. The first being due to the fact that even for non-believers of the Western world (Paine was a deist), the bible was still seen as a historical text. Yes, many discounted the religious aspect and instead payed attention to its genealogies and accounts of empires long since lost to time (for those that actually existed that is). One must also remember that an alternative was not available so even those who doubted its full historical and religious accuracy, were left with no other real alternative to go by. So it is no real surprise that he would reference the Christian bible.

This context is taken further when combined with the imagery Paine uses. This has specifically to do with the audience he intended this pamphlet for. He used a writing style, that while elegant and rich in thought, was of a form that would be accessible to all, from the common man to the elite. He knew that essentially all those who would read it would have one form of education in common, a religious one. He also knew that such arguments would appeal to those from all walks of life. But even more so, he knew that such writing would spur in his audience even more of a passion to see his point of view. Granted, as the title states, he intended what he wrote to be common sense, but he also knew that common sense was not always as common as it should be. He also recognized that using any way one might to go about livening things up to sway those who were still undecided about the matter could only help his argument and the cause.

The copy I purchased also has an added bonus of containing his response to a piece published by certain members of the Quaker community (The ancient testimony and principles of the people called Quakers renewed, with respect to the King and Government, and touching the commotions now prevailing in these and other parts of America addressed to the people in general...apparently short titles was not this particular authors forte). In the piece Paine addresses, the Quaker authors argue that the American people should not rise to arms due to certain biblical passages that stated that those in power are allowed to be so by God and that it is the people's responsibility to obey that authority as well as a passage from Proverbs that states "When a man's way pleases the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him".

Quite obviously, Paine was not pleased with such statements and his reasoning included the fact that every single ruler throughout history has gained power by the acts of people, often at the edge of a sword. If this were true, then how can it be the Lord's will for people to follow their current leader? For if this were true (in a religious sense of course), then any attempt to remove or replace said ruler would be stopped by their god. But since this has never occurred, then, based on their own logic, such actions must be the very will of their god to begin with. He further demolishes other parts of their argument by stating that they do not wish to depose a ruler, nor do they wish to establish a new monarch but be removed from the entire process. Not to mention that what they would be doing would be an act of defense, not offense, for it was the British who were seen to have started the whole affair through their neglect of the will of the American people.

He states that he has nothing against the Quakers at all, and is sure to make a defense of them so that none would take his words as a reason to mistreat the group as a whole or for anyone to consider removing any of their civil or religious freedoms. His argument came down to that those who wrote this piece were not acting according to their own doctrine, therefor their entire argument was invalid and and insult to Quaker society as a whole. He closes his letter with two lines that I believe should be more widely known and espoused, especially in light of certain religious groups active today. The first being:

Because it tends to the decrease and reproach of all religion whatever, and is of the utmost danger to society, to make it a party in political disputes.

The second (and my personal favorite) being the final line of his letter:

...but that the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America.

Faith based schools

Here is the first part of a four part video featuring Richard Dawkins on the matter of Faith Schools in Britain (links to the final three parts can be found at the end of this post). As he states in the video, one third of all schools are now faith based. These schools get ninety percent of their funding from the government so, unlike religious schools in the states, are very much dependent on the state for support. But unlike the other public schools which also get their funding from the state, faith based schools can pick and choose who is allowed to attend. Effectively making them private schools but funded by the government.

To make matters worse, because of the high number of such schools, in some situations the most convenient school for a parent to choose will end up being faith based. If schools were equally placed this would not be an issue, but they are not. There are places where the only schools for miles are faith based. This, as Richard Dawkins points out, creates a form of discrimination against those parents who would prefer their children to go to a secular school.

For those who have no choice or even wish for their children to go to these faith based schools due to supposed high exam scores, many faith based schools have a system of admittance based on the parents. Not how well the student is, that is not what concerns them, what they are interested in is whether the parents are active members of the religion the school is based upon. This sort of religious coercion may even go so far as being based upon the parents contribution to the church, though the evidence for this is currently only second hand and the church denies such allegations.

One of the reasons that so many are turning towards faith based schools is there higher exam scores compared to public schools. So many parents were willing to make the sacrifice so that their children would have the best possible education (though one does question how much is lost due to the indoctrination). However, when an independent group was asked to examine the data to see if faith based schools really were better, what they found was counter to what many parents believe. They found that the only reason these schools have better exam scores is because of the push to get students into them as well as further parental push to maintain those scores. In all actuality, if parents would put the same effort in supporting their children attending public schools, the results would be exactly the same. Well not exactly, the parents wouldn't have to potentially convert or fake a religion and the child wouldn't get indoctrinated by the religious aspect. And as we know, religion is one of the largest stumbling blocks for critical thinking. So parents actually get more out of the public schools then the faith based.

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Well this is certainly one way to show your love...

I would first like to thank Misa Akane for finding the information about this event. She is the writer behind The Last Lemurisian as well as the excellent poetry blog Exhibit Number One. If you do not read her, go do so now, no you really don't have a choice in the matter. I wish you did but the Great Invisible-Omnipresent-Invincible-Ever-Changing-Neptunian Crocodile demands it and how can you argue with that?

So my state has given me yet another reason for me to want to disassociate myself with it. But this time it isn't the government but an inhabitant that is the source of my shame. All because Oklahoma resident Arthur Sedille and/or his wife Rebecca Sedille, had a rather unique sexual propensity. You see Arthur liked to hold a hand gun to Rebecca's head while they were in bed. At this point, things may seem a bit odd. But then again, they could be nothing more then the ever present rape fantasy but with a prop.

I am going to take a quick segue here for a moment to say that yes, rape fantasies are both common and normal. The most recent study on the subject showed that, depending on how you worded the question, 32-52% of women have had this kind of fantasy at least once. This is perfectly in line with previous studies. If it is phrased in the same way it often used in many romance novels (yes, romance novels are literary porn, and no, that is not a bad thing) such as 'overpowered' then researchers generally get confirmations somewhere close to the 50% mark. But if you just come out and say 'rape' then that number drops down to the low 30s. It seems that many females are worried about how it would be interpreted if such a word were used. I wonder why... But yes, rape fantasies are both common and are not linked with any psychiatric disorder of any kind (unless you count being able to read romance novels).

Now back to the original story. On December 21st, Arthur and Rebecca decided to run through the rape fantasy scenario with a gun...thing that they had except this time Arthur forgot to check the chamber when he pulled back the slide. Subsequently, when he pulled the trigger, Arthur Sedille killed his wife, Rebecca. While Arthur has been arrested he has not been charged.

I can only imagine those behind this case are thinking something similar to what I am at the moment. That they are sitting there and honestly asking themselves, "OK, either this guy is an utter moron who knows absolutely nothing about guns and was just going along with things like he said or...this guy is an utter moron for thinking he could kill his wife and just claim it was an accident involving a gun and a rape fantasy. Either way we are dealing with a complete idiot".

The Difference in Islam

With the state of the world as it is, more and more people are realizing that yes, it is important to understand the beliefs of other peoples. Now to any sane or rational individual this is something so obvious as to make one feel a bit of a fool for even bringing it up. But there are so many out there who do not grasp this basic concept. As such it is becoming more obvious that someone should educate the masses.

One of the greatest threats to diplomatic stability and governance is the issue of religion. Especially any disparity found within a religion. Most of us are familiar with the differences between the Catholic, Protestant and various sub denominations when it comes to Christianity. As we are living in a culture surrounded by Christianity, this is the norm (at least for the majority of my reader base). But when it comes to international affairs, far too many individuals are left lacking in their understanding of the internal strife of other religions.

How many times have we heard the terms Shia and Sunni Islam tossed around only to realize we do not know one from the other. In fact I would be surprised if most of those behind the major news stations could give a good explanation as to the difference between these sects and why it is something that causes so much hatred and bloodshed.

So what is the real difference between a Shia and a Sunni and why does it matter? For why it matters I can say this. Look at Northern Ireland where there is a long history of people killing each other over whether they are Protestant or Catholic. To an outsider of this religion it would seem to be based upon little more than semantics. Though from the point of view of those who enact such violence, it is certainly more then just differing views. To those who have marked the trenches and boundary lines it is something irrefutable and solid that stands between the two cultures. Even if those very people were once comrades, it is far too often that such differences cause a rift that leads to violence and bitter hatreds.

So what was it that split Islam into its two prime factions? Each seeing the other as the traitor to their own beliefs. It comes down to what is in all essence, two different understandings of how best to to practice the religion. But to understand what drives this difference we must first look to a time before such a split existed

On June 8, 632, in Medina, Muhammad died at age 63 after spending several days seriously ill. In the years preceding his death, Muhammad had finally succeeded in uniting the long waring Arab tribes into a single Arab Muslim religious polity (a polity being a unified government or organizational). Before his death, Muhammad had made it clear that one of his dying wishes was for the now unified Arab forces to rally against the Byzantines in retaliation for a previous defeat.

Upon Muhammad's death, a successor had to be named. Here, the first signs of dissent amongst Muhammad's followers can be seen. Umar ibn al-Khattab, a friend of Muhammad's for eighteen years and one of his Sahabah (a term for his companions), nominated Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr was one of Muhammad's father-in-laws and a fellow Sahabah. Abu Bakr was especially trusted by Muhammad as can be seen by the fact that he often refered to him as Al-Siddiq, meaning 'the truthful'.

While the majority were in favor of Abu Bakr taking power, there were some who were greatly opposed to his nomination. They believed that Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law Ali ibn Abi Talib (or simply Ali as he is often referenced) was the rightful heir to Muhammad. The reason for this comes from varied accounts which claim that Muhammad himself stated that he wished for Ali to take his place upon his death. There were other reasons to claim Ali's place as the Prophets heir. Such things indcluded the fact that, despite Ali's parents being Abu Talib ibn Abd al-Muttalib (his father) and Fatima bint Asad (his mother), he was raised within Muhammad's house by the Prophet's uncle, Abu Talib. This made Ali a member of Ahl al-Bayt, or 'the household of Muhammad', which under the Qur'an and especially under certain Hadiths, was viewed as giving one a rightly high place within the hierarchy. The third and final piece of evidence used to argue for Ali as Muhammad's successor is that after the Prophet received what has become known as his divine revelation, Ali was the first male to accept his message and to dedicate his life to the cause of Islam.

Ultimantly, Abu Bakr was named the first Caliph after deliberation and a formal election. Between the time of his election and Muhammad's death, there was the beginnings of much internal strife amongst the previously unified Arab tribes. Many of which talked about breaking away with a few even founding their own separate leadership. But once Abu Bakr was elected, the majority of these dissenting tribes rejoined the whole. That is, except for those who had been in support of Ali as Muhammad's successor.

To further fuel the dissent between those who supported Abu Bakr as the first Caliph and those who saw Ali as the Prophet's rightful heir was the fact that Abu Bakr left Muhammad's funeral when he heard about those gathering to elect a successor. Along with Umar, Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah (both Sahabahs) and a few others, they were able to convince those gathered to elect Abu Bakr. The followers of Ali saw this as a grave insult to the Prophet and evidence that Abu Bakr cared more for political power then for the wishes of Muhammad. This led to a view amongst the Alids (the followers of Ali) that Abu Bakr was part of a political coup against them.

Abu Bakr's succession led to a period of time known as the Al-Rashidun (or the Rightly Guided Caliphs). This was a period marked by the first four Caliphs. A Caliph being the head of the Caliphate, which was the term for the first system of government established under Islam that maintained a political unity over the Ummah (or collective states of Islam). The Caliphate was, in theory at least, a constitutional republic with the Caliphs being elected by the Shura, the tribal leaders who were themselves elected by the people of each individual tribe and/or state. The Al-Rashidun saw the worlds first major welfare-state and began the rise to prosperity seen by the early Islamic world as well as its philosophical, scientific and mathematical developments. Much of this came from the fact that that the goverment was grounded in much more a political system rather than a religious one. Granted much of the system was taken from religious texts, but the government itself attempted to rule primarily through political maneuverings instead of religious ones.

The Al-Rashidun began with the rule of Abu Bakr who nominated Umar Ibn Khattab (who, as was previously stated, was also a Sahabah). Abu Bakr's choice had consensus with the Shura and Umar was elected. However before Umar could nominate his own successor, he was killed by one of his servants.

This led to obvious unrest and a Majlis (or political gathering similar. A Majlis can be a temporary formation or a more permanent assembly as is the case in some Arabic states where it acts as a formal legislature) was formed to elect the third Caliph. They chose Uthman Ibn Affan (also a Sahabah). This decision was later questioned as the years progressed and Uthman began to rule as more of a self appointed king then an elected Caliph. Unrest became particularly apparent in Egypt where an uprising succeeded in making the four regions of Egypt independent states for a time. Egypt then sent armed forces to march on Medina, the site of Uthman's house. There they were able to assassinate Uthman and end his reign.

This created enough political unrest throughout the Islamic states, the Ummah, for Ali seize power, after being nominated by the Sahaba, but never fully recognized the all of the Ummah. His supporters, the Alids, never truly recognized the three previous Caliphs. In fact the Hadiths preferred by his supporters never authorized for Abu Bakr and his successors to be elected in the first place. This is only found in what is now part of the Sunni Hadiths. What is now the Shia Hadiths claimed that only members of Muhammads family, the Ahl al-Bayt, could reign. This marked the official split between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam. Those who were to later be known as Sunni refered to Ali as the fourth Caliph and final member of the Al-Rashidun dynasty. To those who would later be remembered as the Shia, Ali was given the title of the first Imam (or rightful Caliph).

The unrest that marred the final years of Uthman's reign carried over to Ali's reign. He faced two major rebellions and was assassinated after reigning for only five years. The entire time of from Uthman's assassination, through Ali's rule and eventual assassination to the election of the fifth Caliph (Muawiyah) is also known as the First Fitna. This period is known as Islam's first civil war and the true end of Arab unity.

Those who are now known as Sunni continued on to recognize a series of Caliphs until the practice was abolished by the first president of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk under the Republics new constitution. Discussions to revive the practice have occurred but have yet to lead to any action. Under the Sunni school of thought, it is believed that any person who is accepted as such by his peers may become a true successor to Muhammad. Currently, Sunni is by far the larger of the two denominations. While the exact numbers are disputed, only around 10% of today's Muslims are Shia while the remainder are primarily Sunni.

Those who are now know as the Shia do not recognize the Caliphs, but instead those known as Imams as the true successors to Muhammad. The Shia believe that humanity requires spiritual guidance by certain enlightened individuals known as the Imam. They further believe that only those who can trace direct ancestry to Muhammad (members of the Ahl al-Bayt) can claim to be an Imam. The number of Imams to have existed differed depending on the sect of Shia Islam followed. The largest, the Twelvers, recognize only twelve. Where as the Ismailis recognize only eight and the Zaidiyya recognize either five or twelve depending on which sub-sect is followed.

Further differneces can be seen in the Hadiths that each group recognizes. As has been previously mentioned, it is the differences in the Hadiths recognized that has allowed for the derision in acknowledgment between the two groups in who is to lead them. To further complicate matters, which of the many Hadiths varies even within both Sunni and Shia Islam.

These differences and more have led to the two factions to become notorious enemies in many locations. The Shia, being the minority, are often repressed by their Sunni counterparts. This has led to a seemingly endless state of unrest that often leads to bloodshed. In many states the Shia are both culturally and politically repressed. This has often caused many Shia groups to hide themselves and fight against their oppressors. This has led to further derision where many within the Sunni community see the Shia as the aggressors who seek to destabilize the state and community. This near constant state of Shia oppression (and often times outright genocide) and the resulting Shia counter attacks as well their own assaults against otherwise peaceful Sunni communities based entirely upon their differing belief systems and interpretations has lead to furthering religious extremism in both groups.

In fact, this resulting extremism is the reason for the fall of the Islamic world as a capital of scientific, philosophical and mathematical thought. As the religious extremists gained more power as the two denominations became increasingly hostile towards one another, they passed more edicts against such schools of thought which they saw as competition. This drove an increasingly fundamentalist public to rise against, banish and even execute those in favor of progressive and reasoned thinking. This, along with a near constant state of striff between the Shia and Sunni communities has led to a virtual stagnation in the development of the Islamic world. As such, essentially all of the backwards thinking, bigotry, poverty and other cultural and political woes facing the modern Islamic states can be traced to the disparity between the Sunni and Shia.

A hero of mine

I would like to talk a bit about a personal hero of mine. For most of my life, I have not found another with a mind that worked even remotely similar to my own. I have lived, for far to long, in an area where deep though and inquiry have been mostly shunned or seen as a distant dream at best. When I would talk about my passion for understanding, how it allowed me to feel connected to the ideas I was learning about, I never once came across another who felt this way or truly understood what this feeling was like. Many were interested, yes. They were intrigued by my passion and almost in awe of my understanding and how I could break down the complex and seemingly unattainable into something they could grasp and know for themselves. But I could not find another mind that saw the universe as I did.

When I come across something new, I examine it, I pick it up in my mind and roll it around a bit. I see how it looks from all sides and how it might connect with what I already know. A good example is when, many years ago, I first learned about probability waves. The idea that a particle does not exist at any point, but has a probability of existing. That this probability might be highest around a point but it also flows out around it, spreading to infinity, always at a non-zero chance of being here or there. When I first learned of this, things became so clear for me. Suddenly I understood how electrons could exist in specific energy levels around an atomic nucleus while also forming a 'cloud'. I understood how a photon could be a particle, a single quanta of electromagnetic energy while also being a wave. I was able to apply this concept to things I had leaned before, such as the famous light slit experiment that proved the particle wave duality of light as well as how, if left untouched, a photon will go through two slits equally. Before, the idea of one thing going through two places at once seemed wrong. I knew it was true, but I couldn't fully comprehend it, I couldn't make it my own. But as soon as I learned about probability waves, it all fit. It was a cascade of connections in my mind.

When this happens, it is almost euphoric. The concept I am understanding and myself are no longer separate entities but become intertwined. I experience the idea not as a thought but as if it is a part of me. This connection is, well, spiritual. I use that word reluctantly as I know it has quite a bit of baggage attached to it. That many see it within the domain of religion and myth. But here, I mean it as an experience where you develop as a being, where you connect with something on a fundamental level, almost becoming that thing. There isn't another word in the English language that fits well enough other then spirituality.

For the longest time I could not find another who thought like this. I heard about people who had done so or did so. But I never met them, they were just distant stories. For so long I felt truly alone. That there was not another who felt as I did, who saw the universe as I saw it. Who loved the world as I love it.

But then I read a book. A book written by a man I already greatly respected and wished I had a chance to meet. The book was A Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. When I read the opening pages, I suddenly found the mind I had sought for so long. I read his words, his explanation of how he saw the world and I saw my own views, I saw what could have been my very own words. I read about how he was in love with science, how he wanted to share this love with the world and how his heart ached with joy at the understanding science granted him. And for the first time in my life, I felt as if I was no longer alone. I read on, seeing more of my inner thoughts written out by someone else, as if they had seen into my mind and pulled the thoughts out to use for their own.

From that day on, I no longer felt alone. But I also knew that the mind I had finally found that was similar to my own, was gone. That Carl Sagan had died many years ago and that the book I had read was published only two years before he left us. Part of me grieved. I had never met Carl Sagan, but I felt I knew him better then most ever could have, because I felt our minds were so alike.

Part of me felt cheated. That I did not known more about Carl Sagan when he was alive. That if only someone had shown me some of his non-fiction writing I could have at least reached out to him while he was alive and thanked him. That I wouldn't have spent so much time feeling alone. That I could have told him how much it meant to me to know that another feels the same as I do. But I will never get that chance.

One of Carl Sagan's life long ambitions was to spread knowledge as far as he could. To reach out and share his love of the universe with others. To make others fall in love as he had. And he did this well. He touched so many lives. He inspired an entire generation of scientists. There are few people who have done more to change the world, to help sculpt future minds and societal views. To leave humanity, as a whole, in a better state then when he first entered it.

Carl Sagan accomplished much in his life time. In my own life, I have created a few purposes. One of the most important ones is to spread what knowledge I have. I came to this conclusion on my own, long before I read about Carl Sagan's views. I would like to think, if he were to be able to read this, that he would have preferred that. That I was able to come to this realization on my own. As he was always for letting people understand and develop. I do not hope to emulate Carl Sagan, I could not do that if I tried. He was a great person, one of the greatest our species has ever known. But what I do hope to do is continue his legacy. To spread forth his ideals and his wisdom. To take it in and make it a part of me, just as I have with everything else I have learned. In this manner, I hope to honor his memory. And while I know you will never be able to read this, thank you, Carl Sagan, for helping me understand and be happy with who I am.

How Science is Taught (Part Deux)

I wanted to elaborate on my previous post a bit. It was mostly limited to a lack of passion that the general public sees coming from the sciences, but this was far too short sighted. While I strongly believe that this must be rectified if our specie is going to continue to develop, I also see that it must not be limited to one area.

In many parts of the world, an air of anti-intellectualism is growing. To make matters worse, many people, especially amongst my generation and below (and some above as well) see the world as a collection of opinions that are equal to one another. Anyone with an intelligence greater then that of a plant can see the danger here.

One of the ways to combat this is through passion. Now passion is a finicky thing; it can lead to great things such as aiding your fellow humans, or it can lead to terrible things like blowing up those same humans. It is all about direction and temperance through logic. One such passion is a passion for knowledge. If you have that passion, use it. Do not hide it because it is ‘nerdy’ or ’strange’. If you share this love, it will effect others, it will show them what others might never have shown them. It might even inspire them to share their own passion. If you love art, learn all you can and take others to a gallery. If you love music, listen and go with friends to a concert. If you love literature, read and take your family to an open mic night. If you love science, discover and share the wonder at a museum. The most important part is not to keep it to yourself. The more people who are vocal about their positive passions, the more we can drown out the negative and enlighten the lost.

I had mentioned the dangers of viewing all opinions as equally valid earlier. While everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, that doesn’t mean that they are worth a damn thing. If you are wrong on something, then you are wrong and that is the end of the discussion. If you think the moon landing was a hoax or that rubbing a crystal on your forehead will cure you of your illness then go right ahead and do so. But don’t feel offended when I tell you that you are wrong and think you need to shut up about it. No one should have to put up with willful ignorance, nor should anyone feel bad for stopping it from spreading.

If all opinions were equally valid, we would have no more need for doctors, after all, it is only the doctors opinion that you should stop smoking or get treatment for your TB. We wouldn’t need engineers, after all, it is only their opinion that the new bridge is not strong enough to support the weight of traffic. Who needs experts when we have people claiming to be able to cure the worlds problems through talking to yourself or ending hunger through eating air?

If you are like me, you want our specie to live long enough to enjoy cybernetic brains and colonies on Europa. This will not happen if we continue to allow people to think it is perfectly fine to remain ignorant. Use your passion (wisely), future generations may just depend on it.

How Science is Taught

In between classes I was lounging around near my colleges choral/theatre (as a useless aside, why do so many people insist on spelling it theater, that always upsets me) department when I overheard that some of the people there were having difficulty with their biology work. Being a bio tutor I offered my aid after my next class, an offer this, and two other individuals, enthusiastically accepted. So after my next class class ended, I sat down with them and ran them through the information they needed.

Normally such a mundane event would not be worth writing over, and this one is not much different, I was just using it as a segue to a different point. The point being that our centers for education really need to learn how to teach science. Granted there are some wonderful science educators out there, but not enough.

The sciences are far too often taught as a series of facts strung together that one needs to simply memorize. That is bloody boring and makes people hate science. When I am teaching science, I get really into it. I make connections to my students lives or I show them what the concept means in the grand scheme. I want to see the individual I am teaching have a moment where things not only click into place, but they see, just for a moment, things from my perspective. When I witness the 'that is awesome' moment I know that I have done my job.

While I realize that this is guaranteed to be more difficult with a large class, you would think one would see some level of it more frequently. But you don't (or at least I do not). I see English classes taught with more vigor (not that there is anything wrong with English classes, any subject should be taught with passion) then nearly every science ever is. Granted there is still the occasional 'mad scientist' style teacher, but not enough.

The sciences can be the most mind blowing set of subjects one could ever hope to study, or they can be reminiscent of a scene from 'Faris Buellers Day Off'. If you are familiar with the sciences and love what they have to offer, don't sit quiet about it. If you can interject your love into it, you can make others love it as well. Seeing that awe in others can be incredibly rewarding.