I've been sitting on this one for a long time

Do what you want. Have a million babies. But don't parade your premature daughter on the cover of people alongside Heidi Montag's freakish face. And don't expect not to be judged for your 19 children on some level, be it resource consumption, arrogance, or flaunting your fertility in the face of millions of reproductively challenged people.

They pushed me over the edge with this. I don't want to risk having another child because my first and only was a preemie, I'm almost 40, and those two things together elevate my risk of having another preemie. I feel that foreknowledge of that possibility makes it an ethical choice: I refuse to subject my family, my child, and the system to another premature baby. I love the one I have; I don't want to do it again.

Heck, I don't have 19 friends that I could call close. How well can you even know your own children at this point?

But that's just snark, isn't it...

My Amurican Name

Mr. Beck, I was just wondering what you were thinking when you said that President Obama chose his name to identify with his heritage.

Isn't Glenn a gaelic name?

Maybe you should change your name to "Chetan" which comes from a Sioux word meaning "hawk."

Um...

What could this possibly involve?

Any guesses?

Homeopathy Acute Care Workshop

ETA: Professor Myers weighs in.

I'm not sure how I feel about this

Here's one way to say it:
Focus on the Family is airing an ad during the Superbowl.

Reaction: well crap. This is a hateful organization, but if they have the money, who's to say they can't?

Here's another way to say it:
CBS is airing a Focus on the Family ad during the Superbowl.

Reaction: basically the same as above, with the added bonus that I can feel superior for watching almost no network television.

And yet another way to say it:
CBS is airing a Focus on the Family ad during the Superbowl, but refused to air an ad by Moveon.org in 2004.

Reaction: that totally blows, and shows a clear bias. They should have standards. But then again, they are a business and can make their own business decisions.

Clearly, Focus on the Family is doing it for publicity. Meaning, not the publicity it will get from the 30-second ad, but the publicity it is getting due to the protests about the ad. If everyone had ignored it, what would FotF really get out of it? But if everyone ignored it, would that be giving it tacit approval?

If the ad gets pulled, they win. They get even more publicity and also get to whine about how conservatives and Christians are persecuted. Also, they get more donations.

If the ad airs, they win.
They still get all the publicity from the hype, more people see the ad, they feel vindicated, they get more donations, they feel that they have triumphed over godless liberals.

If the ad gets pulled, we win...
We show that enough people care enough to loudly disagree with them. Small consolation.

Basically, they win. They have already won. No one is going to care that many who oppose CBS's airing of this ad are simply calling for standards. No one is going to care that they would not air Moveon.org's ad. Those pesky little facts don't matter to a large section of Americans (see: President Obama's birth certificate, death panels, H1N1 vaccine conspiracy, etc.).

Basically, God got all up in the NFL's business sometime during the late '80's/early '90's, and there's nothing we can do about it. He's on both sides of every game, and he clearly cares deeply about touchdowns and extra points. Though he's not so hip on safetys.

Apparently, this ad contains the same cloying nonsense that we always hear, basically, what if (insert famous person's name here)'s mother had chosen abortion?

What if? What if nothing. We would not know the difference. It's not an argument; it's something that didn't happen. This argument never gets used as "What if (insert name pulled from obscurity here)'s mother had chosen abortion?" or "What if your mom had chosen abortion?" (answer: she didn't, and if she had, I would not be here, and I would not know the difference, nor would anyone else) or, as these people like to bring up Hitler so much, "What if Hitler's mother had chosen abortion?"

We still would not know the difference because we would not know that the thing that would have happened would have happened if not for X, but it's the flip side of "What if football player's mom had chosen abortion?"

In fact, it makes that question sound incredibly shallow and petty.

I'm a Joiner! Who knew?

Turns out, I can go to organized events that include people I don't know. In the past two weeks, I have been at two such events, both of which were organized by MNAtheists. For those of you who think that the words "organize" and "atheist" don't belong in the same sentence (see: organizing atheists/herding cats), I'll tell you, these non-believers can put together events. Lots of them. My calendar is often riddled with events, most of which I am unable to make (see: my other blog), but aside from the Creationism debate, I had not made a single one.

Two weeks ago, the whumpus family went on a trip to the Children's Museum. We met new people, who we liked, and no one asked us where we go to church. Plus, babywhumpus got to run around and touch stuff and play and play and play. It was excellent. Then last Thursday evening, I went to a Newbie Night. They have these periodically for people like me. I expected a free-for all with coffee. What I got was an organized small group meet and greet, which produced interesting conversations with a variety of people.

It was great. I am normally opposed to most forms of organized fun, and at first, I felt very nervous upon finding that there was a process and something that closely resembled teams, but I stuck with it.

I have the lists of questions, and they will make for good blog-fodder when I am avoiding work or otherwise meandering in my constructive pursuits.

Minnesota Science Standards

Minnesota is about to adopt its Academic Standards for Science.

This is in there:

"Explain how scientific and technological innovations can challenge portions of, or entire accepted theories and models including, but not limited to: cell theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, plate tectonic theory, germ theory of disease, and the big bang theory." (Page 27; Minnesota Academic Standards, Science K-12 2009)

Sounds good, right? New evidence should be considered in the scientific method.

Except what this statement can mean when interpreted in the real world of the science classroom is Intelligent Design/Creationism.

This benchmark is under the Standard "Understand that Science is a way of knowing about the natural world and is characterized by empirical criteria, logical argument and skeptical review."

It's unnecessary, given that other benchmarks explain the scientific method and "that scientists conduct investigations for a variety of reasons, including: to discover new aspects of the natural world, to explain observed phenomena, to test the conclusions of prior investigations, or to test the predictions of current theories."

Niggling, wheedling little semantic additions like these, acting like it's all about the scientific method, we only want to teach our kids all the facts, and we're are just trying to make sure that all angles are considered are disingenuous at best. What they are doing is allowing the obfuscation of the facts to continue, and it's not doing our kids or our nation any favors.

Next on my reading list: this short paper about evolution and creationism in America's classrooms, just for the garment-rendering, hair-raising fun of it.

I've been reading a great deal about Henry the VIII lately, and the notes for the most recent book are a doleful repetition of "destroyed by the Commonwealth." I know it's futile to be angry at Oliver Cromwell for destroying so many precious antiquities, but at this point, I feel like it's actually more useful than being mad at Americans for being so dumb.