…and this is a 
Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy
Category: Entertainment • Environment
Posted on: July 15, 2008 5:00 AM, by PZ Myers
That gadfly of the science communication world, Randy Olson, has a new movie out, Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy, and many bloggers all over the place are putting up their reviews today. I tried something a little different. The other day, I invited a group of people from Morris, Minnesota to watch the movie with me, and then we discussed what we thought of it afterwards…while my daughter, Skatje, video taped the whole thing.
Here's the team: Nancy Carpenter (UMM chemistry), Kristin Kearns (astronomy/physics), Pete Wyckoff (biology), Len Keeler (physics), Kathy Benson (psychology), Athena Kildegaard (poet), Kathleen and Lawrence Owen (retirees), Arne Kildegaard (economics), Nic McPhee (computer science), and me.
We all watched the movie together, and then…our reaction. It got us all going, and we talked for over 45 minutes, which I've edited down to 10 minutes here.
You don't want to watch the whole thing? Well, the overall response was that, alas, the movie is mediocre as both a documentary and as a movie — it's not really about global warming at all, but is more about how people respond to information. This is one of those awkward media misfits — it doesn't really fit into any of the conventional niches. It also doesn't accommodate itself to passive viewing; I think sitting alone and watching it would have been exasperating. As a catalyst for a discussion, though, it was much more rewarding.
So don't see it alone! Bring along a few people so you can have a good entertaining argument afterwards.
Environment
Comments
Aetiology also has a review on Sizzle: "Sizzle" tries, but fizzles. Posted at the exactly same time (5:00 AM). Spooky :-)
Posted by: Heraclides | July 15, 2008 7:42 AM
Global warming is a hot topic. Ba dum kssh!
Posted by: Kobra | July 15, 2008 7:49 AM
Mmmm, so people can have "Watch Sizzle" parties. It sounds depressing. Maybe as part of a course on presenting information?
Posted by: Monado | July 15, 2008 7:50 AM
Waittaminnit!
PZ, didn't you say your new pink cephalopod would be in your bed? So what's it doing there on the couch corner? Or, what have you done to be condemned to sleeping on the couch anyway? Something about snipers aiming at your bed? Cracker crumbs on your sheets?
Explain yourself!!oneeleven!!1!11!
Posted by: black wolf | July 15, 2008 8:07 AM
I was thinking Pharyngula had been hacked or something when I saw the post at 5 am LOL
And ahem,how did you watch the movie if its world premiere is on July 19 according to the website?
Posted by: clinteas | July 15, 2008 8:11 AM
Squishy!
I thought she was supposed to be in your bed. Did you let her out for the evening?Posted by: Sili | July 15, 2008 8:22 AM
PZ is your mail server still in the crapper?
This is OT but did you hear what idiot Rick Reilly said at the Home Run Derby last night?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbCHimp | July 15, 2008 8:26 AM
jesusandmo has just gone evn more crackers
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
Posted by: sailor | July 15, 2008 8:28 AM
A lot of very interesting points are being made here. I especially like the point that mainstream white people use black-oriented sycophantism to validate their points. Brilliant, that.
But otherwise, much of the discussion here is about the conflict between what scientists think of themselves and what Randy thinks of them.
Mostly, though, we are told again and again what the movie should have contained ... many of your guests were only interested in seeing a factual documentary and most of this talk was about how this movie was not that. It did not seem to dawn on people that maybe the movie was not a fact based documentary. That is a little disappointing.
Great camera work, but I was hoping the camera operater was going to jump in and say "Hey, you're all full of shit ... and here's why" (don't tell me that didn't happen... you just edited out, right?)
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 15, 2008 8:30 AM
It's a serious topic which I am not sure is readily amenable to a funny-documentary treatment.
Rev BDC @ 7: As someone close to me once said: "listen, you're just going to have to get over this fascination with Rounders, it's a girl's game! "
Posted by: DLC | July 15, 2008 8:32 AM
Damn, I was looking forward to this film. thanks for the heads-up PZ.
Posted by: Kel | July 15, 2008 8:33 AM
What I can't figure out is why anyone takes Randy Olson seriously, or even assumes that he's one of us. I commented before on Pharyngula over this comment of his at Chris Mooney's site supporting Mooney's & Nisbet's insipid framing ideas:
"Richard Dawkins is symptomatic of the lack of leadership in the world of science. If there was strong and effective leadership, there would be a strong voice reprimanding him for what he has been doing, and the backlash against him would be as strong and loud as it has been against intelligent design. They are both examples of scientists speaking forcefully, stridently and dogmatically about ideas that are no more than intuition. The NY Times Book Review of Dawkins book said that on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is clear proof of God, and 7 is clear proof of no God, Dawkins openly admits he's only at 6. That means he has no science to offer, only his gut feelings -- his intuition. Which is the same deal as intelligent design. The world of science should do a little better housekeeping in making clear that Dawkins writes only as a citizen, not a scientist, when it comes to atheism. Or even better, everyone should watch the South Park episodes that really show the similarities in these two ends of the spectrum."
____________________________________________
Posted by: Aris | July 15, 2008 8:37 AM
Is Skatje's blog down?
Posted by: Muffin | July 15, 2008 8:38 AM
Any refreshments? Maybe some, oh I don't know, crackers?
Posted by: TSC | July 15, 2008 8:47 AM
If you want to see a good movie about global warming, I recommend The Arrival, starring Charlie Sheen.
Posted by: Virgil Samms | July 15, 2008 8:51 AM
What strikes me about the impressions of the speakers in this night vision video, is the shortcomings of the video/film process.
Everything is edited to death, images are required, whether necessary or not, and it takes a year to get the thing out, at least.
Film or video is propagandistic by nature.
Radio and audio, OTOH, is either live or recorded that week, and is much more spontaneous, less distracting and inevitably contains more information per minute and is up to date.
The hijacking of the radio medium by right wing kooks has been their greatest weapon, and our most grievous loss.
But I'm a radio person, so I'm prejudiced.
-s
-------
You Tube Eucharist Challenge
Posted by: scooter | July 15, 2008 9:02 AM
Shamelessly OT,
In other news,
Cardinal Pell has held a mass for WYD in Sydney asking people to overcome their fat egos...
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=597829
Guess the worldwide obesity wave is leaving robed pedophiles less than impressed with these days' altarboys LOL
Posted by: clinteas | July 15, 2008 9:12 AM
Randy Olson is a Real Filmmaker (tm), how dare you criticize him! He's out making movies which are accessible by all audiences, etc etc.
Puts his harsh critiques of PZ and other anti-Creationists in a new light. Guess we see what he thinks a documentary should contain. Light on the documentary, heavy on the schlock.
Posted by: Adrian | July 15, 2008 9:16 AM
#18 "Guess we see what he thinks a documentary should contain. Light on the documentary, heavy on the schlock."
Wha? Are we talking about Expelled? ;-)
#12 "...this comment of his at Chris Mooney's site supporting Mooney's & Nisbet's insipid framing ideas:"
Got a link to that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to have it bookmarked. It just such a breathtakingly stupid thing to say.
Posted by: MH | July 15, 2008 9:29 AM
So,
PZ,Greg Laden and ERV all got up early to post this at 5 am,all at exactly the same time?
Right.
Hm.
Posted by: clinteas | July 15, 2008 9:31 AM
And where was the obligatory opposing view from the framing advocates? This was nothing more than a shamelessly pro-science film of a review of a documentary. I'm sure there are framers somewhere in MN. Perhaps they got as far as PZ's driveway before he turned them away with threats of police and pepper spray.
Kidding, kidding.
Thanks for the work you put into editing this.
Posted by: caynazzo | July 15, 2008 9:37 AM
You do know that you can schedule posts to actually appear on the blog in the future... right? As in write a bunch of posts and then schedule them to appear through out the day at different times?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 15, 2008 9:44 AM
Rev BDC,
I figured it would be something like that...
They just all scheduled it for 5am,got me thinking !
X-Files fan,you will excuse.....
Posted by: clinteas | July 15, 2008 9:47 AM
Wow! How many beers did that Physics dude end up drinking?! We see him at the start as he's slurping down a cold one whilst munching on an economy bag of crisps, and then at the end he seems to be slumped on the floor, with a mulititude of various empty wine and beer bottles spread out in front of him, and he's STILL drinkin'! It couldn't have been that bad, could it?!
Posted by: John Yates | July 15, 2008 9:47 AM
Flock of Dodos was mediocre as well... maybe even bad.
Posted by: Nemo | July 15, 2008 9:52 AM
hehe. No worries. I just wasn't sure where you were going with it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 15, 2008 9:53 AM
Oh, and Scooter- that's hysterical. :)
Posted by: John Yates | July 15, 2008 9:54 AM
Nemo said:
Hmmm - I thought that the one saving grace of framers was that however irritating they might be to real scientists they were at least supposed to be good at well . . . communicating science?
So how come they are apparently so unutterably shite at it?
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | July 15, 2008 9:59 AM
Re: Randy Olsen's comment on Dawkins...
Did he even watch those South Park episodes? The wars over science only happened because Dawkins hooked up with Mrs. Garrison, who channeled her religious fervor into atheist fervor. Once she is out of his life, Dawkins ends up normal and the scientific world wins peacefully.
Posted by: Steve P. | July 15, 2008 10:14 AM
So how come they are apparently so unutterably shite at it?
Yecch! Nesbittian framing techniques as the basis for a new aesthetic in film-making. Makes me wistful for some good old Freud-infested flicks from the 50's and 60's.
Posted by: ngong | July 15, 2008 10:15 AM
"Better than Silent Running"?? Blasphemy!!!!!1!
Posted by: windy | July 15, 2008 10:21 AM
#19 Got a link to that? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to have it bookmarked.
Sure (and you should doubt me, and everybody else too; I'm not offended).
Here's the link to the original post on Mooney's site. And here's the link to a discussion of his comment on Pharyngula, with Mooney jumping in to defend him as a Very Important Person who must not be criticized by peons.
____________________________________________
Posted by: Aris | July 15, 2008 10:27 AM
#28 "So how come they are apparently so unutterably shite at it?"
They remind me of IDists, in that they are the self-proclaimed experts in a 'dynamic new field', and yet all they produce is contentless blather. Heck, they even aided the IDists over Expelled.
My conclusion is that they are just not very bright.
Posted by: MH | July 15, 2008 10:34 AM
Thanks Aris.
:-)
Posted by: MH | July 15, 2008 10:36 AM
alot of idiots have thrown around the south park example, not realizing that science is not a free speech or opinion based discipline. it seems insightful, but really its not.
Posted by: chigurh | July 15, 2008 10:50 AM
PZ: Here's what you said about the Danish Cartoon episode:
There is a genuine social concern here, I think. Muslims represent a poor and oppressed underclass, and those cartoons represent a ruling establishment intentionally taunting them and basically flipping them off. They have cause to be furious!
I've seen the cartoons, and they are crude and uninteresting--they are more about perpetuating stereotypes of Muslims as bomb-throwing terrorists than seriously illuminating a problem. They lack artistic or social or even comedic merit, and are only presented as an insult to inflame a poor minority. I don't have any sympathy for a newspaper carrying out an exercise in pointless provocation.
You loser. I had sympathy for you until I realized what a squishy hack you are.
Posted by: Bill C. | July 15, 2008 11:05 AM
Wrong thread billy. There are at least 5 others dealing with that subject.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 15, 2008 11:11 AM
PZ,
I'm seeing a trend here. Travel around the country and organize parties, video tape them, post the video. Get an assignment to do a review, use it as an excuse to organize a party, post the video. I'm starting to suspect that this whole blog thing is simply an excuse to have parties and build a library of skeptics gone wild videos.
Come to Long Island - we could use a party. Between Cold Spring Harbor and Massimo at Stony Brook, there has to be a good excuse for a visit.
-v-
PS. Leave the camera at home. What happens on LI stays on LI.
Posted by: Vinny | July 15, 2008 11:13 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | July 15, 2008 11:26 AM
Good idea, Vin...count me in for a Lon Gisland Pharyngufest...a few biologists live on the South Shore too!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 15, 2008 12:27 PM
"Bring along a few people so you can have a good entertaining argument afterwards."
And you didn't invite anyone from the philosophy department?!? For shame. I might have to mention this faux pas when I'm at the UMM philosophy conference this September.
Posted by: Nevyn | July 15, 2008 12:29 PM
This reminds me of reaction videos on youtube, but with a little more substance. I approve.
Posted by: Jams | July 15, 2008 12:48 PM
I remember when atheists the world over protested that episode and asked for the cancellation of the series. I mean, that did happen, right? Ater all, militant atheists are just the same as religious fundamentalists. Right?
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 15, 2008 1:05 PM
#42 I can't resist posting my favorite reaction video, since you brought it up. TOTALLY off topic, safe for work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkuc6HG7h4o
-s
--------------
You Tube Eucharist Challenge
Posted by: scooter | July 15, 2008 1:16 PM
Thank science for trolls and sockpuppets
Posted by: scooter | July 15, 2008 1:20 PM
So, aside from the fact he can't pick up subtext in an episode of South Park, Randy Olsen thinks Richard Dawkins is a symptom of the lack of strong leadership in science (based on really hilarious failure to understand what Dawkins has actually said). Which, he seems to think, is a bad thing.
Because if someone's doing it better than Randy and the framers, it's clear that the system that must be sick.
Oh my Science...
Posted by: PoundMyMonkeyHole | July 15, 2008 1:21 PM
Thanks for the summary above.
Horrible audio. Couldn't take it.
Posted by: mk | July 15, 2008 1:39 PM
#39: I thought that blue-footed boobies had white eyes, how come this one has black eyes?
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 15, 2008 2:02 PM
Whoa, I've been called troll and sockpuppet. Nah, it's my fault for my refusal to use a winking smiley or some other blatant display of humor. I should know better by know.
(Sure enough, what I was trying to convey and failed was that that did not happen.)
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 15, 2008 2:12 PM
it wouldn't be science anymore.
Please.
What have I missed? Is it possible that Olson is really that ignorant?
Science is not the Catholic Church. It is not an organization with a leadership that can speak for the whole. It is not an organization at fucking all.
There could be lots and lots of individual voices doing that. But science cannot speak with a single voice, however weak, by definition.
Show me Dawkins calling for the destruction of science education or doing anything even remotely equivalent. Show me. Go ahead, show me.
<headdesk>
This really takes the cake. Science does not offer absolute certainty. Science cannot prove. If Dawkins had put himself at 7*, that would show he was relying on something else than science. But, being a scientist, Dawkins knows he cannot put himself at 7, so he puts himself where the evidence puts him.
Olson presents a case and argues for its opposite here. How embarrassing. This is egnorance! He deserves a truth machine treatment.
* Why actually 7 and not 10?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 15, 2008 3:05 PM
So here's what I predict: while the framers are chiding us in their usual sanctimonious fashion, "Sizzle" will be hard at work having no impact on anything whatsoever.
Posted by: Dustin | July 15, 2008 3:12 PM
Dawkins does not put forward a "scale" but a series of categories or gradations. Quoting from memory:
1. Absolute certainty that god exists.
2. Assurance that god exists, but not absolute.
3. Agnosticism leaning towards theism.
4. Absolute agnosticism.
5. Agnosticism leaning towards atheism.
6. Assurance that god does not exists, but not absolute.
7. Absolute certainty that god does not exist.
Dawkins puts himself at 6.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 15, 2008 3:16 PM
6 is, by the way, the same place I rate my own disbelief in fairies, unicorns, Thor, etc.
I must be one of those strident New Athorists who isn't utterly certain about the nonexistence of Thor, and so I'm clearly being totally unscientific when I say he doesn't exist.
Posted by: Dustin | July 15, 2008 3:24 PM
I just checked my copy of "The God Delusion" to be sure: the "scale" is not for "clear proof of God" or "clear proof of no God", but about, quoting literally, "human judgements about the existence of God." A far cry, methinks.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 15, 2008 3:47 PM
Rey Fox - Thanks for confirming that's a boobie. I thought so. My chicken Zena the Warrior Wyandot has that very same expression, it's hysterical!
Posted by: Patricia | July 15, 2008 3:58 PM
David #50 "Science is not the Catholic Church."
Precisely! It really disturbs me when so-called scientists think that there should be an 'official voice' of science. Science is a method used by individuals. It's not hierarchical. The fact that the framers seem to think we should have a 'clergy' just shows how little they understand science. It's no surprise that they think that they should be the clergy in question. What's their problem?
Posted by: MH | July 15, 2008 4:05 PM
Protip: Randy and the Framers would not, in fact, be a good name for a band unless:
1)The Framers were actually people dressed up as the Framers of the United States Constitution;
2)'Randy' was so-titled because he wears a gigantic, purple-polka-dotted inflatable phallus when the band performs;
or 3)The band has a giant inflatable Overton Window that they blow up and place in the mosh pit, so the crowd can go nuts trying to shift it.
Posted by: stogoe | July 15, 2008 4:21 PM
I seem to remember an interview where Dawkins discusses this "6" and refines his position to a "6.9" if non-integer responses are allowed.
And Andres... I got the humour from your first comment.
Posted by: BAllanJ | July 15, 2008 4:24 PM
David #50, excellent analysis. Now, please someone explain why we should bother with Olson, a man who purports to show scientists how to communicate but does not seem to understand what science actually is and how it works.
Sadly, Chris Mooney's framing obsession and attempts at defending Olson from criticism has diminished my respect for him also.
____________________________________________
Posted by: Aris | July 15, 2008 4:34 PM
stogoe,
I might actually want to listen to that. Right after SCRA.
The seven-point list looks to be mirroring the Kinsey Scale.
Posted by: Sili | July 15, 2008 5:11 PM
I felt very luke-warm in the end about this movie. I liked the idea of where it was going, but if it stuck to the quality it had at the VERY end of the movie, it could have had a better impact.
Posted by: Derek Colanduno | July 15, 2008 5:30 PM
You don't need my confirmation that it's a booby, the link was posted by woot, therefore, it's a booby of some sort.
Also, I find the term "Absolute agnosticism" hilarious.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 15, 2008 5:30 PM
"I'm starting to suspect that this whole blog thing is simply an excuse to have parties and build a library of skeptics gone wild videos."
I've always figured blogging was just grown-up "show and tell."
Posted by: craig | July 15, 2008 5:35 PM
"Woot" posts the boobie pictures in every thread. I sort of wondered why they haven't been banned yet, but I suppose it's a fairly benign prank. I wonder why they don't post some tit pictures every once in a while as well.
Posted by: John | July 15, 2008 5:50 PM
I haven't seen Olson's latest film, but I gave him a very tepid review for "Flock of Dodo's". That documentary wandered all over the place (remember Muffy Moose) and missed several golden opportunities to shed light on creationist deceptions in order to keep it "lighthearted".
From the descriptions offered by PZ Myers guests about his latest offering, it's quite possible that Mr. Olson simply isn't a good filmmaker.
How about Ridley Scott directing a big budget epic about the life of Charles Darwin with
Russell Crowe in the title role? That would put some zing back into science education.
Posted by: Steve Marley | July 15, 2008 5:53 PM
I haven't seen Olson's latest film, but I gave him a very tepid review for "Flock of Dodo's". That documentary wandered all over the place (remember Muffy Moose) and missed several golden opportunities to shed light on creationist deceptions in order to keep it "lighthearted".
From the descriptions offered by PZ Myers guests about his latest offering, it's quite possible that Mr. Olson simply isn't a good filmmaker.
How about Ridley Scott directing a big budget epic about the life of Charles Darwin with
Russell Crowe in the title role? That would put some zing back into science education.
Posted by: Steve Marley | July 15, 2008 5:55 PM
Having Trouble Commenting?
Occasionally users have problems commenting on our blogs. This usually happens when the system is experiencing a high load (i.e., lots of people trying to comment at once). This would result in a "500" or "Server Timeout" page being displayed. If you see this -- take heart. Your comment has most likely been successfully submitted. If you hit your back button and try to submit it again, more often than not it will result in a duplicate comment being submitted.
Yep, that's what happens. Sorry about the double post.
Posted by: Steve Marley | July 15, 2008 6:00 PM
It must be a man thing. Woot always looks like Homer peeking over a fence to me. :)
Posted by: Patricia | July 15, 2008 6:04 PM
Hey, Danish folks in your club - the ones with the last name "Kildegaard" (or possibly "Kildegård" on a Danish keyboard). I live a few hundred meters from "Kildegårds street" in Copenhagen, and I just took delivery of a professional audio product from Minnesota (Great River mic preamp for any fellow audio engineers reading this). Small world.
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | July 15, 2008 6:09 PM
Woot's rather novel emoticon is sort of a tacet affirmation. II think he has achieved a zen-like aura. But make no mistake, when it gets trolly and hairy around here, woot has proven to have a mean bite and not just killer boobies.
Posted by: E.V. | July 15, 2008 6:19 PM
w00t, as I understand it, is a seasoned veteran of rational vs. woo fights, and has thus been grandfathered into our good graces. Personally, whenever I'm on some thread with right-wing/religious BS flying around, it's always a nice break to click on a w00t link and be reminded that there is beauty in the world. More specifically, that there are noble yet silly-walking seabirds in the world.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 15, 2008 6:33 PM
Oh. That makes a lot of sense.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 15, 2008 6:43 PM
Thanks for the glimpse of life in PZ's world, it certainly was educational.
For instance, I've always believed that PZ was just another run of the mill nut job lefty. But now I can see that it is not mere mental deficiency that drives the Myers circus; if that assortment of dried flowers constituted my social circle I'd be tempted to make a public spectacle of myself too.
It would perhaps be the only thing that would keep me from opening a vein.
Posted by: Occam | July 15, 2008 8:36 PM
Hi Kenny.
Posted by: E.V. | July 15, 2008 9:08 PM
Oh how cute.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 15, 2008 9:21 PM
Can we reduce Dawkins' category 6 and 7 to the following:
Nothing lacks existence to a greater degree than god.
Posted by: Jams | July 15, 2008 9:23 PM
*Hands "Occam" a razor*
Posted by: shane | July 15, 2008 10:29 PM
Clinteas, did you also notice the irony in Australia's top celibate suggesting that the West should populate (copulate?) or perish. Presumably he only wants white babies. He probably hasn't noticed that the birth rate in Australia is at a 40 year high anyway.
I'm not prepared to speculate as why the catholic church wants more children.
Posted by: shane | July 15, 2008 10:39 PM
the birth rate in Australia is at a 40 year high anyway.
really?
Is there good explanation for the trend?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 15, 2008 10:41 PM
Re: Jams
I think Anselm made that argument in reverse. Something like, "God is that which you can conceive of nothing greater". Most people would not see that as a good argument and, indeed, it isn't.
Posted by: Max Verret | July 15, 2008 10:45 PM
Not sure anybody really knows why but 2006 had the second most number of babies ever born. Last year this article suggested that the treasure Costello was taking credit. No not by shagging 100000 women but by suggesting it was his policies that encouraged baby making. The baby bonus might have helped - a government non-means tested $3000 - 5000 bonus for having a baby. Means tested from next year though.
Posted by: shane | July 15, 2008 10:52 PM
Actually my guess as to why there are so many babies is because the average age for a first time mum now is about 30 in Australia. That would make the new mums the children of the baby boomers and there were a lot of them.
Posted by: shane | July 15, 2008 11:00 PM
Today I learned of the existence of Wordle, and (after updating Java etc.) tried generating wordles from a couple of my favourite blogs. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that the one that came up for Pharyngula isn't dominated by a monumental 'CRACKER', and I can't see the word 'fucktard' anywhere. Click my name for link, it mainly relates to the last couple of posts.
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | July 15, 2008 11:04 PM
#80:
"I think Anselm made that argument in reverse. Something like, "God is that which you can conceive of nothing greater". Most people would not see that as a good argument and, indeed, it isn't."
I don't think Jams was making an argument, but stating a position. So your comparison is invalid.
Posted by: anon | July 15, 2008 11:08 PM
That baby boom money is such a waste. I like what they do in Finland where they give a pack of essentials to the parents, such as clothing. Giving people a cheque with no consequences as to what they spend it on is going to mean people take the baby bonus and spend it on whatever they want. It's amounting to bribery, or at the very least incentivising conformity.
Posted by: Kel | July 15, 2008 11:30 PM
pz is my hero
Posted by: echtsam | July 16, 2008 12:05 AM
Futurama already did it! And with Al Gore! Yet another reason he should've won. Awww, I went and made myself depressed.
Posted by: Ames | July 16, 2008 12:40 AM
The baby bonus might have helped - a government non-means tested $3000 - 5000 bonus for having a baby. Means tested from next year though.
interesting.
something to watch.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 12:45 AM
It's amounting to bribery, or at the very least incentivising conformity.
Here we call this kind of bribe:
tax rebates.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 12:46 AM
It seems that there's another story of some christians running amock after getting offended...
Hyderabad(IANS) Christian groups Sunday attacked the offices of Telugu daily 'Sakshi', owned by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy's family, to protest the publication of a blasphemous picture of Jesus Christ. The daily's Sunday edition carried a picture showing Jesus with a beer mug in one hand and a cigarette in the other. The chief minister's family, which practices Christianity, has tendered an apology.
The chief minister's son and newspaper owner Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy and the chief minister's wife tendered an apology to the Christian community for the faux pas.
Protesting the publication of the picture, Christian groups attacked the newspaper offices in Prakasam, Srikakulam, Vijayawada, Nizamabad and other towns. Raising slogans against the newspaper, they barged into the offices and ransacked the furniture.
This is from India, it seems. It doesn't happen in just the xian-dominated US it appears.
Posted by: Reynold Hall | July 16, 2008 12:46 AM
'I think Anselm made that argument in reverse. Something like, "God is that which you can conceive of nothing greater". Most people would not see that as a good argument and, indeed, it isn't.' - Max Verret
Why would you think that? Let's see... what did I say?
"Nothing lacks existence to a greater degree than god." - Me
Oh yeah. Why exactly do you think my statement is the reverse of Anselm's? You need to think that through a bit. I await your explanation with a burning curiosity.
For the record though, imagining what "most people" may or may not think is almost as rotten an argument as simply stating "it isn't" (colloquially known as "'cause I say so"). You're clearly off to a disappointing start. You have my deepest sympathies.
Posted by: Jams | July 16, 2008 12:48 AM
I notice that PZ hasn't posted for an uncharacteristically long time. Was he traveling all day today, or is something else going on?
Posted by: Kurt | July 16, 2008 1:07 AM
# 78
Volume Volume Volume!!!
----------------------
You Tube Eucharist Challenge
Posted by: scooter | July 16, 2008 1:18 AM