A look back in time

This is a time capsule blog post. I’m writing it from May 7, 2009, three years in the past when you read it (assuming my blog is still here, and that WordPress didn’t mess up and publish it late or early.

Check out this blog post from Earth Day 2009. It wasn’t a great day for me, my province, or the world. I wonder what it will mean 3 years from now. You will know.

Newly Discovered Bird Named after Twitter Text Messaging

The Tweeting Puffin is the latest animal to be identified after the 2009 text messaging sensation known as “Twitter”. The Tweeting Puffin shares several traits with its service namesake, so it only made sense that the biologists who discovered it in 2008 would think of naming it as they have. The Latin, and scientific name for the bird, microverbe aviflockus, refers to the short bursts of chirping the Tweeting Puffin makes, reminiscent of the 140 character “tweets” that humans can submit to the Twitter service from their cell phones and computers.

Rings You Didn’t Expect

Saturn has rings. Big news eh? Well, sort of. That’s because there’s a humongus ring around Saturn that went undiscovered until just recently because it’s not visible to the human eye, not even through a standard telescope. And the artist’s conception of it makes an excellent computer background.


Some of my library connected friends may find these retorts funny as well as rude.


Here’s an interesting assessment of our economy.

Our global pyramid scheme
POSTED 1:20 PM ON 8 OCT 2009

Our mismanaged world economy today has many of the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme takes payments from a broad base of investors and uses these to pay off returns. It creates the illusion that it is providing a highly attractive rate of return on investment as a result of savvy investment decisions when in fact these irresistibly high earnings are in part the result of consuming the asset base itself. A Ponzi scheme investment fund can last only as long as the flow of new investments is sufficient to sustain the high rates of return paid out to previous investors. When this is no longer possible, the scheme collapses—just as Bernard Madoff’s $65 billion investment fund did in December 2008.
Continue reading

Using Bad Language

This blog post has discussion and use of naughty words in it, so it’s being posted at 9:40PM when all good kids are in bed. Unfortunately, the WWW doesn’t unbroadcast after something airs, so after 9:40PM tonight, the WWW will be forever unsuitable for consumption by minors. Sorry about that.

-Jesus Christ!

John Gormley’s caller, Trish, on Friday who was upset because the Young Greens of Canada had an obscured F#$* word in their slogan, and would never let her children hear that word on TV (if she had a TV, which she doesn’t) was offended because someone suggested that humans are contributing to Climate Change. Let me get this straight — she thinks it’s immoral to say “f*cked” (obscured in original ad) in an ad campaign, but she’ll listen to John Gormley preach about the evil people who try to prevent Climate Change. Climate Change is possibly the largest immoral, passive action we collectively take part in today. Aside from watching the Oscars, that is.

I think it’s much more offensive for John Gormley to tell an earlier caller that he hopes “your Dad gave you Hell”, than for the YGC to use the word “f*cked” in an ad. Once upon a time, you couldn’t say “Hell” on the radio. Where’s Gormley’s decency, or consistency?

“It’s arrogant to think we change the climate… To think we actually change the weather, is ridiculous,” opined Trish to which John agreed. Even more bizarre was John’s claim that “our obligation is to keep our waterways fresh, to keep our air clean, to make sure you have sustainable agriculture so you can grow stuff…” (emphasis mine). What the FUCK does he think people against Climate Change are in favour of? Clean air is the cornerstone of reducing the effect humans have on the climate! Without a stable climate, we lose sustainable agricultural ability too! It’s not rocket science, but it is science that can demonstrate humans affect the climate.

Get a f*cking clue John and Trish. The atmosphere is not your toilet, and neither are radio waves. So, stop filling them with garbage, pretty please with an organic cherry on top?

Both Evil and Wrong

There’s a new movie out tonight, and it’s called “Not Evil, Just Wrong”. It’s an attempt to characterize Al Gore and others calling for legislative action to reduce climate changing pollution, as hysterics who are “wrong”. Climate Change deniers started out attempting to demonize Al Gore as Evil, and Wrong, and have fallen back a position to saying he’s a normal former Vice President, but he’s just wrong. Their next position will be that he’s neither evil or wrong, but that they really would rather we didn’t do anything about pollution anyway.


A couple of my friends went to the screening at the RSM this evening. I drove one of them to the door, and went in to take a peek, and the crowd 20 minutes before the start were milling around the food set up. There were about 20 people there, and the price was $10 I heard. Mostly it was 20 or 30-something white males like me in attendance. I left. The Fraser Institute doesn’t need my support.


See what the elite media won’t tell you. See the staggering impact of extreme legislation Gore and his friends want. On jobs. On our troubled economy. On America’s ability to compete with other nations. On real people and real families who face financial ruin when severe restrictions on fossil energy are passed into law.

“Elite media”? They are pandering to people who feel threatened by the “elite media” who won’t tell the truth. “On Jobs” isn’t a sentence either, correct me if I’m wrong. I guess the non-elite media never bother with complete sentences. On purpose.

Films that oppose actions to reduce pollution are promoting an immoral lifestyle. “Not Evil Just Wrong” panders to the we didn’t break it, and we sure as hell ain’t goin’ to fix it generation. It’s a generation I’m sad to say I’m in the midst of, but I participate in it as infrequently as I can manage. I’m in favour of doing things that make the earth more livable for people in the future.

I’m against the idea that polluting has to be done at the rate it is being done, for us to be happy and healthy. People were healthy and happy before the 1980s, so we don’t need 2009 consumption levels to be those things. In fact, if we try to maintain our level of consumption, it will be the demise of health and happiness.

Dr. Larry Arnhart at UofR – Liveblog

Why is evolution controversial after nearly two hundred years of scientific consideration?
Darwin knew many of the shortcomings of his theory. A science of history relies on indirect evidence. Lab science let’s us directly observe testing.

3:41 Alternative is God did it. When? How does it relate to the Ark?
They are strong on negative evidence, weak on positive.

Turn the tables on IDers, make creationists produce their supposed positive evidence. They have none, so don’t want to debate it that way.

Let students read both in Bio class and decide. HS Bio is boring out of a text, a debate would educate them.

The attack on Darwinian science is strong because it’s seen as an attack on morality.
Darwin born same day as Lincoln. Also was opposed to slavery.

Darwin seemed to lean toward agnosticism toward the end of his life. God could have created the natural law that put evolution into place at initial setup. The unfolding of evolution could be indirectly creating God’s design.

3:53 – morality could have arisin from evolution. It needs to, to complete the picture of the theory. Humans evolved from animals, and no devine purpose or afterlife. Animal appetites.
Bloodhound gang- nothing but mammals.

Home schooling movement, is in part to shelter children from Darwin’s theory. Earnhardt was quoted by a polisci teacher, who was then fired by his creationist’s school.

4:13 habit, tribal warfare to work in a group, but compete against other groups.

Golden rule has evolutionary advantage.

Bible doesn’t support or oppose a moral issue like slavery. Religion has been used to support slavery.

To ignore sympathy and stop the weak from reproducing, would violate human morality. Darwin married his first cousin. Birth defects were not as high as was thought in that day.

5:00 – taking questions. Why did slavery take so long to do away with in states?
Is paying a wage superior to force?

A purpose to life is to have a family. Not a cosmic purpose, not “transcendant”.

Writers should be careful to not be misinterpreted. Dawkins writes to be inflamatory.
Evil is often done for the purpose of morality.
Evidence that Bush was acting morally to bring about Revelations.

Human beings desiring power, the most dangerous people in the world are those at highest levels of power including religious institutions.

And I’m heading out.

Star Trek under the stars looking Up

Tonight was the cap to the orientation at the UofR, and the movie night on the Green was well done. There was one technical glitch during the showing of “Up” [8/10], but “Star Trek” [10/10] ran smoothly.

Star Trek was awesome under the stars. Saw two shooting stars tonight, and the ISS. I announced its appearance to the crowd, but few were interested it seemed. It went overhead at 8:30, and the little kids there saw it, but the one at 10:02 was less impressive, barely making it over the RIC building before blinking out of sight. It flies over again, brightly, at 8:52 PM Saturday night in Regina.

400 years of the far away being nearby

The telescope is 400 years old now. Google let me know with a clever graphic (like they often do for big events and holidays).

(I got popups when I opened the following link.)

[…]Just over 400 years ago, Galileo–then chair of mathematics at Italy’s University of Padua–got word that Dutch glass makers had invented a device that allowed viewers to see very distant objects as if they were nearby.

The mathematician soon acquired a Dutch instrument, and on August 25, 1609, he presented an improved, more powerful telescope of his own design to the senate of the city-state of Venice. The government officials were so impressed with Galileo’s telescope that they rewarded the professor with a higher salary and tenure for life at his university.

At the time, Galileo was touting the telescope for commercial and military applications, such as watching ships at sea. But in the fall of 1609 Galileo turned his telescope to the heavens, setting into motion a new kind of science: telescopic astronomy.

–Victoria Jaggard