Science is a big tent. It includes such topics as orgasms. Mary Roach is the presenter in this fora.tv video. A psychologist and sex researcher, Mary is the author of several books, including her latest, Bonk: The Curious History of Science and Sex (2008). She takes this topic almost seriously, dishing out memorable stories along the way.
I recently had the opportunity to view Bill Moyers' 2007 interview of British intellectual Jonathan Miller, who produced the PBS series, "A Brief History of Disbelief." It’s a lively and thoughtful interview (it lasts about 20 minutes). Here are some excerpts, but it is well worth watching the entire thing:
For a very long time, atheism was not an affirmation; it was accusation. I mean, it was talked about, that there were atheists, in those same ways that there were Communists under the bed. You know, there were they were they were around, but no one knew where they were or what they looked like, or and so forth. For me, I am only a disbeliever by virtue of the fact that I'm surrounded by people who make assertions to which I cannot lend my assent. -- BILL MOYERS: When you hear the word "God," what goes off in your head? How do your brain cells fire? JONATHAN MILLER: Well, I mostly, I haven't the faintest idea what people are talking about. -- I hate the word, "spiritual," anyway because it's been hijacked by this ghastly sort of new age lot, who talk about "spirituality." What I would say is, I have moments of - I suppose you might call them transcendent feelings; feelings which rise above what is immediately in front of me. -- I'm reluctant to use the word 'atheist' to describe my own unshakeable disbelief and that's not because I'm ashamed, afraid or even embarrassed, but simply because it seems so self evidently true to me that there is no God that giving that conviction a special title, somehow dignifies what it denies.
On issues relating to the environment, George Will’s strategy has been to draw his curve, then plot his data. As of late, he’s been denying far more than climate change; he’s denying the data relating to climate change. It has gotten so bad that he’s been pointing to changes in the weather to attempt to rebut evidence that there are changes in climate, an unfair tactic that even fourth-graders know enough to criticize. Throughout his arguments, Will delights in sprinkling in pointy little reminders that the government is always misguided, as though we should trust in the “free market.” This week, in an article published by the Washington Post, Will has employed all of his favorite forms of paltering in a full-scale attack on compact fluorescent light bulbs. He doesn't like compact fluorescent bulbs for a variety of reasons that he enunciates. Without citing any statistics, he claims that some of those bulbs might not last as long as the bulb life indicated on the package. Because of the existence of mercury in the bulbs, he gripes that we can’t just toss them away in the general trash when they break or cease working. Will also complains that CFL’s are not all-purpose bulbs—they don’t work in hot places with limited airflow. And they take a bit to get to their full brightness. Down with CFL’s!
What does it mean to be "open minded?" This excellent video gets right to it. Simple, straight-forward reasoning with entertaining animation. I've never seen this topic better-discussed. The video is by Doug, "Qualiasoup," who puts this quote on his youtube site:
"It is not acceptable to have a religion where the alternative to faith is punishment — that's how you train dogs, not develop people." - Deng Ming-Dao Consider some of his additional videos, such as this one on the basics of evolution.
Judge James P. Gray is a trial Judge in Orange County, California, a former attorney in the Navy JAG corps, a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles; he has also been a civil litigation attorney for a private law firm. In these two videos, he talks about marijuana and our "failed and hopeless drug policy" in America. According to Gray, it's easier for kids to get marijuana than alcohol because alcohol is regulated by the government and marijuana is regulated by drug dealers on the street. These are excellent videos, caused by a thoughtful judge who is in a position to know. If we started treating marijuana as we do alcohol, we would see five immediate benefits:
California would save $1 Billion in state expenses currently used to prosecute marijuana offenses.
California would generate $1.3B in take revenue per year in California (marijuana is currently the number one cash crop in California, with grapes being #2).
We'd make marijuana less available than it is now, and the quality of marijuana would be better regulated than it is now.
The entire medical marijuana controversy would go away--the Federal government is currently acting like a "bully" harassing sick people.