Search This Blog

Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Welcome to Skepticism. (what it means to be a skeptic)

Greetings folks, hope that everything has been going well.  Things are hectic at the Skeptical Okie Headquarters partly due to the horrendous damage due to the tornado.  We didn't suffer directly, but friends of ours did.  Our thoughts are with the people affected by the tornado.

A lot of interesting things in the news lately including small flying robots, a guy demonstrating a gun made with a 3-D printer, Eugenie Scott retiring from the N.C.S.E., a possible cure for H.I.V., and in the interest of having an Oklahoma topic, pet owners turning to alternative medicine for their animals.

And now for the main issue.  I am relatively new to the skeptical movement.  In this, I mean as an active participant.  Most of my life I have doubted aliens, ghosts, bush doctors (Homeopaths and Naturopaths), psychics, faith healers, conspiracies, and the list goes on.  Unfortunately, I live in Oklahoma and expressing doubt on these is tantamount to kicking a baby.  I just kept my mouth shut, and tried to ignore the Woo that was being bantered about.  Then about 3 or 4 years ago, my wife mentioned a podcast called "The Skeptics Guide to the Universe".  I thought it was an extension to "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"  I listened to a couple of episodes and thought "Damn, there are other people like me!"  This was also my introduction to podcasts in general, but that is merely an interesting side note.  To date, I probably listen to  2 dozen skeptic or science based podcasts, not including a couple of steampunk based and of course Scott Sigler (everything the man writes is golden.  Horror stories based on actual science,  and some excellent sports stuff also.  If you haven't heard him yet, go check him out on i-tunes or at scottsigler.com and tell him I sent you.)  In that time, from skeptic fledgling to today, with a skeptic blog, working on starting a skeptics society, and trying to come up with a format for a podcast that hasn't been done to death, I have noticed a few things, especially in Oklahoma.  So I thought that I would try and write a short guide to help you on your path to becoming a full fledged, card carrying skeptic.

If you look in the Oxford English dictionary, "skeptic" is defined as
  • 1a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
  •  a person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist or agnostic.
  • 2 Philosophy an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere.

This is pretty much what we are, and what we do.  Many people use cynic interchangeably, claiming that we don't trust anything that doesn't fit within our strictly defined, dogmatic views.  What a true skeptic actually does is keep an open mind, just not so open it falls out.  (I did paraphrase it, but I love that line, and if anyone can tell me who said it, 25 instant cool points)  We are actually more subject to changing our minds on a topic as more information becomes available.  We think in much the same manner that science works.  As more information comes to us, our ideas are modified, enhanced, or discarded.  Yes, we are human, so we are subject to the same biases that everyone else is, but a skeptic does try to account for their personal bias when making a decision.  Another term often lumped in with skeptics is "atheist".  For an example, look up any big time skeptic on Conservapedia and you will find atheist tied to their name.  An atheist is someone that doesn't believe in a god, and was a term I hadn't heard until I was in my late teens.  As Penn (of Penn and Teller fame) often says, and again, I'm paraphrasing, everyone is atheist to one god or another.  Christians don't believe in Vishnu, Muslims don't believe in Odin, and so on.  Granted, many skeptics are either atheist or agnostic, but there are some that are believers.  They feel that there is sufficient evidence, if not for "God", then some higher power.  Who is to say they're wrong?  You can't prove a negative, so it is impossible to prove God doesn't exist.  These people don't let their religious beliefs cloud their judgment when it comes to the facts, which I know sounds like a bit of a paradox.  In the end, a skeptic is someone that looks at all the evidence, and then uses the evidence to make a decision.  They are not a cynic, and atheist, or a "Star Wars, Star Trek, Science loving, God hating egotistical, elitist Know-it-all".

Something else that quickly becomes apparent if you listen to enough speakers or podcasts is the fact that the skeptical community loves to have a label for things.  Most of this I think stems from the fact that most of us are what used to be called "type A personalities".   This is also the reason that there aren't many very many rigidly structured groups.  You think herding cats is hard, try herding a room full of skeptics.  Some of the common labels you'll hear are : alt med, pseudoscience, logical fallacy, or just fallacy for short, fundie, skeptic, you kinda get the idea.  most of the labels are self explanatory, with the exception of the logical fallacies.  You may have heard the terms ad hominem, ad hoc,  and the like.  These are terms used to label logical fallacies in debates or arguments.  These also have an english translation, and these are used also.  There are so many permutations on these that without a solid background in philosophy or debate, it would take several posts just to go through the most common ones.  Wikipedia has a good list with definitions, as well as The Skeptics Dictionary.  The terms you will often hear in the skeptical movement are used to  group ideas or arguments into easily disseminated bites.  If you don't know what they mean, simply ask.  Skeptics promote education, and are more than happy, normally, to explain any term you don't understand.

Another thing you'll encounter as a newly minted skeptic is Woo.  This is a term that has been about for a few years to describe pseudoscience and myths.  There is a good rule of thumb when trying to determine if something is bullshit based or plausible.  If it's some form of Woo, at some point , you will probably see or here one of the following phrases or words:
Big _____ (insert any business group or government here), Conspiracy, Wellness, Holistic, They don't want you to know, sheeple, Cancer cure, Detox, Natural cure, Ancient techniques, Ancient knowledge, Metaphysical, Quantum, Deepak Chopra, Secret knowledge....yeah, you kinda see where this going.  Normally, if you see or hear any of these terms, you should take care with any of the information that's being presented.  When people are trying to sell a product or service that has no evidence to back their claims, they will normally resort to using claims like these that can not be proven.   When they are tested and fail, the proponents will either use the fallacy known as "moving the goal post" which means that they change their requirements for proof, or they will use the very popular "special pleading" which they basically say that some aspect of their issue can't be tested by any known science.

Coming into the skeptical movement today is sort of like jumping off of the high dive into 2 feet of water, before learning how to dive.  It can be overwhelming, confusing, and a little stressful.  Don't be discouraged, ask questions, and feel free to be yourself.  The skeptical movement is for everyone.  So look for a group near you, and see what they're up to.  If there isn't a group and you don't want to try and start one, contact Center for Inquiry, James Randi Educational Foundation, or The Skeptics Society.  there is a place for everyone, and they do provide a sense of community for many of us.

I know this post is a little more rambling than usual, and I will admit I was rushing it to try an get it out.  Please forgive me on the meandering writings of a mildly sleep deprived skeptic.  Until next time, Be good, Be Skeptical, and have fun.

The Skeptical Okie
     

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

The one year anniversary!

I just noticed that the blog is 1 year old today, so happy birthday to it!  Other famous events on March 19 are : 1997- Supreme court hears Internet indecency arguments, 1987-Jim Bakker resigns after a sex scandal with Jessica Hahn, and in 1915-Pluto photographed for the first time.  Yes there are a lot of other events, but most of them are sports stats, and I really didn't feel like listing all of them.  I'll admit that the posts haven't been coming out on a regular basis, which I hope to fix in the near future, and I still plan on writing about "The Family".  Due to work, home life, the blog has on occasion taken a back seat.   Don't worry, much like Jesus, I am always thinking of the faithful, and watching.  So you, put the brownie back, you said you were saving it for tomorrow, and you in the shed, that's not what that's used for.  You're going to hurt someone.

I know I've covered a handful of different topics, and tried several different formats.  It seems that the ones covering religion and the cryptids are the most popular.  As I've said, I don't want this to be a strictly atheist blog.  If the religious right (Reich?) attempts to put themselves into the ring concerning science or public policies, then damn right I'll fight.  I still want to cover some of the other things that cause people to either directly or indirectly cause harm to themselves and others, such as conspiracy theories and false medical claims.  If you have a topic that you would live to have me cover, let me know.  No topic is taboo, and no research is too strenuous.  In the near future, I hope to cover The Discovery Institute, which has been causing a lot of headaches lately, especially for the NCSE.  I may also do a post on Ken Hamm and his Answers in Genesis group.  I hope that my writing style has improved, and that more people are finding it at least tolerable, if not enjoyable.  I also hope to continue this for another year.  Sometimes the topics I want to cover come at me like a Gish Gallop, and it's difficult to pick one that I'll have the time to dig into and see whats going on.  Other times, they are so few and far between, finding one is like finding a homeopath that admits it's all placebo.  So stick with me, and let's hope the next revolution around the sun is even better.

Until next time, be good, be skeptical, and be home in time for dinner.

The Skeptical Okie














Monday, March 4, 2013

Science education and Oklahoma legislative failure.


Hey everyone, The Skeptical Okie here.  It's been fairly calm at the Skeptic headquarters, just busy.  First thing I've got to say is congratulations to the lawmakers that voted against Senate Bill 758.  For those that don't know, the was our most recent in Oklahoma to allow teachers to "teach the controversy" when it comes to topics such as evolution and climate change, or as the bills author, Gus Blackwell, puts it, allows students and teachers to question and explore the strengths and weaknesses of scientific controversies such as cloning, climate change, evolution, and the origin of life.  This bill would have diluted science education in the state to the same efficacy as homeopathy.  The problem is that a similar bill, House Bill 1674 is still live.  It is authored by Josh Brecheen, and appears to co-authored by guess who.  Yep Sally Kern. The  passage of bills like these would completely undermine science education in the state and severely hurt not just the state, but it would also hamper our children when they go to college.  They would enter a college biology classroom, and expect to be able to dispute any mention of evolution, and not be penalized for it.  Bills that "allow" people to disregard proven scientific principles in favor of a faith based approach to the way the world works will also slow scientific innovations as these students enter the work force.                                                                                  The authors of these bills have gotten creative in recent years and are careful to avoid any mention of creationism, which is a common tactic among the creationism proponents.  The National Center for Science Education fights these issues in every state, but they can't do it alone.  I'm urging every reader of this blog that resides in the state of Oklahoma to contact their state rep. and senator and tell them that these bills are damaging to the future of not only the state, but to the children as well.  They would also make us a laughing stock to the rest of the country, and if this trend continues to the other states, the entire world.  The creationist sect tries to pass these every couple of years, and so far, they haven't passed, yet.  They are getting sneakier with their wording, and they seem to get more support every time they put one of these mockeries forward for a vote.  It almost seems that education is just a political game for some of these folks, regardless of the actual long term effects they'll have.  "Education Bills" such as these should never even reach they floor.  They should be laughed at and mocked until they curl up and die.
    If the creationists could actually provide real, demonstrable evidence for their side of the "argument", then this might be a topic of discussion.  So far, every attempt to either prove their points or disprove what they feel are controversial topics have failed.  And their little battle cries of "teach the controversy" and  "there's no consensus" just goes to show that they haven't really looked into it.  They are simply buying into what their preacher, pastor, padre, or elder is telling them.  The controversies are primarily in their own heads.  For the most part, the scientific community agrees on evolution, climate change, the origin of life, and other subjects.  Their might be minor disagreements concerning the exact mechanisms, or a small details, but all in all, they are in agreement, ergo, a consensus.
    I know that this was a relatively short post, but we need to act soon to prevent this measure from passing. I am also getting so frustrated reading what these, and I'll be nice, people are trying to do to the education system in the state.  We are already ranked  42 in the country for science education.  Consider this a call to arms.  We need to fight for the future of the state, scientific literacy, and more importantly, the children.I am going to go ahead an wind this one up before I become less coherent than usual and really go off on a rant.  I hope to talk to everyone soon. Until next time, Be Goo, Be Well, and Be Skeptical.

The Skeptical Okie


Monday, January 21, 2013

Gun control, Executive Orders and the second amendment

Hello everybody!  How is everyone doing this week?  Normally I try and keep the mood light, and try and have some fun and hopefully make you laugh as you think.  Unfortunately, this topic is everywhere, and with the recent tragedies, there is no way to make light of it without coming across as a real dickhead.  Gun rights issues are fast becoming a sore topic across the country and all forms of media.  And the rest of the world is watching us to see what we do, and how we handle the issue.  I know that many other people who have a larger following, and more influence, have already spoken their piece on the topic, and that pro gun control is normally a Liberal issue, while anti gun control is a Conservative talking point.  I feel that I may offer a slightly different view point from either side, so I am going to attempt to write what I hope is a rational and thought-provoking article based on some of the statements that I have been hearing from people in the community.

A little side note here.  Even before I actually decided to write on this topic, I knew it was a divisive one.  I did not truly understand how difficult a subject it is to research.  There are statistics everywhere, but as they say, they nice thing about statistics is that you can make them mean anything you want. Also, there has been very little research actually done on guns and gun violence.  Yes the actual hard numbers are there, but what lead to the shootings, how many were at multiple shootings at the same location, how many were done by people with mental health issues, how many were truly accidental, how many were with legally or illegally obtained weapons?  This is information we need to find out in order to make an informed decision.  Hopefully, with this subject no longer seeming to be taboo, we will be able to starting putting everything together to form the bigger picture that is so badly needed right now. -Skeptical Okie


The 2nd Amendment Argument
O.k., I know that gun control is a big issue in this country, and probably always will be.  There is no easy, or complete answer.  Full out ban is impossible, and registration is also nearly impossible, due to the number of guns that are already out there, locked away and forgotten in cellars, attics and storage buildings.  What we need to do is forget political affiliation, and actually sit down at the table and have a discussion concerning firearms.  Right now, all sides are using the tragedy at Sandy Hook for their own purposes, and making the deaths of more than 2 dozen human beings into a stepping stone for personal agendas.  I do not want to use anyones death as a soap box for my personal views on guns and gun violence.  And before anyone says "Oh another Liberal minded Skeptic/atheist skinny jeans wearing, soy latte sipping bastard that wants to take everyones guns away"  just so you know, I am probably in the minority of the skeptical and atheist community in that I do own guns, and I do hunt.  I do admit that guns are a large part of our culture and history in this country.  I feel that as long as owners are responsible, careful, and knowledgeable about their weapons that will help to minimize recent events. (and yes, all guns, unless made to be non-functional, are weapons, even antiques.) Unfortunately, many Americans have such a cavalier attitude towards guns, even going so far as to refer to them as "toys",  that they have no problem showing them off to acquaintances and even strangers, much like you do with a new watch. At my current job, which firearms are NOT allowed inside of the building unless you are a law enforcement officer, I have seen people show off Glocks, Smith & Wessons, Berretas, and other handguns, claiming that the Oklahoma open carry law allows them to take the weapon anywhere they want, even into government buildings that normally have young children inside and are posted "No Firearms Allowed".  Actually, the open carry law does give businesses the right to allow entry to anyone carrying a gun, and I can not think of any government building that allows anyone other than law officers to have firearms on the property.  These same people will also claim 2nd Amendment rights to carry their guns with them at all times.  These are often the same people that demand a literal interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  The problem is that, for the most part, they have never actually read either one.  Neither version of the 2nd Amendment actually states that individuals have the right to carry a gun just because they want to.  There are at least 2 ratified versions that I was able to find.  They read as follows:

As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This is from Wikipedia. Notice that in the version that was passed by Congress, certain words are capitalized, whereas in the States version, no capitalization.  This can be interpreted in several ways.  One way is that the capitalization puts emphasis on those particular words, implying a more government backed militia and state (i.e. the country)  The second versions therefore would not have that same emphasis.  A second interpretation , and honestly more likely, is that because this was written before the era of cut and paste, there were copying errors.  But in either case, note the word "militia".  Basically, the 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that the people would have the means to defend the country, if they were needed.  This was also before we actually had a full time, professional standing army.  Remember that the army that won the Revolutionary War was made up of mostly farmers, businessmen, and outdoorsmen.  Very few had served in an army, or had any military training.  This was a provision to make sure that there were trained fighters for defense.  In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, made the interpretation  that the 2nd Amendment gave the right to own firearms to all citizens.  This is fine, and yes, I do support a persons right to own a firearm.  My problem is that a lot of the conservative, fundamentalist talking heads seem to think that people need to stock up on guns to protect the country....from itself.  They are nearly implying that before long, it is going to come down to firefights in the streets to defend your right to "Keep and Bear arms", which would be ironic to say the least.  This is a sticking point that is going to require people to grow the hell up, sit down, and actually work on the problem, instead of playground name calling and tantrums.

Gun Control
Also, just because it is called gun control, that doesn't mean that guns will be banned.  Gun control is just a generic phrase generally used concerning any and all legislation that deals with gun laws.  Gun control may be limiting the number of large caliber weapons, limiting the amount of ammunition able to be purchased at one time, or limiting the size of the magazines.  Unless you are planning on mounting an assault, or are a deer hunter that happens to be a terrible shot, these types of restrictions really shouldn't have much of an effect on most normal, honest gun owners.


The Executive Orders
In other politically charged and conspiracy fostering news, President Obama has recently signed 23 Executive Orders concerning guns.  People have been posting and saying that they will only allowing certain groups to own guns, the complete destruction of all guns, only certain styles or calibers will be legal, and basically a lot of other paranoid statements.  With about 30 seconds of searching, I have actually uncovered all 23 and I will now reveal them for the world to see!


Pulling from Newsmax and Slate.com, they are as follows:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background-check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background- check system.

4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to healthcare providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency-response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within Affordable Care Act exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

I personally didn't see "destruction", "ban", or any other buzz words that have been thrown around lately, did you?  The Executive Orders  of President Obama do not automatically "ban" guns or actually appear to do any thing at all. The orders are actually more of a "to do" list.  These are suggestions on courses of action that he hopes to take to try and resolve what is actually a serious problem in the United States.


Causes of Death
O.k. kiddos, and now for math.  I know, math sucks, math's boring etc, etc.  Here is the thing.  There have been a lot of numbers thrown out recently concerning the number of people killed by guns, and the number of people killed by hammers, cars, etc.  Then people go on a rant about "X number of people are killed by automobiles, so why not ban cars, or require people to register them?"   Actually, you do resister your car, and you have to have a license to prove that you can operate it safely, which a wouldn't be a bad idea for guns either.  I know in Oklahoma, you have to have to have passed an approved hunters safety course to get a hunting license, but just need a drivers license and the money to buy a gun.  Sorry to go off on a tangent like that, and now I'm back.  According to the F.B.I., more people were killed with hammers and other blunt object than rifles.  But a hell of a lot more people were killed with handguns than any other weapon.  The F.B.I.'s numbers for 2011look like this:

Murder Victims
by Weapon, 2007–2011



Weapons 2007 2008 2009 2010  2011
Total 14,916  14,224  13,752    13,164     12,664
Total firearms:10,129 9,528      9,199        8,8748,583
Handguns7,398      6,8006,5016,1156,220
Rifles453380351367323
Shotguns457442423366356
Other guns11681969397
Firearms, type not stated1,7051,8251,8281,9331,587
Knives or cutting instruments 1,817 1,888 1,836 1,732 1,694
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)647603623549496
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)1 869 875 817 769 728
Poison 10 9 7 11 5
Explosives 1 11 2 4 12
Fire 131 85 98 78 75
Narcotics 52 34 52 45 29
Drowning 12 16 8 10 15
Strangulation 134 89 122 122 85
Asphyxiation 109 87 84 98 89
Other weapons or weapons not stated 1,005 999 904 872 853

This information comes from the F.B.I.'s website.  The total deaths by various firearms were over 8,000 people in 2011 alone. I'm not even going to touch on the number of injuries, mostly because someone will point out that nearly everyone has smashed a finger with a hammer, but not everyone has been shot with a gun.   Like I've said, this is not an easy problem to work with.  For some people, it may be easier to ask one of the popes for advice on sex than to discuss any gun issues.  I am not advocating total gun control, nor am I saying we should look the other way and hope it all goes away.  What I am suggesting is everyone sit down, shut up, and listen to all sides, and see if we can't work out a solution that is beneficial to everyone.  But then again, that's the problem with compromise, no one gets everything that they want.


Assault rifles
I believe the main reason that the focus is on assault rifles is partly due to what they are, "assault" weapons.  Not home defense weapons, not target shooting weapons, not hunting weapons, and not hang on the wall weapons.  I have heard people say "They want to get rid of them because they look scary".  O.k., I can sort of see that.  But do you really need a 30 round magazine (also called a clip, but magazine is the correct term) of hollow point or full metal jacketed bullets?  Do you really need a weapon that looks like it was used in the raid on Osama bin Ladens compound?  And why does everyone focus on the rifles?  Nearly 5 times as many people were killed with handguns, they are easier to conceal, and because you can get much closer to a person before it becomes obvious, you don't need to aim quite as much as you do with a target that is 150 to 200 yards away.  I understand having a gun for personal and home defense, but unless you have military or police training, and even they make mistakes, it is all too easy to shoot the wrong person.  Just skim through the internet, and you'll find dozens, if not hundreds of stories of people shooting what they think is an intruder, and it turns out it is a family member or friend.  Not only that, but think about actually squeezing that trigger.  Not a lot of people can actually do that.  How many people have been shot with their own gun?  There are several studies, one of which is mentioned in NewScientist, that seem to point to a correlation that people that have guns are more likely to be shot.  This is not definitive, but it is food for thought. 


Hitler/Obama Meme
Lately, an internet meme that has probably popped up in everyone's Facebook feed is comparing Obama to Hitler.  It runs along the lines of Hitler declared a gun ban while surrounded by children, and then shows a picture of Hitler and another one of Obama, both surrounded by children, and allows the viewer to draw their "own" conclusion.  There is an old adage in debates.  When you compare your opponent to Hitler, you lose.  People are worried that Obama is going to magically slip around the legislative and Judicial branches of the government and affect totalitarian rule?  There is a reason that out government is divided into the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches.  This is a means of checks and balances that prevents each branch from becoming too powerful.  In case anyone has already forgotten, think back to early in 2012 when the health care bill was really being pushed.  That action had all 3 branches of government involved and they debated and argued, the Supreme court made rulings, the representatives and senators all had a say, and now it is basically sitting there until it goes into effect in 2014, for the most part.  If there was that much angry discussion over health care, imagine any Executive decisions concerning guns.  It'll make the Health Care debates look like a night out with friends.


The A.T.F.
Now I think we need to talk a little about the ATF.  This governmental agency is the one in charge of dealing with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.  However, their ability to do their job is severely hampered.  They have not had an actual director in 6 years, they have the same number of agents they did in 2004, and they can't create a national gun registry.  There is a good article done by the NY Times that can be found  here .   And there was another one on NPR that you can find here .  The main bureau that is supposed to have this sort of access, and yet, they have so much bureaucratic red tape to deal with and so many restrictions, that they are rendered completely impotent.


Mental Health and Gun Issues
A subject that has come up several times is the state of mental health care in the United States.  There seems to be a growing trend of people with some form of mental instability being able to go out and legally buy a gun, and then commit a heinous act with said gun or guns.  These problems may be depression, schizophrenia, paranoia, anger management issues, or even a psychotic break.  Many people are going about, functioning normally, but actually may be suffering from one or several of these problems.  we have gotten better at diagnosing them, but only if someone notices.  A major problem with that, is that these problems often seem to lead to the person being, if not out right anti-social, then viewed as a loner, or quiet, or withdrawn.  This makes it hard for people to realize that there may be something deeper going on.  Issues like this really need to be addressed during the debates over gun rights.  One problem is, does a person with schizophrenia have any less of a right to own a gun than some one that doesn't suffer from the same mental illness?  What if they are on medication, and they take it as they are supposed to?  Does this change anything?  What if the mental illness was brought about by a case of extreme circumstances, and the person has made a full recovery?  As I stated before, these questions and others do need to be addressed before much longer.

Guns and Crime
In attempting to determine whether most guns used in crimes were legally obtained, stolen, or bought illegally, and if crime rates increase or decrease in an inverse proportion to the number of conceal/carry permits or an open carry state, I came on a disturbing trend.  There seems to be no data out there that people can agree on.  mostly it seems to depend on your political leanings or how you feel about guns.  I have seen numbers that say most guns used in crimes are legal, illegal, and stolen, depending on where you go to look.  The same for the carry laws, proponents give one set of data, while the opponents give another.  Once again, we need to have cold hard facts, not skewed by personal beliefs if we are to make an informed choice.



Arming our Teachers?
And finally to talk about schools.  Yes, right now almost everything is going to come back around to the shooting in Newtown.  There has been talk about allowing teachers to be armed while in class.  I do not think that the answer to gun violence is more guns.  In Texas, there are people offering free classes to teachers for conceal/carry.  My main issue is that a couple of 8 hour courses is not going to prepare someone to actually face someone else with a gun, especially when the second person has already shown a complete disregard for human life.  Most teachers are not former military or police, they haven't had the psychological and physical training to handle instantaneous life or death decisions.  Another issue is, what if the kids happen to steal or "borrow" the gun?  At the school I taught at for a brief period of time, that would be a major concern.  Yes, police on duty at the schools would be a good idea, but most municipalities resources are already stretched thin as it is, and they don't have enough officers for regular duties, let alone to have one stationed full time at a school.  Most schools wouldn't have the funds to pay for armed security either.  Once again, there is no clear answer.

I know that this is a murky topic, and for some people it is an emotional one as well.  I hope that I have been able to provide some unbiased information, or at least made you think a little about the rhetoric that is being spouted by both sides right now.  Unfortunately, when it comes to firearms in the United States, there is no right answer.  Hopefully, there is a best answer.

The Skeptical Okie

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Girl Scouts for abortion? No! And.. a 10 foot squid.

Hello friends, and how has everyone been?  Hopefully you all successfully survived the Mayan Apocalypse, Christmas, and New Years.  It was a little tight here in the Skeptical Okie hidden bunker, but after evicting the conservatives and Rekai masters, there was plenty of turkey and Twinkies to last the end of the world.  We survived, but our pants didn't make it.  Just a couple of things to talk about this time.  Actually, I've got several, but as each one will be fairly long, I decided to cover each one as an individual topic.

But first, some really cool science news!
Captured deep beneath the waves: 10ft squid filmed in natural habitat
That's right, they actually caught a giant squid on film.  Granted, it was only 10 feet long, while they can possibly grow up to over 50 foot, but still, pretty cool!  They basically had to film it in near blackness, mostly because they appear to avoid light sources.  I really can't put into words how interesting this is, but I hope that more research on these animals is on the way.

The second topic I was wanting to write about is a good demonstration of why critical and rational thought is important.  I recently saw on FaceBook a post that basically states that the Girl Scouts of America are funding abortions through Planned Parenthood.  In an October 1, 2004 press release, Nina Boggia stated "Healthy living is a big part of Girl Scouting.  We want to raise awareness about girls' health, so we're also partnering with local hospitals and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation to promote cancer education."   From what I can find on the official Girl Scouts website, found at www.girlscouts.org , they are no longer in a partnership with them.  The Girl Scouts have quite a few partners across the corporate and governmental sectors. 
Their corporate partners are:










Their governmental partners are:




  • Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
  • National Science Foundation (NSF)
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
  • U.S. Department of Education (DOE)
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
  • U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
  • U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
  • U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)



  • The Girl Scouts also have programs for minorities, girls with incarcerated mothers,  rural communities, and an anti-violence campaign.  So far, nothing to ruffle anyones feathers right?   Not quite.   According to an article on snopes.com, Indiana state rep Bob Morris issued a statement concerning the state recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts.  What his statement boils down to is that the Girl Scouts are a radical group trying to push abortions on everyone, and promote female sexuality.  He even stated that he did a little internet research and even though neither the Girl Scouts nor the Planned Parenthood websites said they were partners, and they even denied it, they had entered into a "strategic affiliation".  What the hell this unholy union is supposed to accomplish, Representative Morris never quite makes clear.  He goes on to make a lot of other claims and complaints.  Most of them are patently false.  For the entire article, which will not let me copy and paste, look here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/girlscouts.asp    There are also the rebuttals from both the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood.  just for reference, the recognition passed unanimously.  Part of this rumor stems from the fact that Girl Scouts did partner with the Susan G. Komen Foundation, who has donated money to Planned Parenthood.  I guess it's a homeopathic donation. The conservatives tend to focus on Planned Parenthood and abortion.  Yes, they do provide help with abortions, but they also give help on:  Birth Control, general health, men's sexual health, the morning after pill, Pregnancy, Relationships, Sex and Sexuality, Sexual Orientation, STD's, and Womens Health.  So yeah, they are a truly evil and morally reprehensible organization fully capable of bringing about the downfall of western civilization. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)

    I have heard a lot of the conspiracies concerning the Girl Scouts use the words "radical" "feminist", and "liberal".  I think these are the conservative code words for "intelligent", empowered", and "modern".  Yes, the Scouts do promote women's health issues, including sexual health.  Unfortunately for some of these girls, this may be the only way they get the information that can help them make informed decisions concerning their own sexual practices, from abstinence to contraceptives.  I know that, as the father of a 16 year old girl, these are topics most parents really don't want to broach or think about.  Yes, the Colorado Girl Scouts did allow a transgender boy (he lived his life as a girl, and identified himself as a girl as long as he could remember) to join which Fox News did make it sound much worse than it was.  The Girl Scouts are inclusive, pretty much regardless of sexual orientation, and in some cases, physical gender.  I myself am a male Girl Scout.  I know how that sounds, and no, I only wear the sash and skirt at official events.  I kid, at least about the sash and skirt.  I actually am an adult member, and I am not the only male, even here in the buckle of the ultra conservative bible belt.  But without the education some of the girls get from their troop leaders, they could easily make bad decisions that possibly affect them for the rest of their lives, especially as some of them have no other female role model that they can ask questions.

    And finally, the coupe de resistance, the cookies and where the money goes.  Some of them are especially addictive, (I'm partial to the peanut butter and chocolate Tag-a-longs) and some people do eat way to many at this time of year.  I've been known to eat an entire box at 1 sitting.  The cookie sales are the troops best known means of fund raising.  They have to pay for their camps, outings, and any activities or philanthropy projects.  A percentage goes to the troops, the councils, service units, and the bakeries get the rest.  The sales aren't just about fund raising either.  They help teach the girls to speak to people, how to be an entrepreneur, and how to manage money.

    I know that I've put a lot of info out there, and I haven't covered nearly everything, but I still recommend whenever you hear someone spout off and they use the words "Conspiracy", "radical" "liberal" or "real truth"  do some research on your own.  Not only will you be better prepared the next time, but you might learn something you weren't expecting.

    So until next time, I'll put the usual rigmarole here.  feel free to leave any comments or questions here on the blog.  And always remember, be good.  Next time, Bigfoot Hunters, Part 2!

    The Skeptical Okie












    Monday, November 19, 2012

    Crocoduck, Bigfoot, and church as a punishment?


    Hey everyone, how's it going?  Now that the elections are over, I've decided to emerge from my bunker in an undisclosed state in a hidden location.  I'm assuming that because we aren't at war with Iran and the industries haven't been de-regulated, Obama must have won.  Things have been hectic and interesting here at the Skeptical Okie secret base.  To those that are from Oklahoma, this will make sense.  To everyone else, I'll try and explain.  Recently, I was at my local Wal Mart (yes I know, evil big corporation shutting out mom and pop stores, bad practices, etc, but it's the cheapest place for miles around, and the closest.) and I ran into someone that remembered my grandpa.  My grandpa used to make a bit of extra pocket money by witching for water wells.  Witching wells is called dousing by the rest of the world.  I used to go with him on a few of these jobs, and he "taught" me how to do it.  Basically, he put 2 willow rods (because willow is attracted to water) in my hands and told me to feel for the water.  I watched what he did and noticed he was tensing his arms, so I did the same thing.  He thought I had the gift.  Remember, his daughter, my mother, thinks she can heal sunburns by touching them.  Anyway, this gentleman at Wal Mart remembered me (I haven't changed much in appearance) and told me he had just bought a quarter section and needed to put in a well.  He wanted to know if I would come out and witch it for him.  As we are living on a single paycheck right now, there was a lot of temptation.  I looked at him and told him no, I couldn't.  I didn't go into an explanation of why, mostly because he would just tell me I'm wasting my "gift", and yes, I've heard it before.  The major issue I really wanted to point out is that most of the state sits on top of the Ogallala aquifer, and if you drill down enough, you'll hit water.  I've had a few run ins with our local ghost hunters too, but that story is for another day.

    Okay, this story is one that can make you facepalm and hurt a rib at the same time.  Basically, a 14 year old girl in New Zealand (to my NZ readers, is this attitude normal?)  states that homosexuality will bring human development to a standstill, but she doesn't believe in evolution.  Because ducks nest in pairs, they will be more evolved than humans.  Quick, someone get her a biology book, STAT!!!!!!!!!!  I guess someone forgot to tell her that often ducks do take a same sex partner.  Sometimes, they'll try and breed an animal that's a different species. (Crocoduck anyone?  Kirk Cameron may be trying this, though I don't imagine the coupling will be pleasant for either animal, unless a lot of alcohol is involved.  Could you imagine the walk of shame the next morning after that?)  The whole article is found at
    http://now.msn.com/homosexuality-will-put-ducks-in-charge-of-world-teen-says


    I loved this one!!!  In the state of Georgia, Charles Darwin, who has been dead for about 130 years at this point, received over 4000 write in votes against Sen.Paul "evolution is from hell" Broun.  Just goes to show that anyone can run for office in this country.  Granted, Broun still got 209,000, but it was a valid protest that got his attention.  I've been hearing a lot of people saying that they wasted their votes, and a few people ask who Darwin is.  This is one the the rare times that a write in vote like this wasn't a waste.  Broun was running unopposed, so basically either you voted for him, or you didn't vote.  A version of the story can be read at
    Charles Darwin was the natural selection for 4,000 Georgia voters


    I've heard of cruel and unusual punishment, but this one is a little odd.   Judge sentences teen to 10 years of church   Here in Oklahoma, we've got a long history of strange laws (such as you can go to jail for taking a bite out of someone elses hamburger or that sex is only legal in the missionary position.  Who the hell enforces these?)  There is a district court judge who has a habit of sentencing people to church.  Basically it's deferred sentence where they have to attend a religious service instead of A.A.  A 17 year old kid had a few drinks (legal age in the U.S. is 21) got into a wreck that killed his passenger and was charged with manslaughter.  Judge Mike Norman in Muskogee sentenced him to church.  When I was a kid, I know church felt like a punishment, by I always felt like I'd done something wrong BY going.  As I am writing this, I found out that this isn't exactly legal, though the judge is defending his decision.


    Okay, this one ties into the main thought of this post.  I know I've brought up a lot of topics already, and I hope I've given everyone some fodder for conversations.  I'll admit I do watch "Finding Bigfoot" on Animal Planet.  It does spike the old blood pressure, but I like to make it into a poor mans version of MST 3000 ( I like to think I'm Tom Crow).  Keep in mind I found this article first, then saw the fella on Finding Bigfoot.  In Idaho, gold miner William Barnes and scientist Jeff Meldrum are launching a remote control blimp to try and track Bigfoot from the air.  The article is at
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49424363
     I saw Meldrum on a recently aired episode of Finding Bigfoot (from here on referred to as FB to save my poor tired fingers and brain) and I realized that I had read an article about him a day or two before.  The reason I'm bringing up FB is because watching the show, I have come to realize a few things, outside of that odds are bigfoot is highly unlikely to exist.  The first is that the 3 guys, who are believers are always shooting down the solitary female whenever she puts her opinion out there.  Keep in mind, 1 of the men has always been a bigfoot hunter (Bobo, gotta love that nickname), 1 was a computer programmer (goatee guy), I think, and the third guy is Matt Moneymaker.  You would figure if you were running a "non-profit" organization, you would change your last name.  The female is actually a biologist that specializes in wildlife.  I once heard Moneymaker make the comment to her that "She doesn't know what it's like to be in the field".  To earn her degree, she had to spend time in the field tracking and observing animals in their native environment.  Another thought that occurred to me was the locations that they go for their research, and I'm not going to use quotes around the questionable designations for the rest of the article because I'm kinda afraid of wearing the key out.  If you would be so kind as to look at the 2 maps below,

    bigfoot




    black bear



    Not the best comparative maps, but they were the best I could find.  When I can find better, I'll put them in.  The majority of bigfoot sightings are clustered in areas that are also black bear habitat.  I can see how a person could mistake a bear walking upright for a hairy humanoid creature.  Another problem I have with their research techniques is how they actually look for these creatures.  They have a variety of ways that they do this.  One of the most common is sound blasting.  I do have a friend that is a believer, and have discussed some of these with him to find out what the concept behind this was.  Sound blasting, which is basically a boom box (o.k., I'm old, it's a large sound system) playing various animal calls including gorillas, chimps, and large N. American predators like wolves and coyotes.  The idea is that bigfoot, being a primate, will respond to the ape calls, and bigfoot follows wolves and coyotes. (More on that in a minute)  Bigfoot, anecdotally, according to my friend, is also very territorial and can be violent, so it's a good idea to let them know you're there.  Another technique I've seen is the Rave, which is what it sounds like.  Laser lights, loud music.  It's supposed to make the animal curious, and draw them in to investigate. (Yep, you want to have a large, territorial, possibly violent humanoid come to you)  There is also the, what I'm calling, "Damsel in distress".  The female sits alone while the men go off and watch the terrain.  She talks, calls out, and generally tries to entice one in.  Poor gal if it ever happens.  They also play recorded children's voices, claiming that bigfoot are curious about human children. (Is the plural bigfoot, bigfeet, bigfoots?)  They have also basically had a large camp out, complete with a bonfire, people playing music, and singing.  Another method that they've used is where they ran through the woods with torches (for my British readers, I don't mean an electric torch, I mean a flaming pitch type of torch) yelling and screaming.  Who the fuck runs through the woods, at night, with a flaming torch?  Have they never seen the Smokey the Bear commercials?  They normal method is to wear large camera rigs, divide up into 2 teams, go a distance apart and "call" back and forth.  These rigs have lights, and a lot of electronics on them, but they say that bigfoot is sensitive to electronics and avoid them.  They also banter a lot back and forth and over the radios. 
    Another issue with these bigfoot hunters is the tracks.  A lot of the time when they point out tracks, I don't see them, and the biologist doesn't seem to see them as tracks either.  I think this may be more of a case of Pareidolia,  which is when the brain finds patterns that don't actually exist.  Some good examples are seeing a Philly cheese steak in the clouds.  Some other examples are 
                
    Another problem I have with the tracks is that generally a biped will put most weight on the balls of its feet, making that part of the track slightly deeper.  Every time the biologist says she doesn't see what the others do, they jump down her throat. 
    And my major peeve with the show.  Every episode, they will cut in to one of the 3 men describing perfect bigfoot territory, foods, and body types.  I like it when Bobo says "If I like it than a squatch will like it."  I've begun to think he's actually a shaved bigfoot that is sent out into the human population to keep us away, or if he can't, warn the local bigfoot.  I know, it's goofy, but it makes the show a little more entertaining.  What I want to know, HOW THE HELL DO THEY KNOW THIS???  Without a living population, or at least several samples for observation and testing ,there is no way, except for anecdotes, to have this information.  They say that bigfoot are apex predators and follow wolf packs.  They have shown stick structures, kinds like a lean-to, and stated bigfoot must have made it.  Thing is, I've built a lot of those when I've been camping and caught out in a storm.  For the life of me, I can't understand how they can make these claims without proof and documentation. 

    The main reason that this bugs the shite out of me is watching these folks bumble through the woods.  Don't get me wrong, I would love it if someone would actually bring in a live one, or at least a corpse that isn't a frozen costume.  I have spent a lot of my life tracking animals, everything from lost pets and livestock to predators that have killed pets and livestock.  You can't run through the woods making noise, talking on the radio, waving a torch, playing loud music, using laser lights, etc.   When stalking an animal, firstly you need to understand their behavior, even if it is acting abnormally.  Then you either find tracks or spoor, and follow the trail, or you find likely spots, and sit there quietly and see what comes along.  There are a lot of other things about the show I want to talk about, but this post has gotten longer than I intended, and if your still reading it, your eyes are probably getting tired. Until next time, be good, be skeptical, and have fun.

    The Skeptical Okie

    Saturday, October 27, 2012

    Politics as Usual, depressing. Religious Healing? Bullshit!

    Hey guys, how has everyone been?  About normal in my neck of the woods.  (For those that are new to the blog, that roughly translates to hectic, chaotic, and unpredictable)  It looks like I might be going back to working animal control, or even possibly a state job in the environmental management area.  We'll see how it goes, though I still want to teach.  Got a few topics I was wanting to talk about a bit.  I know I said I would write about "The Family" or "The Fellowship", but I'm still researching them, and I keep hitting dead ends, and I don't want to rely solely on Wikipedia for documentation.  I'm also going to start doing at least a couple of semi-regular segments.  One idea I had was to borrow from George Hrab and discuss the most annoying religious or political stupidity during an as of yet unannounced time period.  Another one is "What's Skeptical Okie listening to now?"  I know it's not the best name, but it will suffice for now.  And now, on to the show!

    One thing that really bothers me is when people put so damn much weight on the crap that falls out of celebrities cake-holes.  Remember Jennie McCarthy and all the good she did.  How many children were saved because of her well informed and publicly held views on the link between autism and childhood vaccinations?  I don't remember that happening either.  For those that live outside of the U.S., it's presidential season.  For us, it means hours of lip service debates, horrible t.v. ads, pundits accusing the other side of foul play, pundits blaming the other side for their candidates failures, people fighting over which candidate is the better liar, and hearing the candidates go on and on about how their opponents plans won't work, but theirs will because it has a donkey or an elephant behind it.  And on another tangent, why a donkey and elephant for political party mascots?  Because both are stubborn and will trample you if you get in their way?  Recently I heard on N.P.R. that Meatloaf, the singer, not the foodstuff, is supporting Romney for president.  Now I put together a short list of people of celebrated personage for everyone to compare and contrast.  I also put in what they are known for.

    Romney                                                                 Obama
    Mike Rowe-T.V. Dirty jobs (a personal favorite show)                                          Daniel Craig- 007, not an American
    Gene Simmons-Music, frontman for KISS                                                              Russel Crowe- Actor, not American
    Jenna Jameson-porn starlet                                                                                      Daniel Radcliffe-  Harry Potter, n.a.
    Jeff Foxworthy-comedian (who I think got his ideas from my family)                Mark Hamill- Luke Skywalker
    Trace Adkins- musician                                                                                          Richard Dean Anderson- McGuyver
    Kid Rock- musician                                                                                                  Morgan Freeman- actor, voice of god
    Jon Voight- actor, Angelina Jolies Dad                                                                  Angelina Jolie- actor
    Ted Nugent- musician                                                                                               Brad Pitt- actor, hubby of Angelina
    Chuck Norris-  actor, will kill you                                                                       Samuel L. Jackson- actor, total badass
    Donald Trump- rich, bad hair, insane                                                                  Chevy Chase- actor
    Clint Eastwood- actor, going senile, thinks a chair is president?                            Leonardo DiCaprio- actor

    I love how the first three I listed for Obama aren't even American citizens, but no one else seems to have pointed it out.  Romney seems to attract the loud kinda crazy people while Obama seems to get the people with the calming voices that you would want to be the ones to announce the end of the world.  Also, I noticed that Romney has 1 porn star supporting him (insert your own mormon underwear/pornstar joke and submit it in the comments, best one gets 15 cool points) while Obama has 8, count them 8 pornstars including Ron Jeremy giving him a hand.  And speaking of porn stars, Jenna Jameson is quoted as saying "When you're rich, you want a republican in office" (Businessinsider.com)   Once again people, why the hell does anyone give these peoples choices more weight than say mine?  They memorize scripts or tunes.  Yes, some of them are very intelligent, and very thoughtful, but still.   Who out there is waiting for the Metallica contingent to speak up before they make their choice?  (And to those that are concerned with who the stars pick, Bill Nye and I believe Neil DeGrasse Tyson support Obama)  I say look at the candidates, find out where they stand on the issues that are important to you, and,  oh hell who am I kidding.  Vote Obama, Romney as president is already giving me nightmares.  To any Canadian readers:  If Mitt Romney wins, can we camp out at your place for a while?  I'll work for room and board, and I hear that you guys have decent medical care up there.  Thanks, A Rational American.

    A second topic I want to bring up is Ann Coulter....I think I just threw up a little.  This goofy woman recently tweeted  "I highly approve of Romney's decision to be kind and gentle to the retard."  This obviously refers to President Obama as having a mental deficiency.  She refuses to back down from the comment stating that for the past 30 years it has come to mean loser.  (What debate were you watching Coulter?  Or did you only watch the commercials and fill in the blanks yourself?)  And then along came this man
    COULTER28N_2_WEB
    This paragon of virtue (and that comment was in no way derogatory, I honestly mean it.  This guy has brass balls the size of a Mac truck) is John Franklin Stephens, a 30 year old Special Olympian that has Downs Syndrome.  He wrote Coulter (and hell no, I'm not going to dignify her with the proper polite title of Ms.) an open letter, which you can find at http://specialolympicsblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/an-open-letter-to-ann-coulter/  , and I heartily recommend everyone of you read what this man has to say, and if possible, copy it and forward it on to Coulter until she recants her hateful term, even though the damage has already been done.  And if possible, tell Mr Stephens that it took a lot of courage for him to write to her the way he did, and that he does have peoples support.

    Now on to some slightly .... I don't know how to describe this story.  Mostly because I do take a perverse pleasure when religious groups get in trouble, especially the really crazy ones, but I really don't like it when someone dies when they probably shouldn't have.  Not that I like it when some one dies when they should, but you know what I mean.  By crazy, can anyone guess this weeks religious flavor?  No. not Mormon, but close.  Not episcopalian, and you see me after class.  Yep the (damn I hope I don't get sued for this) scientologists.  Recently at the Narconon Arrowood facility, there have been at least three deaths, and at least one of them have no known cause.  Looking at the Narconon website, they claim a better than 70% success rate for treating addiction, using scientifically proven methods.  Of course, scientologist science is an entirely different flavor of science than what most people deal with everyday.  One of there methods includes high levels of niacin combined with up to 5 hours in a sauna.  This helps to flush the toxins out of your system, and prevents the withdrawl symptoms, which can be painful and sometimes lead to death.  As of right now, there are 3 suits against the Arrowhead facility for wrongful death, and failure to provide care.  This place is right here in Oklahoma, near Lake Eufala, up by Tulsa.  This folks is why religion and science don't mix.  If you do use religion and medicine, side effects may include: shortness of breath, inability to get medical help, failure to use logic, and death.  Please use responsibly.  I don't have a problem with someone praying for help, as long as they are actually getting help.  In the bible, god himself says that "He helps those that help themselves."  So if you're going to use a religious tome to help with your health issues, use it to hold the door open in the doctors office.

    And now for the new segment "Whats Skeptical Okie Listening to?"  Or as my wife says, "What the hell is that?"  I am talking mainly about podcasts I try and listen to on a regular basis.  A new one I found is Cognitive Dissonance.  Tom and Cecil are the hosts, and this is mostly a back and forth banter type of show.  They do tend to deal more with atheist topics, but there is a lot of good skeptic quality there.   It honestly sounds like a couple of guys just talking about whatever pops into their heads.  Granted, they curse a lot, and there is a disclaimer at the beginning that basically says if you don't like bad language and sensitive topics talked about in a frank and open manner, don't listen.  2 thumbs up, just remember, not for the kiddos.  I still listen to the grandaddies of them all, The Skeptics Guide and the Geologic Podcast.  I have also begun listen to a couple of casts by Parrot or The Dumbass, depending on if you know him on the SGU message boards or not.  The first one is The Dumbasses guide to knowledge, and the second one is The invisible Sky Monster.  Both are pretty good, the guide being a general talk type and Invisible being an interview.  I also listen to Monstertalk and The Conspiracy Skeptic, both being interview shows, both definitely worth your time, depending on what your skeptical bent is.  And finally, there is Exposing Pseudoastronomy (man I hope I spelled that right)  which deals with astronomical conspiracies, or astronomically large misconceptions.  The newly minted Dr. Stuart Robbins does a very good job of breaking down the details and taking the conspiracy nutjobs arguments apart with scalpel like precision.  That and he tears Hoagland a new one.  I don't like Hoagland. 

    Well, that's it for now guys.  I'll see everyone soon I hope. Until next time, be good, and have fun, especially on Halloween.  All good skeptics, humanists, secularists, and atheists should really enjoy this holiday.  Let me know what your costumes are going to be.  I'm going as Roland Deshain, from Steven Kings "The Dark Tower" series.  Youngish Roland, I've got too many fingers.  See you soon.

    The Skeptical Okie