Have a heart?

You’ve probably seen this image or something similar, on any number of social platforms such as Facebook and Twitter on a regular basis. It is usually accompanied by an appeal to “like” or “share” or “pray” for the person/s pictured.

And it will invariably contain an exhortation such as “This will only be ignored by those who don’t have a heart,” or something to that effect.

DON’T heed the call. It is absolute bullshit!

Sometimes the appeal will state that for every “share” or “like,” some big corporation like Microsoft will donate a $1 or more towards medical care or otherwise for the hapless individual/s.

That’s even more bogus. DON’T believe it!

The particular image I chose above had attracted 1,085,499 “likes” and 85,128 “shares” at the time of posting. It had also garnered 78,254 comments, most of them sympathetic. There were those who expressed skepticism and some who were malicious, although for the life of me, I fail to understand why they even bothered wasting their time on this nonsense.

The reality is that no amount of “shares” or “likes” is going to do anything for the victim/s portrayed in the image. Neither is Microsoft or any other big corporation going to donate one red cent for any medical care or anything else. And you can pray until you’re red in the face, but it won’t change a thing either. All you achieve is to perpetuate irrational nonsense and fill the web with junk.

Some of the claims about the particular disease the individual/s in the image is/are suffering from can be corroborated via resources such as Snopes.com. In many cases, the alleged disease, causing the pitiful image is not mentioned at all, nor is the individual’s name given, so it is not always easy to validate. Those who originate the post, rely on the image to mess with your emotions.

Off course, they may be a few genuine cases of victims afflicted with life threatening illnesses posted on social media, but it is almost impossible to sift out among the cacophony of junk proliferating out there.

For those who are wondering, I do have a heart, but it’s quite preoccupied with pumping blood to my brain and body. That leaves no time for it to think or feel.

A Feast For Crows by George R.R. Martin

The 4th book in the epic fantasy series is as exhilarating as the previous three. Martin explains at the end of the book how his original manuscript  was too large for publication considering the ongoing saga of the multitude of characters we were introduced to in the first three volumes. And so he decided that it was “better served by a book that told all the story for half the characters, rather than half the story for all the characters.”

Therefore this book focuses on just the characters from King’s Landing, The Riverlands,  The Eyrie, The Iron Islands, Dorne, Oldtown, and Braavos. At King’s Landing we have the Lannisters who include the evil Queen Regent Cersei, twin brother Jaime, 8-year old King Tommen who succeeded King Joffrey, the Tyrells of Highgarden who include Queen Margaery, Tommen’s wife (yeah, forced to marry at 8 to cement the alliance with the Tyrells), and an assortment of cronies aligned to Cersei.

Elsewhere the continuing tales of Brienne of Tarth, Petyr Baelish and Sansa Stark, The Greyjoys of The Iron Islands, The Martells of Dorne, and Samwell Tarly of the Wall, play out.

We also continue to enjoy the story of Arya Stark’s journey to Braavos since fleeing from King’s Landing after the execution of her father Eddard Stark.

Synopsis

There is a great deal of moral ambiguity throughout the book, indeed in all 4 volumes thus far. While one is accustomed to good triumphing over evil and the good guys always winning in the end, the good guys in Martin’s books don’t necessarily always come out on top, nor do the bad guys always get their comeuppance. Martin allows for the characters we initially despise, to be able to redeem themselves. And a lot of the good guys die unnecessarily.

However some of the characters such as Cersei and Joffrey were irredeemably bad, and while we know that the latter suffered an agonising death in the previous book, Cersei’s scheming and cruelty goes unpunished, at least until the end of this book. But I’ll have to wait for the next installments to find out to what extent she suffers.

In conclusion, I once again found the historical backgrounds provided for the characters, too in-depth and long-winded. However, so fantastic is the overall story that I’m willing to overlook this, and eagerly look forward to Book 5.

Just Kiss

The self-appointed wardens of the invisible gods are at it again, and they will continue to dictate how you live your life, who you should worship and how not to mention how many times a day or week, how to dress, what to eat and what not, how to copulate, who to associate with or not, and a lot other things too mundane to mention.

This time they don’t want people kissing in public… in Turkey at least. There’s probably other places in the world besides, and it won’t be too hard to guess where.

Brave people in Ankara had to stage a protest this week in defiance at the railway station where a young couple who DARED to kiss in public were admonished. Apparently it’s immoral to kiss in public, but perfectly acceptable to indulge in atrocious acts of violence, in DEFENCE (?) of an invisible god.

I say fuck ’em. Let’s not continue to abide these hypocritical holy men. Let’s all just kiss, wherever the fuck we want.

The time has come to give the kiss of death to the insane ideologies of archaic religions and their holy men.

Sanctuary lost

Religion is a pretty tenuous thing at best to seek sanctuary in, but most people seem to find comfort there, and as much as I speak out against this aberration, I realise that it is going to take a long long time to totally rid the world of its hold, if ever. So imagine how despondent it must feel to those seeking sanctuary in its bosom, to be discriminated against on the basis of their gender.

Far be it for me to claim to know how women feel about being discriminated against, but at least I can relate, having endured victimization under apartheid in South Africa. So I do know that it must feel rotten.

Just about every religion I’ve come across, has discriminated against women, some more so than others. All on the basis of interpretation of obscure and archaic religious texts, written in a time when men had not much more knowledge than garden snails. And let’s be clear about it; it’s men (99.99% of the time) who are the perpetrators of this discrimination.

It’s shocking and disheartening to learn on a daily basis how religiously inspired men around the world, treat women with contempt, even going so far as to maim, mutilate and kill them, because of some insignificant act committed, which is deemed to be in violation of a religious doctrine.

Just the other day, I read with utter dismay how the number of women imprisoned in Afghanistan in the last 18 months has risen by 50%, to 600. Their offenses which range from running away from abusive husbands, family and forced marriages, to being the victims of sexual abuse, are regarded as “moral crimes.” What kind of mindset can turn the victim of sexual assault into a moral criminal?

Afghanistan is a shit hole, but this kind of thing happens in many other countries which are considered advanced, even civilized by modern standards. A proposed Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW) law in Afghanistan is being blocked by religiously inspired lawmakers who argue that some sections are un-Islamic. That is incomprehensible and utterly devoid of sane or rational thinking.

In the Middle and Far East, women are subject to other forms of discrimination such as limitations on basic freedoms like free movement, enforcement of dress codes, and being prevented from driving vehicles. We are told by self-appointed moralists that these basic rights infringe on certain religious tenets. It’s however by no means any different in the highly advanced West where lesbians face the threat of violence, and discrimination against termination of pregnancy, or Africa where female genital mutilation is still enforced.

No amount of cuss words can describe how utterly deprived these beliefs are.The common denominator is religion, and patriarchal men who hide behind it, spreading their hatred… and fear of women.

If this is the treatment meted out to god-fearing women, I can only shudder in disgust at what non-believing women have to go through.

For Lee-Ann

A few weeks ago I was dancing with some dear friends at their home and this song was played, a couple of times in fact. Now it’s stuck in my head and won’t go away.

That’s not a bad thing though, because I lurv this song by The Monkees. Thanks Lee-Ann.

Daydream Believer

Cheer up, Sleepy Jean.
Oh, what can it mean.
To a daydream believer
And a homecoming queen.

WTF Moment

49% of Americans think that ordinary tomatoes do not have genes, but genetically modified tomatoes do…

Okay that was back in 2008. Here’s some more [Infographic source: Less Wrong].

Do you think that scientific literacy has improved since then? I only managed to dig up some statistics as recent as 2010. I’d be interested in hearing from anyone with more recent figures, but it shows that things don’t get any better – only a 2% improvement for the question about tomatoe genes. [Table source: Discover, The Loom]

I have probably unfairly singled out the USA, but the above table reveals that the levels of scientific literacy are not that much better in other parts of the world. I sincerely hope that more recent statistics show a drastic improvement, but somehow I doubt it. And that’s worrying for the future of this planet.

Iconoclasm – The Good, The Bad And The Ugly

Bamyan – Statue of Buddah *Author: Marco Bonavoglia

Iconoclasm (noun)

(1) a challenge to or overturning of traditional beliefs, customs, and values

(2) the destruction of religious images used in worship, or opposition to their use in worship. [Encarta]

There are two sides to iconoclasm – the good and the bad, but I’m going to suggest a third characteristic – ugly, which is also bad, and should be viewed as such by all sane people.

Good Iconoclasm

Challenging established beliefs, customs, traditions and values is good. It is the act of embracing new knowledge. Scientific discovery is dependent upon confronting old ideas and beliefs and leads to technological innovation, which overall is good for the progress and advancement of the human race. Skepticism and critical thinking are the natural by-products of good iconoclasm, or is it the other way around?

The reason why we don’t have people suspected of witchcraft being regularly burned at the stake is because of good iconoclasm. But isolated incidences still occur in some parts of the world; the parts that resist change to new ideas. However things are significantly better in the modern era.

Bad Iconoclasm

The wanton destruction of religious artefacts, including those of archeological significance is barbaric, backward and symptomatic of a retarded mindset. In recent years there have been several incidences of the senseless destruction of these objects. The bombing of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan by the Taliban and the desecration of tombs in the ancient Malian city of Timbuktu by Islamists, come to mind. However, history is littered with the malicious destruction of places of worship and religious artefacts, by various proponents of the world’s religions.

Off course it is not only religious fundamentalists who carry out these senseless acts of devastation. Other bizarre ideological beliefs whether political or social, have also been the prime motivator for the same inane act of destruction.

Ugly Iconoclasm

I don’t suppose this category actually exists, but I’m going to stick my neck out and propose it by providing an example.

Nohmul is a Mayan archeological site in the Yucatan Peninsula near Belize. Recently a pyramid dating to around 250 BCE was found to have been almost completely destroyed by building contractors, who were using the gravel and limestone content for constructing a nearby road. The owner of the excavation equipment was revealed to be a local politician, although it has not been proved that he ordered the destruction of the pyramid.

A Boston University Professor who had worked on many archeological sites in the area commented that “bulldozing Maya mounds for road fill is an endemic problem in Belize.”

This type of iconoclasm is rooted in greed. Defacing priceless treasures of our human heritage to make a quick buck.

So there you have it; my word of the week…

Freshly Played #20: Pearl Jam

Yep, Pearl Jam again. This time, it’s a song with a curious history… and great guitar riffs at the beginning and end.

As I’ve mentioned previously, guitar riffs drive me wild. The riffs at the beginning and end has a striking resemblance to Jimi Hendrix/Stevie Ray Vaughn’s rendition of Little Wing.

Yellow Ledbetter never featured on any of Pearl Jam’s studio albums. It was an outtake from their debut album 10, and was released as a B-side on the released single Jeremy. It did however feature on a B-sides and Rarities album, and their Greatest Hits album.

And it seems that nobody really knows precisely, the lyrics to the song. Lead singer Eddie Vedder is known to change the lyrics at nearly every live performance. Vedder once jokingly replied in response to a question from a live audience, “Wait…you mean there’s lyrics?”

Not surprisingly this lyrical ambiguity has stirred up some ingenuity in elucidation by others – the famous misheard lyrics videos. Catch a load of this:

Quiz Night: Tidal Locking

A couple of months ago I went to my first quiz night at a popular bar. I performed reasonably well on the sports questions but was not so good when it came to general knowledge, although I always felt I was reasonably competent in this area.

Since then I’ve taken to reading random facts on a variety of subjects, and Wikipedia proved helpful with its Random Article functionality. [I do recommend cross-checking Wikipedia articles with other resources as they may not be entirely factual given that it is user-generated]

Today I came across this feature on Tidal Locking which was pretty interesting. You only ever see one side of the moon all the time because it is tidally locked with Earth. Look closely at the gif on the left and you’ll see this phenomena in operation. Notice how only one side of the moon is always presented to Earth while rotating around it, even though the moon is also rotating on its axis.

I suppose this is how the term “dark side of the moon” originated, since that side is not visible to Earthlings due to tidal locking. For a more in-depth explanation on the physics and mechanics of tidal locking, check out Wikipedia, the YouTube videos available online.

What would happen should the Earth become tidally locked with the sun? Well, in short, we’ll all be fooked as it will wreak havoc with our weather and just about everything else.

The Debate That Wasn’t

Easing into Sunday evening watching a debate found accidentally on YouTube, has left me with some things to carp about.

I am posting the YouTube video here, so if you’ve got two hours to throw away, knock yourself out. The debate was between well-known cosmologist Professor Lawrence Krauss and Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, who is styled as an author, lecturer and intellectual activist. The topic of debate was Islam or Atheism – Which Makes More Sense?

Need I point out who represented what point of view?

The points raised on both sides during the debate were not that important – I, and I’m sure those of you who listen to these kinds of debates will have heard them before in some form or the other. What really sustained my attention for two hours was the manner in which the debate was conducted, some of the strategies used, the seeming inability of the adjudicator Timothy Yusuf Chambers (a former Irish Catholic priest, converted to Islam) to affect any sort of control over the two protagonists, and an amusing event involving an outraged Muslim woman during the Q&A session, which I’ll come back to later.

While Hamza Tzortzis came clearly prepared with a lengthy written opening remark which he was at pains to point out was based on deductive logic, it was absolute rubbish. No doubt Lawrence thought so too and made it quite plain in his opening address. Deductive logic is all well and good, but if your conclusions are based on faulty premises, then it’s all just bullshit.

Professor Krauss on the other hand just winged his way through his opening statement, and chose to engage frequently with Tzortzis in and off the cuff manner. There was something I found disturbing about this though; Krauss often came across as rude, near-insulting and somewhat arrogant. But everything he said, made sense and was scientifically correct. To his credit, Tzortzis in the face of this onslaught of scientific reasoning tinged with rudeness, held it together remarkably well.

Krauss’s approach to the debate was of importance, and he even clarified that he preferred discourse to the strict and limiting formal debate format. The term he used was “chat,”  because he explained that it allows more room for people to explore, and gain knowledge, rather than just throwing rigid ideas at each other. There is much merit in this.

After watching this and other debates, it has dawned on me how debate about such opposing ideas as atheism and religion have improved over the years. It used to be that religious apologists would simply quote from religious text and other dogmatic theological literature and demand that it be accepted as unadulterated truth. And it used to be that simply asserting things without having to provide proof or evidence was common. Now, apologists prepare more thoroughly using logic and even science. Alas, logic and science used incorrectly, even disingenuously, will never trump the scientific method.

And now we come to that amusing incident. During the Q&A session a clearly irate, albeit foolish woman decided to use the opportunity to complain about some guy who had entered the debate late, and decided to sit at the rear of the hall next to a group of girls of which the complainant was a member. She was quite adamant that her values as a Muslim woman was violated by this latecomer who according to her, should have chosen to sit elsewhere with other men, because she had clearly distanced herself from the men in the audience as was required of her belief system.

Krauss pointed out quite nonchalantly that the debate was clearly advertised as a non-segregated event, and she should have chosen to watch the debate on YouTube, rather than demand deference to her quaint beliefs.

Quite so, Professor Krauss, quite so.

And so who was the winner? I’ll leave you to decide, but for me, science always wins.