Update: Beer in the Shower


Two weeks ago, we took a trip to New Glarus, Wisconsin where we indulged in encased meats and beer. As is typical for our Wisconsin ventures, we brought back a few cases for our continued enjoyment.  Given the amount of beer we have, I was reminded that I have a post here about Drinking Beer in the Shower.  Version 2.0 is coming folks. The question is which New Glarus beer should I review?


Leave your answer in the comments. This isn’t attention whoring, it is for straight up science.



Call in Andrew Bird for Science!

I heard this story from NPR, but Short Sharp Science – New Scientist has a video..

This is Bonnie, and she is very gifted. According to the Great Ape Trust, the 30-year-old orangutan recently started imitating a caretaker’s whistling.

On Morning Edition, neither Ari Shapiro nor Erin Stromberg, Bonnie’s handler, could whistle very well.  This, of course, means we need to tap a fantastic whistler.

Enter Andrew Bird.  He can help determine if Orangutan’s can whistle melodies.  I think we all want to see Bonnie whistle the parts of Nervous Tic Motion of the Head to the Left.

What happened to debate?

I wanted to do something flashier for my 500 post, but I didn’t have any flash availalbe.  Instead, I’ve had the radio on the brain.  Specifically NPR.

On my way into the office this morning, I heard Rep. Boehner’s interview with Steve Inskeep.  This part caught my eye:

via Boehner: GOP Must Offer ‘Better Solutions’ In 2009 : NPR.

“We’ve never gotten into the debate and the discussion about the consequences of trying to deal with it, and how expensive it will be and the changes it will make to our society,” Boehner said. “And the fact that if we don’t have our industrial partners around the world engage with us, what does that mean in terms of job loss in the U.S.?”

He also was upset about the $400 million to NASA to study Global Warming:

“Remember, the goal of the stimulus package is to preserve jobs and help create new jobs in America,” Boehner said. “And I don’t know how giving NASA $400 million to study global warming is going to meet the goals.”

Mr. Boehner, I’m here to help you.

First, a little context.  First, we haven’t had the debate about Global Climate Change because the science was squelched over the past eight years.

This report presents the findings of the Committee’s investigation. The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.

This explains why we need to spend more money on research.  We do need information from a source less biased than the American Petroleum Institute.  Then, armed with this newer research, the nation can use the stimulus package to lay the foundation for a more sustainable future.  You know, green jobs, green services–21 century stuff, not industrial revolution stuff.

As for debate itself, I think you are presenting the issue in a rather lopsided fashion.  You question presupposes two things:   That to do any work on this issue will hamper growth of the economy and that the economy is more important than the environment.  To the latter, I have to whole heartedly disagree.  Granted, if climate change is as dangerous as I believe it is, Business and Industry will make a killing on the technology they will develop that will be necessary to maintain our standard of living–but what kind of living would that be?  As to the former, history has been pretty clear that the development and implementation of new technology is an engine of economic growth.  Of course, when this occurs the old guard is typically set aside.  In this case, the Old Guard had very powerful allies in Congress and the White House.  These very same forces played a tremendous role in the early days of the Bush administration, when Cheney held closed door sessions to create our energy policy.

However, this is a new administration.  While I applaud the idea for debate,  I honestly think it is at least twelve years too late (astute readers will do the math and realize I’m critizing Clinton as well), but at least by calling for debate you are recognizing that this is an issue that should be looked at.  A debate, with properly funded studies, conducted by scientists not hampered by politics, would be beneficial to the nation.  A debate used to stall implementation of policies that would have a negative impact on Big Oil and Coal, however, is not a debate.  That, Mr. Boehner, is bullshit.  Let’s keep the bullshit out of the debate–as methane, a product of bullshit, is pretty bad for the environment.

What do you believe?


Prayers Today

Originally uploaded by marrngtn (Manuel)

The posts regarding Christian Nationalism has led me to ask, what do you believe and why?

I was raised Roman Catholic and I want to believe in the tenets of the church. I really do. At the same time, I am drawn to Secular Humanism as well. The question I consistently deal with is “Do I still believe in God?”

So, dear reader, what do you believe. If you want to quote something, please expand on the quote. I am extremely interested in reading about other’s beliefs. I’ll write up more about mine after work tonight.

update 1:
Anonymous sent this to me in an email. Here is a snippet of this person’s insightful thoughts.

I’m also incredibly sensitive to (and rather put off by) very public displays of faith, but I think that’s a personal overreaction to where I went to college (a private, southern baptist university) than anything else. It was blatantly obvious when I was there that often the loudest proponents of anything (public displays of faith in particular) were often the people I most disagreed with about what it means to “walk the walk”. I think being told by well-meaning but … not well-thinking people that they would pray for my mortal soul to not be tempted into Hell by the doings of Those Damn Catholics had a lot to do with it too, really.

I’m a huge fan of Chesterton (and Lewis, but less so, and not particularly Narnia), and his way of explaining how faith makes sense in this world. He argues that rather than the world being sane, and Faith being madness, that instead it’s the world that is mad, and faith that brings us a breath of sanity in the midst of the madness. He’s oft called the “Apostle of Common Sense” – which endears me to him all the more.

“There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth.” -GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy