A little about the man:

Tim Minchin is an Australian, musician, actor, comedian and writer. He has been performing his unique brand of musical comedy in front of appropriately excitable and ever growing audiences since starting out in South Melbourne’s Butterfly Club in 2005. He won the Director’s Award at the Melbourne International Comedy Festival for his break-out show Darkside, and followed this later the same year with one of the most successful debut acts ever at the Edinburgh Fringe – winning the Perrier Award for Best Newcomer. Without wanting to go on and on about it, he’s done some pretty successful live shows since then, often in Australia or the UK, but also on the North American continent (yes that includes you too Canada). But not you Guatemala. Maybe one day.

His current songs span topics such as environmentalism, rationalism, prejudice(ism) and his amour de boobs(ism). In fact it would hardly be over the top to say that his love of boobs would be up there in the back of Plato’s cave in the bit that’s carved out for the most perfect and complete example of the love of boobs. But not in a weird way. During his shows he plays the piano, always nicely and oftentimes wildly and excitingly, whilst looking wonderfully athletic, in a pair of delightfully uncomfortable skinny jeans.

You can get an idea of his act here:

In February (in typical wingnut fashion, the article is very light on facts/dates and verifiable sources, a hard habit to break) Indian Ambassador Meera Shankar spoke at Emory University’s Emerging India Summit in Atlanta. Her speech was about the political, ethnic, and religious diversity of India. As part of this speech, she mentioned that Sonia Gandhi, leader of the Congress Party (the largest party in India), is Christian.

In trying to avoid the toxic effects of religion in southwest Asia, India tends to entirely eliminate any comment or attention on political leaders’ religious beliefs and practices. In keeping with that, when the Indian Embassy published Mrs. Shankar’s speech, it censored any mention of Gandhi’s religion from the speech.

This offended certain forces in the Indian Press, since her speech was about religious diversity. I only know about one or two sources in India from the Washington Times article. I don’t know anything about their political/religious leanings, if they’re as crazy as the Times, nor do I know this about any of the two or three other sources that turn up on a GoogleNews search.

What do you think? Is it healthier in India to avoid mention of religion about politicians? Would that be healthier in the Middle East? Would that be healthier in Georgia? It should go without saying that part of this avoidance of discussing religion of politicians in India includes the politicians themselves avoiding the subject. I don’t think we have a hope of that in US politics, especially not in Georgia. I do fully support the idea of censoring any public mention of a politician’s religion, though most of those would be censoring the politician him/herself.

To be continued after the break . . .

The car would pull into a parking space facing the wall of windows on the south side of a brick building. The adults would walk up to the normal-sized glass door, but the boy would run around the corner from that door to use the rounded wooden red door that was only as tall as he was. It was hard to open, but he always managed. He would then rejoin his family as they waited to be seated.

Eventually, someone in a booth would get up, which was the family’s cue to pounce on the open table. The restaurant was really more like a diner. As the family approached their destination, they would pass people sitting on stools at the counter. The boy hoped, as always, that his family would be able to claim the corner booth, the one under the painting of the Seven Dwarfs. This was no ordinary painting. It was three dimensional with a track running through the middle. The Dwarfs were attached to this track and when turned on they would journey from their cottage in the woods to the mine and back.

At the end of the meal, the boy’s grandfather would walk to the counter and pay for the meal and they would all load back into the car and head back to the boy’s grandparent’s house to visit before finally returning home.

The story above is not a work of fiction. It was, in fact, a typical occurrence for me. As you may have guessed, I was the boy. What you may not have guessed is that the restaurant in question was the original Dwarf House, home of the Chick-fil-a sandwich and the foundation of a fast food empire.

I grew up surrounded by all things Chick-fil-a. I heard stories about the founder, Truett Cathy, and how my grandparents were in the Sunday School class he taught. My parents would tell me stories from their childhood when they would go to that very same Dwarf House and how Truett Cathy himself came to their table one day to offer a new menu item: a chicken sandwich. Apparently, my father had scoffed at the idea of a chicken sandwich. In fact, my parents usually got burgers when we went to the Dwarf House. You read that correctly: there are Chick-fil-a restaurants out there that serve more than just chicken, despite what those cows want you to believe.

I’ve always loved eating at Chick-fil-a. I even looked up the closest one to Chicago when I lived there. It was fifty miles north of the city in a mall in a small town in Wisconsin. When my brother moved to Wisconsin, I would visit him and we would always go by that mall to get our fix. I would even buy some extra sandwiches to take back to the city with me, put in the fridge and eat as lunch later.

I’ve written a lot here about Chick-fil-a, my relationship to the company, and how my childhood somewhat revolved around the famous chicken sandwich. I’ve written all this to help give you context to understand how difficult it was for me to finally decide this year that I have a moral obligation to stop eating at Chiick-fil-a.

I always knew that Truett Cathy founded the Chick-fil-a company as a Christian company. They are closed on Sunday. They promote Christian movies, music, and the like. Of course, when I was younger, I was also devout Christian, so it didn’t matter. These days, I’m no longer Christian or religious, for that matter,  but my love of the food overrode my slight annoyance at the Christian message and values that Chick-fil-a espouses as a company.

Recently, though, it has come to light that the Chick-fil-a corporation supports groups that discriminate against homosexuals by seeking to pass laws that define marriage as being solely between a man and woman. By supporting these organizations, Chick-fil-A tacitly approves of discrimination and I can no longer in good conscience support a company that supports the denial of civil rights to a group of people.

So, I have stopped. It will be hard when I’m with family as there’s always a chance that they’ll want to go to Chick-fil-a when I visit. My family is still very conservative and Christian and I don’t think they’d understand or agree with me, but I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.

I would also like to emphasize that this is not an issue to me because I happen to no longer be religious. No, I don’t give a flying flip what the owners of any company believe as long as they don’t attempt to push those beliefs on others. This is not a religious issue. It is a civil rights issue.

The decision to boycott Chick-fil-a was not an easy one. For me, it’s about far more than a fried chicken sandwich. A part of my childhood and memories of my family are tied to every bite. But, it’s more important to me to stand up for what I believe in and the organizations that Chick-fil-A support want to redefine what family is. Chick-fil-a was (is) a tradition in my family, and now, it’s time to tell Chick-fil-A that families define themselves and make their own memories. It’s not for anyone else to dictate.

Edited to add: Check out the Treelobsters cartoon that this post inspired!

It all starts with a prayer service at 9:00 AM on January 10th at “the” Mount Paran Church of God, which will include a choir from his home church, First Baptist Church of Gainesville.

“There has been a long-standing tradition that governors and constitutional officers on the morning of the inaugural have begun their day with a time of prayer. We are going to continue that tradition,” [Deal spokesman Harris] Blackwood said. “This will be a very ecumenical event that will be inclusive of various religions and beliefs.”

One would like to perform a constitutional test of the limits of his inclusion…

The prayer service will be open to the public, as will the 2pm inaugural at the state capitol. It is all funded by private contributions.

The official TAM8 Banner

This year the keynote speaker is Richard Dawkins, author of The Greatest Show on Earth, The Blind Watchmaker, The Ancestor’s Tale, as well as the book that branded him as one of the four-horsemen of “The New Atheists” movement, The God Delusion.  Dawkins did a Q&A sessions last night moderated by magician Jamie Ian Swiss.  I expect he’ll have much more to say, but he has a kind of nerd Rock Star reception around here. It’s impressive to see.

Even more of a Rock Star, and ushered about by security everywhere he goes, is Mythbusters host Adam Savage.  I’m very much looking forward to hearing what Mr. Savage has to say while he’s here.  Just before I left to fly out here I was watching a “best-of” episode of Mythbusters with my son.  And I told him, “I’m going to see that red-haired man when I go to Las Vegas.”  My son laughed because he thought I was joking.

“Is that why you’re going?” he asked.

Adam Savage channels Jamie Hyneman

It’s not the only reason, but it’s a good one.  Savage is an engaging speaker and has many entertaining things to say about making television that promotes science.  His quixotic quests to reproduce certain Hollywood film artifacts are legendary.

The schedule is pretty full during the day and there are lots of opportunities to mingle and network.  You can check out the full guest list here but even that doesn’t cover the many notable attendees such as life-extension specialist Aubrey de Grey and of course, myself! (I jest…  A bit.)

It is no small thing for me to be out here.  I’m not alone of course, many of the Atlanta Skeptics are out here with me – which is a comfort.  My co-hosts to MonsterTalk Ben Radford and Dr. Karen Stollznow are here too, the first time we’ve all been together since starting our podcast. I really appreciate the opportunity to take part in this and want to say a special thanks to JREF president, D.J. Grothe and my wife Kathleen for helping this to become a reality.

Ammonite - artist's rendition

I think there are probably a lot of educators here.  Definitely a lot of clever, clever folks.  I got to talk paleontology with some scientists last night.  We talked fossils and discussed trilobites and ammonites.  Did you know that much is known about how these extinct animals moved through the waters of the ancient earth because of hydrology experiments done in water-tanks?  Did you know that before they went extinct they were dying out and there is a controversy about whether they died out before – or during – the Cretacious-Tertiary Extinction Event?  I didn’t.  There’s a lot to learn out here in the desert.

Wish you were here.

I’ll post updates as time allows.

As a vocal skeptic, I’ve become known among my friends and family as the go-to person to determine whether or not news stories or photos on the Internet are true.  Sometimes this just means going to Snopes.com to check and see and see what the folklore researchers have come up with.  Other times I have to dig in and do the research myself.  The latest piece of dubious dumbness to come across my desk is a photo purported to be of Arizona Hispanic protesters out complaining about the new state law the state just passed.

This photo is currently circulating in e-mails. It appears to be a fake.

It is an e-mail with the subject line of “VERY SCARY: Give us free” and contains this image, along with the following text:  

I started by checking the Snopes site, but so far they don’t have an analysis up.   Message boards battered back and forth on whether or not the sign could be real.  Some people feel that even if the photo is fake, that this is a real sentiment in the Arizona Latino community.

But does it show a real sign?  Many investigators are looking to find a copy of the original photo, or supplemental photos of the setting to see if any other evidence supports the idea that the sign is real, or evidence that will falsify it.  I suspect the latter is more likely.

Original photo of protest of WBC. Courtesy SkepticRN

Here is a crude fake of that photo wherein I replaced the perfectly sensible original message with something silly.

Areas around the lettering show thick black and the letters stark white.

  

 Now, let’s compare those known fakes to the the “Arizona” protest photo.  First, again, here is the protest photo that has been doing the rounds on the chain e-mail circuit, and directly below it is the ELA analysis:

ELA of the "Arizona" photo also shows distinct areas of alteration.

 The similarities between my admitted fake and this photo are quite obvious.  They are especially apparent in the lower sign, the one threatening future cop killings. This suggests that the top part of the sign may not have been as heavily altered.

Just to be clear, this image shows very, very strong evidence of being altered.

History is full of people faking evidence to fulfill their bigoted fantasies or support their ideologies.  From the Protocols of the elders of zion to Obama’s birth-certificate conspiracy theory, people have used their creative powers to make the world the way they think it ought to be.   Still, with the Internet it is now possible for serious researchers to join together and collaborate to get to the truth.  

A skeptic investigator wants to be as definitive as the evidence will allow.  In this case the evidence strongly supports this being a faked photograph altered to create the incendiary message it currently carries.  It is extremely likely that other photos from the May 1st protest at the LA Times will come out and show what this man’s sign actually said.  But we don’t need that to know this photo is faked.

For those who don’t know I’ve served in the Infantry for twelve years with three combat tours and I’ve seen it all. I’ve jumped out of airplanes, blew stuff up, shot big guns, and generally put foot to ass for the country that I love, warts and all.  And, to be honest, I didn’t think that having openly gay soldiers serving alongside heterosexual soldiers was a good idea, not even a little bit. My own personal belief was that it would hurt unit cohesion, and when kicking down doors you MUST be able to trust the people around you. If you have family you wouldn’t trust with a potato gun… you know what I’m talking about.

Here is where my own skeptical beliefs cut in. Close friends know that I’m a skeptic and I’m always fond of saying, “I’m totally evidence-based” so I decided to do the research around this belief.  And I can honestly say that my own personally-held beliefs were wrong. There is no evidence to support the premise that homosexuals in a unit would hurt unit cohesion or impact mission performance.  Examining some of the claims, I found that many studies have been done that support lifting of the ban; police and fire departments have lifted their bans and have found no impact on mission performance. In addition, a review of NATO countries found that countries that lifted their ban on openly gay soldiers hasn’t impacted performance at all.

I cannot lie; my initial reaction was one of shock and surprise. I felt sure that there would have been some evidence supporting the premise that openly gay men and women serving in the military would lead to disaster. It is, after all, a premise that I’ve been operating on for the twelve years I’ve been associated with the military. Would I have a problem serving with an openly gay man/woman? I don’t think so; my objections for homosexuals serving was based purely on faulty reason, and once I discovered this I changed my world view.

Now it’s time to put your money where your mouth is because it’s easy to be skeptical when talking about Bigfoot, UFOs, or homeopathy it’s much more difficult when it comes to our own personally held beliefs. Skepticism to me is more than just debunking psychic’s claims and trashing Jenny McCarthy, it’s a way of life. If we as skeptics do not hold ourselves to our own evidence based standards, what have we become?

The word hypocrite comes to mind.

Recently I was pleased to discover that Washington is taking this issue seriously and is working to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, to this I can only say what I’ve always said, “I’m totally evidence-based” if this is where the evidence leads than that is the only thing that  is important.

Some background info:
GAO Study on gays serving

Oral Statement of Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D to the House Armed Services Committee:

God was apparently slow in answering that prayer as the rains didn’t return in force until fall of 2009. And, boy howdy, did the rains return! Much of North Georgia had what was categorized as 500-year flooding in October. Rehearsals for a show I was in at the time were canceled due to rain, something I’ve never experienced before. Since October, we’ve had regular rain, and will probably continue to have rain through the spring. This is all thanks to El Niño, which means “the boy” in Spanish. I’m thinking of petitioning for a name change to El Bastardo.

Anyway, I was thinking of all of this on my morning commute. Apparently, I’m the only one as that prayer meeting in 2007 seems to be old news. No one is blaming the governor for the flooding and non-stop rain. I wonder if we had only received moderate rainfall, bringing Lake Lanier up to full pool over time instead of overnight, would people have praised Perdue for “taking action” in 2007? Is the only reason no one is linking the increase in rain to that prayer because of how destructive the rain has been, because that couldn’t possibly be what God would do, could it? I’m not sure what logical fallacy that might fall into, maybe a form of confirmation bias, it’s just something I find interesting.

As for me, I do blame the governor for all this rain, not because I think the prayer did anything at all, but just because I can. Well, that and he threatens to veto any law allowing Sunday alcohol sales, but that’s a whole different story.

The weighty issue they are screaming about, against the Republicans who presented these bills?  The bills would allow young girls (under 16) to be placed into diversionary programs instead of arresting them and putting them into the criminal system with prostitution charges.  The argument in favor of these laws is that legally, children cannot consent to sexual intercourse, and so, legally, cannot be considered guilty of prostitution.  The argument against these bills, best as I can determine, is that the pseudoChristian protestors are just implementing the words of Jesus Christ, when He was asked about the 12-year-old prostitute: “Let that ho fry!”

I’m glad to see that the generally reliably wingnut bloggers and commentators at Peach Pundit (founded by wingnut extraordinaire Erick Erickson, who also leads wingnuttery at RedState) quickly decided that this was insanity.

The first wave of responders at the AJC blog above pushed a general line of sanity against this, but if you read down the responses you’ll find a huge batch of True Christian Victims.  There are one or two at Peach Pundit, too, who try to justify the True Christian opponents of this bill.  Their arguments remind me of the anti-Equal Rights Amendment arguments I heard as a child in Mississippi, such as “Rape will no longer be a crime if ERA is passed!”  Yes, I seriously heard that argument, enough to remember it 35 years later.

This story was just reported in the 10pm local news on the local Fox affiliate, and the segment was extremely sympathetic to the laws.  It did not mention the right-wing Christian opposition.  If you get a chance, get your voice out there in favor of these bills.  We may actually get to help some of these girls, like some of the 12-year-olds kidnapped abroad and brought here for sexual slavery.  Maybe somebody can explain why the Christian Coalition wants to make sure that these girls go to jail rather than get public assistance to rescue them from this life, whether “chosen” or forced.