Skip to main content

Welcome to the Mockingjay

I've been thinking about starting this for a while; I already have a blog, but it is a blog for an organization to which I belong and is for said organization rather than my own personal playing field. So that's where "The Mockingjay" comes in; this is my personal blog, for what it's worth, where I can post...well, whatever I want. Hopefully it leans toward being erudite rather than whatever comes to mind.
What's my goal? Yes, I do actually have a goal aside from having an outlet for my personal thoughts. My idea is that this will not only be a place to share any thoughts, especially reviews of books I read or what few movies I see, but this is a place dedicated to shining the light of truth upon false claims and ridiculous ideas of all stripes. Too much passes for knowledge and information that is utterly untrue, irrational or simply stupid, and in the last few years my tolerance for this has grown progressively lower. Time for Reason to push back against irrationality.
Why "The Mockingjay"? Aside from the fact that I enjoyed Collin's "Hunger Games" trilogy, the Mockingjay bears the same symbolism here as it does in the books. For those who haven't yet had the joy of reading these books, the mockingjay was originally intended as a Capitol weapon against the rebels, but it failed and, having mated with the mockingbird, remained in the wild as a perpetual symbol of the Capitol's failure. It, naturally, became a symbol of resistance. That is the goal then, to be unafraid to point out error, flaws and hubris wherever they are to be found, whether on the street or in the corridors of power. Speak truth to power and take down error? Well, that sounds easy enough.
And, as Effie Trinket would say, "May the odds be ever in your favor!"

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...