Why Clinton is done after West Virginia

Clinton needs to win 204 of the remaining 217 pledge delegates gain the lead in pledged delegates (according to the count on the Obama website).  That means if Obama can win 14 more delegates, Clinton is mathematically eliminated for being about to win 50% of the pledge delegates.  In West Virginia there are 28 of these delegates up for grabs.  If Obama can split the delegates, he can say that she cannot win the popularly elected pledge delegates, and thus she should be out of the race (how many ways can one person be eliminated from consideration?).  Of course, were that to happen, I would expect Clinton to slash all our tires and leave 100 messages on our voice mail asking us to take her back.

I bet she thinks this post is about her

Really, I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, so I’m not linking back to any of my previous “Hillary lost the math” posts nor will I update the numbers. Since super Tuesday, Obama has won 675 delegates to Clintons 543 and he is now (and has been for some time) a lock to win the nomination. I don’t have much new to add to that, other than to add yet again that the race is as over as it was two months ago when Clinton beat Obama by a measly 4 delegates on March 4th after loosing 11 straight.

She continued campaigning past March 4th because she thought she could damage Obama enough that the supers would flip for her, thus subverting democracy with pr and propaganda. It’s now clear that that will not happen. If she carries on now I can only conclude that she has continued campaigning in the hopes that Obama looses the general election so she has a chance in 2012. Four more years of a Republican White House is not what we need.

By the fact that she has lost, and that her continued campaigning cannot result in her victory, she should withdraw. That it may also contribute to a John McCain victory means that ever day she continues to campaign is a day that she tells the American people that she does hold our concerns above her own vanity.

Tebow the evangelist

Tim Tebow is apparently quite the evangelist.  It even made the main story over on ESPN.com’s college football page.  The short version is that thanks to winning the Heisman, Tebow can now do missionary work in schools and prisons in addition to the missionary work he’s already done over seas.

“Because of my name recognition and because of who I am, I’ve been given an opportunity to go places where most other people can’t go,” Tebow said. “I can go into prisons and speak, and no one will say anything. I can go into schools and speak, and they’ll love to have me. I can go to all these different places because of who I am as a football player. That’s a platform the Lord has given me, and I think it’s my responsibility to take advantage of it.”

I’m not sure exactly what he means by “no one will say anything.”  If he is doing it through ministries that already do prison and school out reaches in ways that don’t violate the law, then why would anyone try to intervene?  I wonder whether school are inviting him in, thinking they will get a sports hero who will talk about community service and end up getting a guy who preached to the class?  The areticle is a little short on specifics and heavy on “hooray religion.”

College football is full of religion, from player interviews to touchdown celebrations (I won’t mention religious schools, since it should be expected of them) and team prayer meetings at mid filed.  I never got why the sports area seems to be so cloaked in religion.  At least Tebow doesn’t seem to attribute his football skills to god, but he does seem to be an exception.  So many players think god had nothing better to do than give them extra strong muscles, fantastic hand eye coordination or really quick feet when it’s more likely a combination of genetics and their own hard work and determination.  At least prayer hasn’t been instituted at bowl games yet (that I know of.)

Simple minded theology

I sometimes surf the religion or god tags and read what ever seems to have an interesting tile.  I often find I am frustrated, because instead of talking about anything interesting, they are going off about theology.  A “tough question” of theology seems to be questions of whether a guy suffered a mental state of physical state of hell after he died but before he rose from the dead.  Well shoot, do zombies count as cannibals?  It honestly reminds me a nerd debates over the better Star Trek captain, only the people arguing think it’s real.

I think maybe this is why I liked “Breaking the Spell” much more than “the god Delusion.”  Frankly, I can just as easily read Thomas Paine as Richard Dawkins, though his book was good for atheist publicity and a decent read.  However, it was nothing more than theology, or anti-theology if you like, and frankly it’s about as intellectually stimulating and topical as debating aether.  It is bothersome that the level of discourse is limited by their insistence on discovering the details of fairy tails.  That the efforts on behalf of religion could be directed towards actual goals is depressing.  That scientists have to spend time debunking creationism is ridiculous.

When I see questions like that, I can hardly think that Dawkins was attacking some sort of straw man for religion.  It’s just that he didn’t knock down every last straw man being worshiped.

End of frustrated and rambling rant.

So does this finally mean Clinton is done?

With the super delegates who’ve committed to Obama or even switched from Clinton to Obama in the last couple days, Clinton now has (according to my math skills) a 1 in 20,000,000 chance of winning if each remaining delegate had a 50-50 chance of going for either candidate.  For the sake of comparison, Obama has a 19,999,999 in 20,000,000 chance of winning by the same method.

Oh, and all that stuff about is it too late for Obama to distance himself form Rev. Crazy?  He’s done it again and again, while the entire Republican party seems to see no problem with their association with the evangelical/fundamentalist/born again (read christocratic) movement in the US.  These are people who would gladly sell out the constitution, our rights and our freedoms in an instant if god asked them.  And they would feel justified doing it.  Just look at what abraham was willing to do when god asked.

Dear Republicans, until you disown the Pat Robertsons of the world, stfu about Obama’s former pastor.  I’m looking in the direction of McCain who almost did the right thing, but then decided to suck up and repent at the feet of Jerry Falwell.

Hero called back

Pfc. Monica Brown won the silver star as a medic on the front lines.  She is a hero who saved the lifes of her comrades.  Too bad she’s not enough of a hero to keep saving lives.  They’ve pulled her from the front lines.  Why do our government and our military constantly sacrifices their abilities and readiness, and by extension our safety, all for the sake of maintaining a He-Man womans haters club (no girlie men either)?

“Army personnel were consistent in their perception that a strict adherence to the Army policy would have negative implications” and that the policy should be revised or revoked, the Rand study said.

Congratulations for Pfc. Brown and thank you.

Al Gore loves mountains

Here is video of Al Gore recognizing Ed Wiley and his granddaughter Kayla at the Nashville film festival (via Kos). They are activists fighting against Mountain Top Removal. Al Gore is about the biggest name in environmentalism right now, so his support is about the best you can get.

That’s why I suggest that Al Gore joins the call for ScienceDebate2008. You can see their latest invitation to the candidates here.

Offensive gun idiot visiting Virginia Tech

…at the request of other offensive gun idiots.  The group is called Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.  You can find the e-mail of the leader of the Virginia Tech chapter, Ken Stanton, on their website.  Write him and tell him why they shouldn’t be inviting the guy who sold weapons used to kill our students and faculty.

visit:

gun free schools

protest easy guns

students against concealed carry on campus

T Rex is a big chicken

And hooray for misleading headlines!! The relationship between the Tyrannosaurus and modern birds, specifically chickens, has been more firmly established according to this article. The scientists looked as T rex proteins and I assume translated that back into the DNA sequence that would have coded for it, then compared it to similar DNA for chickens. Or else they looked at similar proteins in Chickens. The article is a little unclear about the methods used, but either way, chickens are ferocious dinosaurs with some-odd hundred million years of evolution under their belt.

It looks like chickens deserve more respect. Scientists are fleshing out the proof that today’s broiler-fryer is descended from the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex.

So chickens are descendant from the T rex?

With more data, Organ said, they would probably be able to place T. rex on the evolutionary tree between alligators and chickens and ostriches.

“We also show that it groups better with birds than modern reptiles, such as alligators and green anole lizards,” Asara added.

Then I read this part, and I think about this wonderful post I read a while ago explaining how to read an evolutionary tree. So if I understand all that right, I would guess that chickens are not descendant from the T rex, and the scientist probably never said that. What seems more likely to me, for my limited knowledge (and I’ll post a link to a better break down when I find one) is that the T rex and the ancestor of the chicken have a common ancestor, and that common ancestor had a common ancestor with the alligator. So the chicken and the T rex are like cousins, and the alligator is like a third cousin (or whatever you call your parents aunt and uncles grandkids) but with out anyone needing to marry in, since evolution does all the work. I doubt modern chickens are “descended from the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex.”

In other news, mastodons are related to elephants. And dinosaurs are cool.

Boy Scouts unfortunate link to Bigots

It’s a pretty easy link to make, since the hate mongers I speak of are those within scouting that actively promote discrimination by the Boy Scouts.  I’ve seen a number of links this week about either gays or atheists not admitted into boy scouts.  The city of Philadelphia recently decided to charge the Boy Scouts full rent on their meeting space, since the discount amounted to state sponsorship of an organization that discriminates.  Steven Spielberg even stepped down from an advisory board position back in 2001.

“The last few years in scouting have deeply saddened me to see the Boy Scouts of America actively and publicly participating in discrimination. It’s a real shame,” Spielberg said from a prepared statement.

“I thought the Boy Scouts stood for equal opportunity and I have consistently spoken out publicly and privately against intolerance and discrimination based on ethnic, religious, racial and sexual orientation.”

The problem I see is that the Boy Scouts have taken so much charity from religious or quasi religious organizations that they are almost inseparable.  I say this as a former scout who has camped at Brownsea, attended a national jamboree, earned every rank from Bobcat through Eagle, and is a member of the OA.  My first cub scout pack met at school, as did my second and my first troop.  My next two troops met at a Knights of Columbus hall and an American Legion post respectively.  I did not have any trouble with any of my packs or troops, but I also wasn’t out, nor sure of my self, about my atheism at that point.  I don’t think the court case on scout discrimination had been decided by the time I was finished with scouts, so it was also likely not a hot button issue yet.  I can’t comment to much on the KoC troop as I only stayed with that troop for a few months.  However, I think many atheist are aware of the damage to the separation of church and state caused by the KoC.

The American Legion hosted my last troop, and also sent me to Boys State in Virginia.  The American Legion is a veterans group heavily focused towards “God and country.”  Again, I never experienced any ill treatment from the Boy Scouts or the American Legion, I am trying to connect the dots.  Boys State in Virginia was held at Liberty University.  I had heard of Jerry Falwell, but I didn’t really know who he was or what he stood for.  I didn’t know much about Liberty either. But these are the kind of people that the American Legion thinks are qualified to host young men, future leaders if you will, for a week of learning about government in action.  There was prayer for the opening and closing of each day (they were mostly if not all Christian) as well as at plenty of other functions.  Many of the “cities” as the groups they split the boys into are called, were very militaristic in nature, marching everywhere, doing push ups and sit ups before bed etc etc.  My city was not like that at all.  We were clearly the most civilian of the groups, walking and chatting, playing guitar at night instead of working out (and hanging out with a guy who is now in the NFL, our city was fun).  I did “meet” Falwell while I was there, I was walking through the halls and he stopped me, asked me how I was enjoying myself and shook my hand.  I am sure the Larry Flint remembrance of the man was quite accurate.  While there I was also exposed for the first time to someone who thought that the music of Creed, yes “I am Jesus stapp” Creed, was evil.  So this is the type of place and the type of people who can influence the Boy Scouts.

Why can these religious intolerants influence the Boy Scouts?  Churches and religious organizations (and all organizations?) are always looking to expand their reach, and they usually have meeting space in their churches available for at least a few weeknights when Boy Scouts usually meet.  Secular groups tend to not, since there are few atheist churches.  So by allowing the scouts to use their facilities, they can exert influence.  Now some people might argue that their local Boy Scout troop is supported by an episcopal church or a reform synagogue or by some other group that doesn’t discriminate.  That is good, those are the kind of sponsors we need for the Boy Scouts.  The scouts need those sponsors to speak up and counter the message from the ultra-conservative sponsors.  We need sponsoring organizations, Eagle Scouts and OA members, scoutmaster, scouts and scout parents to all contact their local troop, council, region and the national board and tell them that you want scouts to end discrimination.  We cannot loose scouting to bigots.

The Boy Scouts also discriminate against females, and I think they might have an easier time weeding them out than the gays and atheists.  The  British Scouts (the ones founded by BP) are equal access to everyone as far as I can tell.  For some reason, discrimination against women comes up much less when talking about the Boy Scouts, and gets much less attention from everyone.  Maybe because there are no internal dissidents, no former scouts who were secretly female the whole time they were scouts?  I obviously failed to work it in above, but it is important.  Sea scouts, for older scouts does not discriminate on gender, so there is a model internal to the Boy Scouts to reverse course on this.

Anyways, here’s some rescources:

BSA National Council - I didn’t find direct contact information, only a website feedback form.  You could try asking for contact information.

Google Maps returned this information for the BSA National Offices:

1325 W Walnut Hill Ln, Irving, TX 75038

(972) 580-2000

Local Council Finder - Find your local council and talk to them.  Try to find out if yours is one of the local councils that has tried to adopt non discrimination policies only to be rebuked by the national council.  If they have tried, ask them how you can help them achieve your joint goal of equal access Boy Scouts.

BSAlegal - The BSA pro discrimination apologist website.  Mostly seems to shout about first amendment right, which I agree, the scouts have.  But just because you have a right doesn’t mean exercising it is the moral position, nor is it with out consequences.  Discrimination may be their right, but it sure is ugly.