Took the matchmaking survey offered by Glassbooth. Their survey won’t find your soulmate; it’s designed to find the presidential candidate whose stance on the issues matches your own.

My results?  Seems Dennis Kucinich (D) is my best bet.  He’s against the Iraq war (and has voted against it every time it’s come up in Congress), he’s for a national single-payer healthcare system, against warrantless wiretapping (voted against the Patriot Act every time it’s come up), and for an Energy Policy that moves us away from oil and coal.

That’s actually how I was leaning to vote in the primaries, so kudos to Glassbooth for accuracy.

One nice feature: the site gives you references for each of the policy positions they claim for the candidates.  I like reading what the candidate has *actually* said (or even better, how they’ve voted) about an issue, rather relying on some pundit’s assumption that so-and-so is “liberal” or “conservative.”

Try the survey out. What are your results?  Are they what you expected?  Do the results change how you will/would vote?

Apparently the only counter-force to crazy American fundamentalist Christians is the urge to support the troops: a Baltimore judge just ordered a church to pay $1 million in damages to the father of an Army Lance Corporal killed in Iraq.

The church members drove all the way from Kansas to attend the kid’s funeral and hold up such uplifting, Christian signs as “God hates fags,” and “Thank God for dead troops.” Really, who would Christ persecute?

Now I’m no fan of the war, but I don’t want to see any more American troops die; that’s why I’d like them brought home. Contrary to the what article says, these people aren’t “protesting,” they’re co-opting the death of someone’s son to push a message of hate. Isn’t that what Republicans accuse liberals of doing all the time? So how many righties are going to come out and chastise these people? Or will they keep giving airtime to Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and others who cloak their prejudice in righteousness?

Got involved in a forum discussion today about Climate Change that really depressed me.

It wasn’t just that no one else follows the scientific consensus of human-caused global climate change. What frustrated and depressed me was how thoroughly they misunderstand the very nature of science, let alone the science of the Earth’s climate.

One poster even claimed there was plenty of room for “his science” and “my science.” He may have thought he was being nice, but he couldn’t have been more wrong.

There is no “your science” or “my science.” There’s only Science. You either believe in the expansion of human knowledge through repeatable experiments or you don’t. Science is based on consensus, not opinion.

How can these “skeptics” undermine faith in the scientific method using technology only possible because of that method?

Help me out here. Am I way out of line to come down hard on them? Should I just let it go? Or have I stumbled onto a nest of irrationality that must be confronted?

Just watched an episode of the Colbert Report where the guest spoke of needing “objective journalists” to give us culture & truth. He said he loathed Wikipedia, because it relies too much on amateurs to give us accurate information.

Someone needs to tell this guy that there is no such thing as objectivity from a single source. No one person can ever be objective on their own; we have to sum up the subjective experiences of many, many people to approach an objective point of view.

That’s what science does: it sums up the subjective thoughts & experiments of lots of people, all over the world, to arrive facts about the universe.

That’s the idea behind Wikipedia, too: that millions of people, all contributing knowledge to a single database, will eventually create a storehouse of facts.

And that’s the democratic ideal, as well: that by summing up the political views of everyone, we’ll come up with the best policies.

To believe that only one person, or only a small group of people, can hold the keys to truth is not only undemocratic, it’s unrealistic. As our history of scientific progress shows, the most solid truths are those that everyone can agree on.