Skepticum

For those interested in the Saddam/Ceausescu parallel and if you can read Romanian, you can see video from and about the trial here and read an interesting post here.

The writer of the post, Dragos Tuta says (my free English translations),

The two true believers in stalinism, with similar childhoods and similar roads to power, were judged in similar ways and with the support of similar arguments. They both died violent deaths to the hands of judicial errors [falterings].

Tuta, links to an incomplete transcript of the Ceausescu trial, in Romanian and English translation.

At the end of the Romanian transcript we have a summary of charges (which are missing from the English transcript):

La scurt timp dupa executie, pe postul national de televiziune s-a dat citire urmatorului comunicat:

Luni, 25 decembrie 1989 a avut loc procesul lui Nicolae Ceausescu si al Elenei Ceausescu, in fata Tribunalului Militar Exceptional.

Capete de acuzare:

1. Genocid — peste 60.000 de victime;
2. Subminarea puterii de stat prin organizare de actiuni armate impotriva poporului si a puterii de stat;
3. Infractiunea de distrugere a bunurilor obstesti prin distrugerea si avarierea unor cladiri, explozii in oras etc;
4. Subminarea economiei nationale;
5. Incercarea de a fugi din tara pe baza unor fonduri de peste un miliard de dolari, depuse in banci straine;

Pentru aceste crime grave impotriva poporului roman si a Romaniei, inculpatii Nicolae Ceausescu si Elena Ceausescu au fost condamnati la moarte si confiscarea averii. Sentinta a ramas definitiva si a fost executata.

My free English translation:

Shortly after the execution, the national Romanian TV station broadcast the following statement:

Monday, Dec. 25, 1989 Nicolae Ceausescu and Elena Ceausescu, were judged by an ad hoc Military Tribunal.

They were charged with the following:

1. Genocide—over 60,000 victims
2. Undermining state government by organizing military activities against the people and against state government.
3. Destruction of government buildings by explosions and demolition of city buildings
4. Undermining national economy
5. Attempt to flee the country and tap into funds exceeding 1 billion dollars deposited into foreign banks.

For these serious crimes against the Romanian people and the Romanian Republic, the defendants Nicolae Ceausescu and Elena Ceausescu were sentenced to death, and their estate was confiscated. The sentence is final and was executed.

Parts of the transcript are confirmed by the following video in Romanian with French dubbing and Romanian subtitles.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_NzxCWmjk4]

Feel free to respond in English or Romania… or any other language (I’ll take the liberty to reply in English ).

I didn’t make a snowman but I did go out to get proof of the snow. Here it is:

I took these 10 minutes ago. Let’s see what happens to this bike by morning:

And I have my own weather prediction to make–commute times will go up tomorrow, as people will have to desnow their cars….

It’s been snowing for more than 24 hours in Chicago. According to the Chicago Tribune snow shut down Lake Shore Drive tonight, the CTA Pink Line had a derailment this morning, O’Hare cancelled 500 flights, and Skilling, Chieft Meteorologist for WGN-TV (Enron Skilling’s older brother) says this is the biggest Feb. snowfall in 7 years.

But if you read on, you find out that the predicted snowfall is 4″ to 8″.

4″ to 8″? That’s it?

“ Powerful NE winds here Tuesday, produced by the huge spread in air pressures between a sprawling arctic high to Chicago’s north (30.86″) and the intensifying winter storm center to the south, deliver the day’s snow horizontally and threaten to blow and drift snow, creating near blizzard conditions in open areas.”

Right here in Chicago we love the meteorology talk, such as wind-shield temperatures, lake-effect snow, etc. That’s right, it’s blowing snow horizontally! But somehow I made it to work, made it to the Godiva store and bought some chocolate covered strawberries, made it back home, swept the driveway, walked to the store, bought some beer, and if it keeps up like this I’m going to go out and make a snowman.

Happy Valentines Day!

In January I posted on “One of the Funniest Comedians Today….”

Letterman had Caliendo/Madden on the show, where “Madden” predicted the Bears and the Colts would go to the Superbowl and would fight for Gary…. “the looser gets Gary.”

Here’s “Madden” again discussing the Superbowl on the Letterman Show Feb. 9, 2007:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apFDewVc6bk]

I read an interesting post today on the different definitions of “theory.” 

The writer of the blog had roughly defined “theory” as a “set of hypotheses that make claims about what kind of entities there are and how those entities change over time and interact with each other.” The somewhat opposing definition was, “something that is both sufficiently broad and sufficiently tested that a scientist can use it to figure out how to frame a question in a testable manner.”

I’d say a “theory” is defined based on methodology and area of study. A theory can be a set of observations or models about how things work, or can be a set of logical hypotheses built on experimental evidence. Both imply that theories are logical constructs that have a minimum empirical basis and have not been tested or proven yet in themselves.

The concept of “theory” in itself has been under scrutiny recently in the US because of the “evolution vs creationism” debate. Creationism proponents have claimed creationism is an alternative theory for how the world was created. However, evolution is considered a scientific theory as a “systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.” Creationism cannot stand the “theory” test in a scientific sense because its arguments are not testable, and many would claim are not predictive or logical.

And not to forget, that according to Wikipedia: “In Fashion there is a brand “Theory” based in New York that has retail outlets all over the world.”

Recently I’ve read a number of blogs discussing skepticism and atheism and even a discussion on the “unfriendly atheism.” In fact this discussion on “unfriendly atheism” took place in response to a Pharynbgula post where PZ Meyers stated, “Religion and its fuzzier sister spirituality represent the antithesis of good scientific thinking.”

Here is another fragment of that post that discussing the “phenomenon of scientists exploring their own spirituality:”

2.) We hear time and time again of the disputes between the scientific and religious communities, what is your response to the phenomenon of scientists exploring their own spirituality?

There is an assumption here, that there is something to explore. I do not believe in the existence of spirits, of any kind of essence beyond the natural world, in the supernatural. Scientists can try to explore anything they want, but it’s something of a waste of time to explore something that isn’t there.

People have been poking around in this subject as long as there have been people. There has been no support of the spirituality hypothesis: it is the very definition of a failed, fruitless research program.

I am impressed that PZ Meyers answered this question because I personally found the choice of words in the question (phenomenon?) a bit pretentious. PZ Meyers was, as he stated, focused on an immediate rejection of the premise behind these questions.

I would also reject the premise that there is such a “phenomenon” of scientists exploring their spirituality, just as I would reject the claim that there there were 473 healings during 2005 and 2005 under the umbrella of the National Youth Ministries. There seems to be a “phenomenon” out there of “spiritualists” trying to believe that there is some sort of spontaneous and wide-spread “return” to Gd in the US population. The only spontaneous “phenomenon” we have here is an increase in liberties the extreme right have taken when it comes to promoting their churches’ interests.

During my train commute this morning I read the news headlines off someone else’s paper. It was 3 below and I just wanted to sleep standing so I didn’t pull out the book I was reading. I spent my time instead scanning the headlines from a distance when this newspaper headline caught my attention because it read “Astro-nuts.”

By now the whole world has head the story of the astronaut love triangle, and the question in the press has been, what would posses Nowak to want to kidnap or kill a romantic rival? And if she’s so unstable how could she have passed the NASA psychological tests, and be cleared to fly (as of last July)?

Us humans love asking questions that can’t be answered. And one of the biggest of them all is, “how do people become criminals?” And I’m not talking here about pot smoking, or prostitution, I’m talking about violent crimes, such as psychological abuse, battery, kidnapping, rape or murder.

There are theories in biology and crime, psychology and crime, environment and crime, and I’m sure if I keep looking I’ll find more. I want to start a science though called “Space Nuts and Crime” and analyse criminal activities of the Religious Right. After watching “Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi,” “Jesus Camp,” and the Evolution vs. Creationism episod on “Bullshit” I started wondering if these space nuts can cause violence thru fearmongery.