Gould Gives Goosebumps; Bach Rocks Socks

This performance defies words. Prepare for several seconds of sustained goosebumps.

Atheist?

So after reading Aral's post, I have to seriously reconsider some of the labeling I've applied to myself on this blog. More to come later.

Ah, Reddit

So you (my imaginary and largely non-existent audience) have probably noticed that I haven't posted in awhile. This is due to three things:

1. Pure Laziness
2. Creating a Reddit account
3. Profit

I don't know what it is, but I usually find time to sit down and write. However, Reddit is a very powerful drug that causes memosis of the brain and chronic carpel tunnel (fapfapfap...). Since my first orangered, I've been hooked. In fact, I'm not sure if it's a massive deja vu, but I swear I've written this before...
So if any of you see anything written by me cryptically on any other social media site, assume it's the powerful influence of the scourge that is Reddit. Now if you will excuse me, I'll have a swim in the Dopamine Sea.

Priorities

So here are my top five priorities in life.

1. Prepare for parenthood
2. Get into shape
3. Save money
4. Educate myself daily
5. Maintain healthy marriage

Everything that lies outside of this list are provisional.

The throes of SOC

Writing about writers block is its only cure.  When there's nothing on the mind, almost nothing comes out.  But, like slowly sliding up an off light dimmer, you can't start with your brightest material.

So when I feel compelled to write, (which is I'm sure, solely due to some obsessive gyrus in my brain) it usually comes out as nothing particularly interesting.  What a shame.  And to think that things were getting productive.
Sometimes recording the stream at which things come works.  Well, come to think of it, that might become too tedious to edit.  Maybe all non-technical writing after the turn of the 19th century is stream of consciousness, and we've just been under its influence for so much time, that we don't even notice?  This hypothesis might require a bit more more education on my part to investigate, so I'm not even going to go there currently.  Maybe some day I'll begin to understand some of today's authors who do tend to write in with a stream of consciousness.  However, I think reading something that's solely SOC gets boring, and drags on after awhile.
With that, I'll Stop.

$23.76

I just got up to pay the delivery man.  Of course, this eponymous amount pales in comparison to mow much I've spent on pizza this year.  At Papa John's, I've spent around $408.57 (recent transactions after August 13 excluded).  At Donato's, $122.17.  At Dominos, California Pizza Kitchen, Wolfman Pizza, Cici's, Luigi's Pizza, Pizza Hut, Giorgio's, Hungry Howie's and Carmellas, $192.43.  If you suck at math, this all in total, as of August 13, is $723.17.  This is what I'm spending on pizza after 2/3 of the year.  At this pace, I'll spend another $238.65 on pizza for the rest of the year, which would bring me to a grand total of  $961.82 spent on pizza for the year.  Of course, this excludes all cash purchases, which I'm sure account for up to 1/4 more.
The bottom line is this: pizza's friggin expensive, and is costing me an arm and a leg to sustain.  The pizza I just ordered, is, by the way, still sitting behind me untouched.  I'm going to start doing calorie restriction today, beginning with 1500 calories for a week.  If I can't sustain this after a week, I'm going to boost the calories by 100 each week to find a good sustainable area in which to work.  Of course, there will be exceptions to this plan, such as Oktoberfest and Thanksgiving, but as long as I plan for these, and the number of calories I intake on this day remain insignificant, I should be able to sustain this program.
Since I'm restricting calories, I'm able to eat whatever I want, as long as I don't exceed my allotted calories for the day.  This will take discipline and vigilance, but it should help me beat my addictions that seemed to have accumulated over the summer.
More tomorrow on what I should monitor while on calorie restriction.

Laziness. Pure laziness.

Just got back from vacation.  Jetlagged.  Having a hard time focusing.  Time to readjust.

Bed Post, vol.

I just fleshed out our plan for the next year of our lives. Thank god it doesn't involve Dominos Pizza at the end of that year. In the next year I should be headed to the Army, like I've been threatening to do for the last year. If that doesn't work, it'ts back to school @ Mizzou. Ah, it feels nice to know where I'm going in life.

With Apologies to the Wachowski Brothers

I'm sitting here, alone in the dark, wired as Google, with a mind that races like McQueen through an open German field.

I'm visiting a weird state right now, recently all too familiar, which is undoubtedly the product of intaking too much sugar & caffeine at work.  I'm bored, but I harbor that nagging spectral thought that prods and pokes me in the direction of anything other than what I'm doing right now.  Though my motivation reserves are running critically low, I'm on edge, and feel just below impelled to read something substantive.

So I'll conclude this short post with a comment somewhere between entgleisen and nonsequitur: I don't want to read anything because any content I encounter will, somewhere along its way to the hard disks of my brain, become fragmented and useless.  Crap.  I wish I was plugged in to the Matrix.

Bed Post, volume (x)

The more I consider my place in the culture war between a multiplicity of dogmatic extremes, I often wonder where the average believer lies. Given the massive bias professed by practitioners of both science and religion, I wonder too, if we'll ever come close to a a functional consensus.
I just finished reading Stephen Jay Gould's essay "Nonoverlapping Magisteria," (Natural History 106, March 1997: 16-22) which offers a more lucid and functional solution to the problem at hand. In the essay, he claims that creationism is a fundamentalist doctrine rooted exclusively in American culture. Due to my own religious upbringing, I tend to side more with Gould than I do with Dawkins. However, I would still categorize myself as a functional atheist. I recognize that the idea of God has social currency and even individual value, but I just can't at this point, live my life as if God is constantly watching me. That is to say, there are no forseeable consequences, in the short or long term, to living a life as if God never existed. Of course I may be wrong, which is why I hedge my religiosity at any given moment as "provisional." I'm sure that as soon as I turn 50 I'll have a crisis of faith as I'm confronted with the increasingly nearing spectre of death; but I'm still young. There's time in my life to consider the potentially eternal conseques of my place on the religious spectrum.

Open Letter to all Christians, vol. 2

This is another in a series of emails I've been exchanging with two of my favorite creationists, my dad & brother.  This one was more of a deflation of what might have been some unnecessary tension that occasionally builds up between my dad & I.   
Dad:
I can see that we're on opposite ends of the culture war that's waging out there.  I can't say that in the foreseeable future that I'll become a believer.  To me, the ideas in the Bible, taken literally, are quite frankly, absurd.  However, these ideas taken as a compilation of literature placed in their historical and cultural context work much better for me.  I'd like to explain my reasoning, but I'll probably just end up blaspheming the faith that you've plainly worked very hard to construct for yourself. 
The resolution to our dialogue is far in the future, but I think by continually communicating original ideas, we'll at least better understand how we arrived at our current, opposing conclusions.  I think this is more important than parroting contrary sound bytes back and forth.  I'm just as guilty as you are on this.  So from now on, let's focus more on what we think, rather than what we expect others for us to think.
Most of my free time is dedicated to science.  It's a passion of mine that extends far beyond the blogs and magazines that I read.  With this comes with the ideologies and value judgments of scientists, which I'll admit, aren't always god-friendly.  A recent poll This is ok to me, though.  I no longer feel that these people are deeply offending me like I used to.  They're just people with opinions, just like you & I.  I think
Eventually, I'd like to become a science teacher, on some level.  This affinity for science helps me to understand the world around me, and frees my mind to think about whatever I want to learn about.  In my opinion, a reading of biblical text tells me nothing about the beauty of current astronomy, why common homeopathic remedies are a waste of money, the benefits of understanding faults in logical thinking, how & why creationism Intelligent Design, etc are intellectually dishonest.  I get all of this from critically evaluating claims that I encounter, including those levied by Christians, or all religious folks, for that matter.  I understand if reading the Bible gives one fulfillment or inspiration.  Howeverer, I don't get it.  The inspiration offered by the text of the Bible, whether it was divinely inspired or not, is limited to the knowledge of men 2000 years ago, and therefore stagnates in the light of fundamental advances in human understanding.
OK, I'll stop.  I'm just following the maxim: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  This should come with the caveat that extraordinary amounts of time & energy will be spent debating as well.
So with that, I'd like to suspend my side of the arguments for the time being.  I have to admit: it's siphoning a good deal of the time and energy that I need to devote to building a healthy marriage and to prepare for the arrival of the Lima Bean.  However, feel free to comment.  It's not in my interest to permanently silence my biggest ideological opponent.  A question comes to mind: what idealogical or religious differences do you have with Pops?
Finally, as a necessary concession to make sense of my biblical upbringing, and to level myself with the great cultural tradition set forth by the Bible, I'm going to start reading God: A Biography.  It's been recommended, and should allow me, the biblical layperson, to better understand this ancient text.

Luna (June?) Brewington @ 20 weeks

I don't remember if I've told you about the term "Lima Bean."  If not, it's the provisional name we've been using for her until we pick a real one.  Since the baby looked like a lima bean at 9 weeks in the first ultrasound, we've called her that.  It's likely to remain a nickname for a good part of her childhood.  I've attached the most recent ultrasound photo that was taken last Friday.  We had a bit of a scare concerning a blood test that showed elevated AFP (Alpha Fetal Protein) levels, so we had to consult an OB specialist uptown.  This usually indicates spina bifida and/or certain genetic defects, but it turned out to be a statistical anomaly.  We were just slightly above the cutoff for the average pregnancy, but the specialist told us that it's probably just an idiosyncratic artifact of our particular pregnancy, so nothing to worry about.
I know we talked last week about names, but I couldn't recall the good ones, mostly because I was in the middle of a beer tasting.  So now, I give you, in a sober state, our top considerations: Andromeda, Luna, Callista, Lucia.  All of them are astronomically object-based Latin sounding names.  We're leaning toward Luna June Brewington.  June only because it's a big month for Elena & I.  I'll spare you the details.
Hope to hear from you soon.
-Derek

PS - I meant to ask you this before: do I have your permission to publish these email exchanges on my blog? I think some of the stuff we're covering is fascinating, and I'm inclined to include snippets of our convos.

An Open Letter to all Christians

This is a modification of a letter I wrote to my dad & brother one pensive late night.  It followed two long responses to a set of questions I sent them:

1. What are the four most important books of the Bible?
2. Who wrote these books?
3. When, in relation to the life of Jesus, were these four books written?
4. Did Jesus write anything? Why/why not?

I was expecting typical responses, i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc., which (surprise, surprise) I got back.  In the interest of privacy, I'm not going to publish these answers.  Just to be clear, I sent them the questions, they responded just as any Protestant would.  So without further ado, here's how I responded to their answers.  This will serve as my Letter to a Christian Nation (thanks, Mr. Harris):



I've come to the conclusion that it is indeed fruitless to engage in a debate on the topic of whether or not god exists.  I had a long, point by point rebuttal planned for all Christians, but I'll have to concede up front  that nothing I write or say in the realm of logic, rational thinking, or rhetoric will move this dialogue in a constructive direction.  I'd like to agree to disagree, but I'm just not satisfied with complacency on this topic.
As with your responses to my question, I'll give you guys the condensed and incomplete version of my journey toward agnosticism regarding anything supernatural, and my provisional consideration of atheism.  I might even show you that you're an atheist.
So it begins:
When I was younger, I always found it incredibly easy to envision a god who was there for me; my very own personal deity who actively took an interest in my well-being, and sent his son to earth to absorb the badness of everything I did, said, or thought, past present and future.  Everything was covered.  Dad, I think it might have been all throughout my childhood, but I was always interested in what you had to say about god, because everything I learned in Sunday school about god was pretty much describing you.  You were thoughtful, caring, forgiving, a bit jealous at times, and sometimes vengeful.  For a significant portion of my life, you were omnipotent (especially when we wrestled in the living room in WV), omnipresent (especially when we did something we weren't supposed to do), and omniscient (especially when you taught us how to reason through a problem). I doubt I'm the sole carrier of these feelings, as every protestant father-son relationship is likely structured this way.
My big question here, looking back is: did we really need to extend our beliefs into the supposed heavens to uncover what we so often found in our mundane, materially earth-bound existence?  Dad, being himself, was enough for me.  I don't know about you guys, but whenever I was younger, I always had "dad" in the back of my mind when I thought of "god" or "Jesus."  Wouldn't it be the same then, if every instance of the word "god" or "Jesus" were removed from Sunday school and replaced with "dad"?  True, these aren't perfect analogues, but there is research showing that there is a specific area of the brain that's associated with spiritual experiences.  Might there be even the slightest possibility that our experiences of god are correlated with such a mechanistic process?  Perhaps Sunday school indulged our childish whims as we happily engaged in an immature proto-spirituality.
But, as I grew older, this spirituality started getting fuzzier and grayer as my relationship with the real world grew stronger.
This idea that god was perfect eroded as I began thinking about how closely the Sunday school teacher's god correlated with my concept of dad.
Dad, I know you have your faults, as all of us do.  They were always there, and will always be there.  I'm not talking about any specific faults, just that you, as a human being are far from faultless.  Come to think of it, some of these congenital faults will manifest themselves in the course of my fatherhood.  Imperfection is indemic to the human race.  Knowledge of and vigilance for these faults should keep me on my feet, as well as stoke the learning process of fatherhood.
But wait, if god created us in his own image, isn't there a possibility, even slightly, that he has some faults, just as we do as fathers?  As an agnostic, I'd rather choose a path away from this blissfully ignorant childhood.
Once I began to consider this idea, the whole wall became more and more transparent.  No, I didn't set sail in some sort of spiritual odyssey, as some Christians wax mystically.  As I learned more about the pale blue dot we occupy in this vast universe, one question led to another: "Where is god? What is the mechanism by which god contacts humans? Is god bound by the laws of relativity and gravity? If not, how does he circumvent these laws? If aliens exist (it's becoming more and more likely, we've discovered 473 exoplanets, the most recent of which was discovered in March of this year), did god create them?" I see it as poking my finger through the eggshell that was obscuring my view from a wider, brighter universe. To me, this universe does not require implausible supernatural events such as virgin births, miracles, and cosmic acrobatics to instill in me a deep and fulfilling sense of awe of what's directly observable.
I'd like to explain what I think of the Bible, but first, can you tell me what's unique about this Lady Gaga video?  Hint: you don't have to watch the video to get the right answer...  Good luck!

I just don't think they get it.

So why do I spend all of my much cherished insomnia debating creationists in YouTube forums?  Because I have principles, that's why.  How can one, regardless of personal faith, twist a video like this one into an opportunity to proselytize?  I provided the much-needed skeptical opinion as PaPaSnerk.



It's slowly dawning on me that evangelicals/creationists (I should probably just conflate the two, but in fairness to rational people who may fit the agreed upon criteria for evangelical, I'll draw a distinction.  Warning: not a concession to creationist) are ignorant of the facts, and exist in a mental world where the need to be certain trumps the need for robust fact-based knowledge.  Maybe I'll go so far as to say that these people are factually anemic, and are in dire need of a closer relationship with reality.  Either way, I'd like to think that my mental world is so saturated with facts, and that certitude is next to impossible.
And this brings me to the sex of the Lima Bean.  At this point, I have no idea whether or not this baby's a boy or a girl.  I like it that way, until I can know for sure.  When I do, I'll love the baby just as much.  Creating life is awesome and weighty, and tickles my need to pass on the Brewington/Ramige genes.  As long as the Lima Bean doesn't acquire the Ramige drinking phenotype before age 21, I'll be happy less nervous.

Mark 3:29

There are some idea that will, if I endorse them, come back to bite me in the ass.  However, as an atheist, I'm allowed to think for myself, without fear of the vengeance of a jealous, vindictive, and angry god.  So, for that very reason, I give you this:



Furthermore, I deny the holy spirit.  Now watch as I'm not judged by an almighty god, but by several righteous human beings.  That is, of course, assuming that anyone ever reads this.  I will happily joined the damned in hell.

And as a good friend once told me via YouTube,
"Love with your heart.  Use your head for everything else."

Feel free to post your thoughts.

Yes, I wish I had electrodes on my head, that fateful day in December

So I was skipping around on TED (and by skipping around on TED I mean I followed a link from Pharyngula to a controversial Common Sense Atheism post) and found this talk by Aditi Shankardass:



Why didn't they have this when I was a kid?  I wish they had this instead of the arcane test they gave me.  Though a computer monitor with a simple clicker was all we had back then, you'd think someone in those counseling offices would think to hook up an EEG to get some baseline data from their patients.  This just *finally* indicates a shift in purely behavioral psychology (or its bastard child pop psychology) to a more nuanced and cosmopolitan concept of the human condition.
And, for the record, I agree with PZ.  It's one thing to be an obsessive creeper.  It's another to be attracted to women capable of critical thinking.

Bed-post I

This will serve as my first official bed-post; an update from the bed as my beautiful wife Elena sleeps next to me. There are a few conventions I'd like to follow. First of all, there will be a few spelling and/or grammatical errors in this series. Get used to it. I'm typing as fast as my two massive thumbs will allow. Secondly, these posts may meander a bit, considering they're inspired by the things that I think about that render my mind insomniac.
With that, I begin this series.
To extend my previous post on music, I want to elaborate on what inspired me to marginalize pop music in my life. There comes a time in every rock fan's life where he reaches the conclusion that all of the mythology, all of the social currency, and all of the awesome feelings one derives while stonily waxing poetic about how cool rockstar X is, are all functions of youth that one must grow out of. Being a music fan to me is part of the human condition, so why not listen to some really great music that represents the pantheon of all music that has ever been composed? Though entirely a matter of taste, I will argue that all of these great musicians are not alive today. In fact, they are long since dead.
I'm beginning a movement that creates the same mythology that underlies Jimmy Page's, Miles Davis', and... well, Enya's allure. And it all begins with a viewing of the movie Immortal Beloved. Best period piece ever. And yes, it's still awkward for me to write or say "period piece."

Pop Eradication Update

So awhile ago, right before the wedding, I came out.  I told the world (John Pierson) that I was endeavoring to eradicate pop music from my life.  While acknowledging that this campaign may be semantically possible, I recognize that it's functionally impossible, due to the ubiquity of pop music.  Therefore, I'm revising the campaign so that I may be allowed to listen to some pop, but only provisionally.
What brought me to this conclusion?  iTunes.  I still carry that culturally planted (and oft-assumed) meme that I should keep up with the Zeitgeist.  I really tried to dry out this self-perpetuating idea that this is good music.  Months of nothing but classical and jazz.  More months still of no music whatsoever.  But then I had a listen to M.I.A.'s new album Maya, which sucks musically, don't get me wrong; but I'm forced to admit that it's sonically awesome.

More to come later.

Communicable

I HATE calling in sick, but sometimes, as a matter of public health, it's necessary. In the meantime, I have to fill the guilt with something work-like and productive. In that vain, I'm going to look for another job. Dominos has treated me alright, but it's time for a change. The fact of the matter is, I need to make more money. This baby won't be free, you know.

Welcome, Inquirers of Derek's Religion!

I took the Religious Perspective survey linked from PZ Meyers' blog Pharyngula. While the survey had more than a few design flaws, it gave me a good opportunity to further clarify some ideas regarding atheism itself, my current understanding of atheism, and my attitudes (and prejudices?) regarding belief, with consideration to my attitudes (and again, prejudices!?) toward Christians and Muslims. Like anyone, I'm still learning about how the world works, and thus constantly learning more about how to parse these ideas. As such, I'm revising my opinions and ideas daily to fit known data.
So, in short, I'm an Atheist, and this is why:

Q.1 Which of the following best classifies your beliefs?
Atheist
Q.2 How many atheists do you know?
0-6
Q.3 Please indicate which of the following concepts you think atheists believe:
All Don't believe, except for Science. Science is not a belief, it's a systematic approach to understanding the world. I'm not sure why digitallyborn included science in this, but I'm going to interpret it as "accepting as true the phenomenon of science exists." Perhaps digitallyborn was trying to tease out the fundamentalist belief that "evolutionists" believe in science as the fundies do in God. To this end, I have to play the Non-overlapping Magisteria card. The sum of human knowledge may, in fact, trump any notion of God altogether. I have to point out though, that blind, unquestioning belief in a personal god requires no evidence whatsoever. If you want to believe that it's necessary to have the If scientists continue to quibble over this premise with Christians, the culture war will continue to wage.
Q.4 Do atheists believe there is no god?
Atheists simply don't believe that there is no god. This presupposes belief in a systematic non-belief. Atheism, in its strictest sense may itself be a belief, but in order to properly answer this question, I'm assuming that it's referring to all atheists' ideas concerning a supernatural deity. There is a possibility that some atheists may truly believe that there is no god. However, when considering all atheists, I have to answer "no" to accurately characterize the set of atheists the question considers.
Some atheists, such as myself, argue that there is no direct way to know god, but reserve the possibility that one may exist in some form or another^*. But, if God does happen to exist, how do we know he's not fooling us? What if this god is a malicious alien?

Q.5 Do you think atheists are spiritual?
Considering all atheists, I'd say no. The vagueness of the word "spiritual" confuses me a bit. If spiritual is meant as a belief in a supernatural deity, I'd still say no. When a broader definition of supernatural is applied, however, I'm not sure. I still answered no to side with probability.
Q.6 Do you think atheists value morality?
There are evolutionary advantages to observing and maintaining a secular humanist system of morality. Though there is a learned component to morality, god is not required to adopt such a system. Therefore, an atheist may enjoy all of the benefits of valuing morality without the pesky overhead yielded by belief in the supernatural.
Q.7 How many Christians do you know?
More than 20. It's the whole fam.
Q.8 Please indicate which of the following concepts you think Christians believe:
God, Afterlife, Heaven/Hell, Reincarnation: yes, as a prerequisite to Christianity.
Voodoo, Soul/Spirit, Ghosts, Destiny/Fate: It depends on the Christian's culture.
Science: Irrelevant. As a phenomenon of modern enlightenment thinking, science's existence exists. To deny its existence (eg a Christian claiming to disbelieve all of science.) It would be similarly absurd for a scientist to disbelieve Christianity as a sociological phenomenon. One need not believe in a phenomenon for it to be objectively true.
Q.9 Do you think Christians are spiritual?
Using the definition of spiritual offered in Q. 5, Christians presuppose a priori, the existence of a supernatural being.
Q.10 Do you think Christians value morality?
Most Christians value morality. However, morality and behavior are separate and distinct. One may value morality, but behave in opposition to a moral code. In addition, Christians' adherence to a particular moral code is more a function of his/her environment than the code set forth in the Bible.
Q.11 How many Muslims do you know?
1-5 Something tells me I'm about to learn how little I know about Muslims and Islam.
Q.12 Please indicate which of the following concepts you think Muslims believe:
Believe: God, Demons, Afterlife, Heaven/Hell, Destiny/Fate,
Don't Believe: Voodoo. As far as I know, Voodoo is a West African/Haitian belief system.
Irrelevant: Science. Again, not a belief system. It's real. I can believe in an invisible dragon if I want, (thank you Carl Sagan) but it doesn't mean that it's there.
I don't know: Ghosts, reincarnation
Q.13 Do you think Muslims are spiritual?
Yes. Again, as described above with Christianity, Islam presupposes a supernatural deity.
Q.14 Do you think Muslims value morality?
Yes. Again, there's a marked difference between behavior and one's values. As one becomes more in touch with his/her personal prejudices and biases, he/she will be better suited to apply a pattern of behavior more consistent with a set of externally consistent ethics prescribed by all of humanity. This process does not require belief in a supernatural being.

^*To fundamentalist Christians: The bible is not proof that God exists. Think about it: we have a holy book that was demonstrably written by humans. That we can agree upon. We only have 2 Timothy 3:16 claiming that the entire bible is divinely inspired. There are individual claims of divine inspiration sprinkled throughout the Bible, but this is a tautology. Just because the book itself claims that it's divinely inspired, doesn't make it so.

tizzest

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/pdfGet.jsp?id=MSP137819ba6cehe9hbe8h100003aa2ce362ee5184f&s=53&i=5+largest+countries+by+debt

My dream presidential slate

Randall Munroe for president. Phil Plait for VP.

http://xkcd.com/681_large/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/07/09/the-world-is-subtle-and-thats-why-its-beautiful/

Finally, someone stands up to Oprah

The following is an email I wrote to my dad that I thought might be interesting to release to the public. Enjoy.

Dad-

Finally someone stands up to Oprah.
In a recent Newsweek article written entitled Live Your Best Life Ever!, Weston Kosova. digs into some of the scams and dangerous practices prescribed by Oprah and her guests on her show. Here's a snippet:

"Oprah's audience admires her as much for her failings as her successes. In real life, she has almost nothing in common with most of her viewers. She is an unapproachable billionaire with a private jet and homes around the country who hangs out with movie stars. She is not married and has no children. But television Oprah is a different person. She somehow manages to make herself believable as a down-to-earth everywoman. She is your girlfriend who struggles to control her weight and balance her work and personal life, just like you."

Of course, this was a pretty scathing article, but the late Martin Gardner, author of Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, and the father of the modern skeptical movement, wrote a more complimentary article entitled Oprah Winfrey: Bright (but Gullible) Billionaire. He's a little lighter on the scathe and focuses more on the quackery:

"McCarthy is in the Newsweek article because of her vigorous efforts to convince the world that autism is caused by vaccinations. She has an autistic son, Evan, who she insists became autistic after he was vaccinated for measles and other diseases. In her book Louder Than Words: A Mother’s Journey in Healing, she claims that chelation therapy has helped her son. This therapy, considered quackery by almost all doctors, blames autism on mercury that was once used in vaccines."

Both are interesting, and (hopefully) expose the side of Oprah that's been obscured by her reputation for so many years. I'm concerned that Oprah has been poisoning the minds of millions of people all over the world, including mom's, grandma's and countless other women in our family.
I showed this article to Elena, who has watched Oprah's shows, and even bought into some of her ridiculous claims because she has experts on her show. After reading the Gardner article, Elena was more skeptical that these experts truly had any validity to their claims. Quacks are quacks, regardless of their title or educational pedigree. This shows that there's some hope for the future. After discussing the article with her, I was comforted by the fact that this nonsense will have a hard time propagating into the next generation of Brewingtons.
I don't know how these articles will impact the minds of the committed core of Oprah's viewership. However, I'm glad that there is a voice out there that speaks for reason, science-based medicine, and the rigorous search for truth in a confusing info-saturated world. I'm glad that someone in the mainstream media is able to criticize mainstream figures who are seemingly bulletproof. It's a great gasp of fresh air after being smothered by pseudoscience and new-age BS.


-Derek