I admit it. I agree with Pat Boone.

I admit it. I agree with Pat Boone.

Whodathunk it, but in this piece, I really agree with Boone. Discussing his opposition to the theory of evolution,

[h]e cited America's founding documents, quoting the Declaration of Independence as he stressed, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator ... "

"That's how opposed to God Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that, was. Yet he is credited with trying to keep all mention of God out of public life. I wish Jefferson could be back here today just for 30 minutes to set things straight."

The part I agree with is in bold. Pity we can't get old TJ back. Too bad we don't have any of his writings to tell us what he was really thinking, something like this:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [italics mine]

Pity that. Pity that Pat doesn't comprehend, either.

Surely Not!

Today the Grey Lady has a page one piece on Alabama that is remarkably positive, titled "Once Woeful, Alabama Is Model in Child Welfare." Alabama still has a great deal to be humble about, but it's nice to see national recognition in a positive way, especially considering the disasters in foster care widely publicized in much wealthier states.

Opinions Differ on the Structure of the Universe

Seems the good folk at the Ptolemaic Institute got their britches in a bunch over the recent Nightline expose, which reported that there was no actual controversy among reputable astronomers as to whether the sun revolves around the earth, or vice versa.

Nightline's main point appears to be that there really isn't any scientific controversy over Copernicanism and intelligent epicycles. How do they know this? They checked with several Copernicanists, who told them so!

OK, I confess. I made it up, kind of. BUT -- and like my own, it's a huge one -- I challenge anyone to show me how my parodic extrapolation (not a good band name, unlike, say, Disembodied Anus) fails in the slightest iota of parallelism, except that the Catholic church was among the last earthly entities to accept "Copernicanism."

via Pharyngula (oughta be a street in Rome, no?)


Late Update: Swift himself would've had trouble satirizing these folk; it turns out they're out there, only they call themselves the Association for Biblical Astronomy (originally the Tychonian Society, though -- pretty close to Ptolemy, doncha think?) From their manifesto:

All scientific endeavor which does not accept this revelation from on high [ie, ...his* infallible, preserved word, the Holy Bible] without any reservations, literary, philosophical or whatever, we reject as already condemned in its unfounded first assumptions.

Quoth the Lord to the scientist (at least according to these bozos): Who you gonna believe, My good Book or your lyin' eyes, ears, other senses, and power of reason?

* HEY, wait a minute! Shouldn't that be His infallible etc? Now let's see who's going to roast eternally.

Followup: From Obfuscation to Outright Lies.

Latest reaction to doofus-in-chief's pronouncement vis-a-vis Intelligent Design Creationism:

"It's what I've been pushing, it's what a lot of us have been pushing," said Richard Land, the president of the ethics and religious liberties commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Land, who has close ties to the White House, said that evolution "is too often taught as fact," and that "if you're going to teach the Darwinian theory as evolution, teach it as theory. And then teach another theory that has the most support among scientists."

Nothing more to say, really.

I Misunderestimated.

I don't know why I'm surprised. Here's the latest from our doofus-in-chief:

President Bush waded into the debate over evolution and "intelligent design" Monday, saying schools should teach both theories on the creation and complexity of life. In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools. . . . Bush declined to state his personal views on "intelligent design," the belief that life forms are so complex that their creation can't be explained by Darwinian evolutionary theory alone, but rather points to intentional creation, presumably divine. . . . Bush compared the current debate to earlier disputes over "creationism," a related view that adheres more closely to biblical explanations. As governor of Texas, Bush said students should be exposed to both creationism and evolution. On Monday the president said he favors the same approach for intelligent design "so people can understand what the debate is about."
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. " You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

What is this guy's problem with reality, anyway? I know, I know; he really doesn't give a crap. It's as though that one-finger salute was directed at the entire reality-based universe. I truly believe the only calculus he can muster is the cost-benefit payoff in votes. This is a bone to throw in the direction of the fundamentalist community, who might be miffed that he didn't react strongly enough to Frists's shocking (and likely staged) display of independence vis-a-vis stem cell research. It certainly costs him nothing in terms of the low-taxes-is-good-for-big-business crowd. And what are we to make of his defiance of established constitutional law that teaching creationism violates the first amendment? I guess it's this: aside from gravity, no law applies to George W. Bush unless he allows it to.

PS: You Reality Cadets are gonna love his response to the suspension of Rafael Palmeiro. It boils down to, "Who you gonna believe, my friend or your lying drug tests?"

That's My Our Jeffy!

Herbert's got a column today about the efforts of Sens. McCain, Warner, and Graham to enact "legislation ... that would expressly prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody."
Tell it, Bob:

There was a dramatic encounter during the floor debate last week when Senator Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, spoke out against the legislation, saying there was no need for it because, as he put it, the detainees are not prisoners of war, "they are terrorists."

Senator McCain, of Arizona, argued that the debate "is not about who they are. It's about who we are." Americans, said Mr. McCain, "hold ourselves" to a higher standard.

At least, we used to. Honestly, you gotta love McCain when you see stuff like this, not only for forgetting to be a Bush apologist, but also for giving Jeff "I got 59% of the vote" Sessions the smackdown he so richly deserves. Remember, Senator Jeff is or has been a practicing attorney, a US Attorney, Alabama Attorney General, and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judging from his bio, what he has NOT been a member of, is the US military. Still, he should know better.

Well, Jeff, you've certainly got my vote -- for Legal Lamebrain of the Week.

Clarification: Please understand, I'm not criticizing Sen. Sessions for not having served in the military. I'm not certain that he did not, although surely his senate web bio would mention it if he did. Many fine individuals, myself included, have not. What I'm saying is, when three senators with distinguished service records think this issue is important enough to take on the White House directly, because they say it's important for our men and women in uniform, that's a good time for those of us who haven't worn the uniform to listen closely and think twice before opening our mouth and demonstrating a general state of cluelessness to the entire world.

Ah, back to Politics!

Our Fearless Leader (hereinafter OFL): "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

Thanks for clarifying that, Mr. President. I take it from that that sending a White House limo to pick up staffers on work release from the big house is out. If I could, though, there are a few points I'd like to clarify. For instance, what about ankle bracelets? Are they OK? No, I don't mean as a fashion statement; you know, house arrest. After all, it's the People's House, right? So maybe some of those people are on suspended sentences. Yes, it is a big house, a very big house. Another thing, we were all worried, before you made that bold and forthright declaration, you know, that maybe there'd be nothing to stop you from hiring Eric Rudolph as Special White House Assistant for Women's Health. Which brings up the next point. What about pardons? Would that make someone eligible again? When could Secretary Rudolph start then? I know this has been a whole bunch of questions; how about just one more? Where does this leave Admiral Poindexter?

Update: further questions have emerged, specifically regarding when a member of the administration will be judged to have committed a crime. Is it when an indictment is handed down, an arrest is made, a guilty verdict is returned, or when all appeals have been exhausted?

Don't Make Me Choose, Benny!

So it turns out that when he was a mere cardinal, Joey Rat was not so high on the Boy Who Lived. Here's part of his reply to a German author critical of HP: "It is good that you shed light and inform us on the Harry Potter matter, for these are subtle seductions that are barely noticeable and, precisely because of that, deeply affect and corrupt the Christian faith in souls even before it could properly grow,"







Well, Benny, I'm callin you out, and yes, I am talkin to You! Cause Benny, when you messin with my man Harry, you are really messin with my shit. You got that? [I don't even know what that means, but it sounds edgy, you know?]
So, one last time,
Don't Make Me F-in' Choose, Benny!
Cause if I choose, You Lose!

There they go again...

Geez, I never meant for this blog to be all-Catholicism, all the time, but oy vey, it just gets worser and worser. As I've said elsewhere, one of the few things I've found to be proud of in my nominal, self-serving cafeteria catholicism is that at least Rome learned something from the Galileo experience, even if it took them 500 years to get around to acknowledging that, hey, he was right, and the Inquisition was wrong. Now comes Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the lead editor of the friggin' Catechism (Yes, I believe that is the official title.), with this op-ed in the NYT saying, well, scientists are wrong and we're right.

I'm inclined to agree with bitchphd, commenting in Pharyngula, that this, more than pedophilia, misogyny, and all the rest, is likely to make me overcome my inertia and up and leave the house I grew up in (up in which I grew?). However, I'll wait for official clarification from the immediate past head of the Inquisition, BXVI.

Late update: in today's letters in the NYT, there's this word of hope:

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn is hardly the person to state an official position because he was outside the mainstream of Catholic thought when as the chief editor of the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, he accepted the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis.

(Rev.) Sebastian L. Muccilli

Back to the Future with BXVI

Latest wisdom from the head of the Inquisition vicar of Christ:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Presenting the new "Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church," Pope Benedict XVI urged Catholics around the world to memorize the most common Catholic prayers in Latin.

Learning the prayers in Latin as well as in one's own language "will help Christian faithful of different languages pray together, especially when they gather for special circumstances," the pope said June 28 as he distributed the Italian version of the compendium, which included an appendix with the Latin texts of many traditional prayers, including the Sign of the Cross, the Gloria, the Hail Mary and Come, Holy Spirit.

My initial reaction? Gawd, how reactionary! But after a little thought I'm not sure it's a bad idea. Latin is, after all, the lingua franca of catholicism, if you will. Don't get me wrong; I love the mother tongue, and years of various choirs and 2 years of high school Latin only served to reinforce my feelings. I'm not sure it would mean the same to my kids, though, and certainly not my (non-papist) wife. The thing is, without the whole liturgy existing in Latin in any meaningful way, these few prayers are more like fossils in a museum, lifeless and with meaning only for the experts. And how often is the average catholic kid from any nation going to be involved in a multinational catholic "do" and be able to show off his/her all-but-forgotten mumbled Paternosher?

Habemas Papam!

The one thing that most disturbs me about the visuals coming out of Vatican City this week is the sheer, unadulterated (let's hope so!) glee that suffuses the visage of the B-16. Let's be real, here. The papacy is arguably the second-toughest job on earth and is rightly restricted to those who should have some sense of the awe and grandeur it entails. Yet the face was somewhere between "We won the match!" and "I have you in my clutches now!" I remember reading that after his election John XXIII ran off and hid for days before returning to face the music and mount the throne of St. Peter. But then, for better or worse, they just don't make popes like they used to.

Advance Directive

Yeah, I know. Bit of a hiatus there. But really, between the one of me, was anyone losing sleep -- over the hiatus, I mean??? Anyway, I've decided to amend my advance directive as follows:

In the event of my incapacitation, coma, or other inability to participate in my healthcare decisions, a one-hour video recording is to be made and forwarded to Hon. Sen. Dr. William Katzensterben Frist, who will study it and make a
definitive pronouncement on my condition and prognosis.

For a suitable fee, he could offer further management suggestions, such as proper percentage of nitrogen for vegetable farming....

Potentate Potables?

Just go there. This is priceless.

Would the invasion of Iran constitute Double Jeopardy? Cause then all dollar values are doubled!

In re: Mandate

In the middle of a reasonably interesting what-if discussion about the CBS memos -- what if the forgery had been more convincing, that sort of thing -- Beldar supposes that 1% of the voters may have switched to Kerry. This would not have altered the outcome of the election, his gut tells him,

But it might well have undercut the basis on which Dubya has been able to claim having a broad mandate, however, with resulting significant weakness in his second term.

The rest of the post aside, this particular point is just ludicrous, but at least we can use this to infer the boundaries of what constitutes a mandate: 51/48 = broad mandate; 50/49 = no mandate. Considering that Bush acted like he had a broad mandate when he had actually lost the popular vote by half a million, I fail to see how this would make any practical difference, particularly given the accomodationist tactics of Congressional Democrats until very recently.

Faithful Reader(s), Relax

(Yeah, I coulda found this on a different site than Salon, but that would make it too easy for both of you.)

Anyway, just when you thought the blogosphere was safe from JOTW®, it lives... in the person of Larry Di Rita, Rumsfeld's chief spokescreature. Commenting on the military's practice of not-very-obvious sponsorship of certain websites, he opines,

"It would be most helpful to review activities going back six to eight years, as I assume many existing relationships have continued for that many years or longer," Di Rita wrote, noting the Southeast European Times operation. "It would be appropriate to review that activity and others like it."

It's not our fault! It's the Clenis!

Dispatch from Normalville

Following the Podunk County school board meeting Tuesday evening, it appears that the American education system's long dalliance with Newtonianism is coming to an end. For close to ninety minutes, board members saw and heard a procession of concerned parents line up to demand equal time in science classes for alternative theories of what they call "things falling down."

"Anyone who's as big a basketball fan as me can tell that no coincidence could ever bring about the wonderful balance between the bounciness properties of a basketball and the falling-down properties. And don't even get me started on golf!" This from Seth Straitlace, the father of three pupils in the county schools and an advocate of a theory called Intelligent Attraction. "Clearly, somebody smarter than me had to design the properties of the world so that things work the way they do." He moved on to Astronomy, "Also, did you ever consider that if the earth was alot farther from the sun or alot closer, life as we know it would be impossible! It hadda be designed. QED."

After forty-five minutes of discussion, the board voted 7-3 to require that earth science and physics textbooks used in the district have stickers placed in them to read:

"This text includes discussion of gravitation, which is only a theory, not a fact. There are other theories that attempt to explain these phenomena. You should study this material critically and make your own decisions. "

After the meeting, Straitlace said he was pleased, all in all. "This just leaves our campaign against Copernicanism. But that'll wait till next month's meeting."

What Planet Yew From, Boy?

Regarding the second inaugural address of GWB, from the one-of-a-kind David Brooks:

Two years from now, no one will remember the spending or the ostrich-skin cowboy boots. But Bush's speech, which is being derided for its vagueness and its supposed detachment from the concrete realities, will still be practical and present in the world, yielding consequences every day.

Words fail me, but maybe somewhere else in the world...

Rest of the world: OK. Here we have, ...hypocrisy. From America. Specifically, her President. More specifically, this President. [yawn]

Alright, DB. I'll grant you four words, "yielding consequences every day." Just not exactly in the way you meant them.

TJ for President!

Courtesy of Paul Glastris, some very apt words from the author of the Declaration and erector of the wall of separation between church and state:

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles..."

Go check it out.

Cream Rises to the Tippy Top

EXTRA!!!: Jerk of the Week, Jerk of the Quadrennium, and Leading Jerk of the Free World Edition

The Post: In Iraq, there's been a steady stream of surprises. We weren't welcomed as liberators, as Vice President Cheney had talked about. We haven't found the weapons of mass destruction as predicted. The postwar process hasn't gone as well as some had hoped. Why hasn't anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful.

One definition I found for 'accountable' is, "obliged to accept responsibility." I honestly can't think of any word less applicable to GWB and his entire administration.

Scenario 2007

I've been meaning to write about this for awhile, but... Has it occurred to anyone else that in about two years, Cheney could retire for health reasons and let GWB appoint his hand-picked successor? Like maybe Frist, who could then run in 2008 as semi-incumbent and semi-anointed, obviating the whole messy primary process. I'm not sure how the Republican electorate would take to being told, in effect, what to do, but I don't see any big risk in this strategery. Am I missing something?