I Got the POW-UH!

I'm sorry, Professor Meg. I just couldn't resist. I do think the guidelines you published are reasonable, and I agree that you probably meant authority and are not totally obsessed with total world domination.

But I could be wrong.

BTW, anyone else notice that kids these days can't even spell (or punctutate) "blah, blah, blah" anymore?

Plenty of Blame to Go Around

I know, I know, long time no post. So sue me. But wait, there's a whole boatload of blame to divvy up over the Algebra kerfluffle:

First, to PZ, for an excessively, overthetoppishly, righteous smackdown of Richard Cohen.

RC: I have lived a pretty full life and never, ever used—or wanted to use—algebra.
PZ: If sheep could talk, they'd say the same thing.
Me: SSSSCOOOOOOOOORRRRRE!!!

Next, to Gabriela, for not even showing up for class 62 of 93 times. To get the sympathy thing going, you have to at least look like you're making an effort.

Then, to the relevant school system(s), who apparently haven't heard that insanity means doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. Surely they knew when algebra became a graduation requirement that they had a high failure rate. They could have added remedial classes, done some early intervention at the "pre-algebra" level, in other words, tried to make a difference. But it sounds as though all they could do was Mulligan classes after the fact. Too little, way too late.

And finally, to Richard Cohen, for demonstrating with a clever blend of verbal jiujitsu and Calvinball, that a lack of algebra can be seen in association with really putrid reasoning:

Writing is the highest form of reasoning. This is a fact. Algebra is not.
The proof of this, Gabriela, is all the people in my high school who were
whizzes at math but did not know a thing about history and could not write a
readable English sentence.

Now, if I understand his drift (?!?!), he's saying that if algebra were really the highest form of reasoning, then mastery of algebra would endow students with a knowledge of history and dynamite syntactic skills. Obviously these counterexamples show that is not the case, therefore any stupid BS he writes must be true. Or maybe I don't get his drift.

Richard, this is moi: Writing is the use of symbols to convey certain abstract ideas. So is algebra. But the discipline of learning the rules of symbol manipulation in algebra can help to train your mind to evaluate if one sequence of symbols follows from another. This is a skill that could benefit you in the job for which, amazingly enough, you get paid actual money. It's never too late to take that first step.

New irony meter needed

Prison official regarding lifer with cardiac disease, asked what would happen in event of cardiac arrest:

"At no point are we not going to value the sanctity of life," said prison spokesman Vernell Crittendon. "We would resuscitate him," then execute him.

The World Ends Tonight

I'm linking to WorldNetDaily for the curious reason that I agree with Vox Day, for the most part. This bloweth my mind.

America was founded on the principle that it is right to sacrifice blood for liberty. It is telling that the Bush defenders make precisely the opposite argument, that it is right to sacrifice liberty in order to avoid the shedding of American blood. In this they are, like the Dear Leader, avowedly anti-American.

Would you like a glass of Chagrin with that?

So, d'you ever haul out the old blunderbuss, load it up painstakingly, aim it to perfection, and fire off a blistering round exactly at the wrong target? Yeah, me neither. But if I did, the experience might be something like this response I crafted to a blog comment that I later concluded must have been intended sarcastically. So, in the interest of retrieving the projectile and redirecting my fire at the proper recipient, here goes. Guest Blogger Ross Douthat, writing at Andrew Sullivan's daily dish, said of the so-called Christmas Wars:

"...the larger reality is that ... there is a significant chunk of this country - [the cultural elite] - that doesn't much care for Christianity, at least if it's practiced seriously and its basic dogmas are left intact."

Speaking as a fairly regular churchgoer whose views typically align with those of the so-called cultural elite, I think Douthat, and by extension those in the "Christianity under siege" community, seriously misunderstand how they are perceived. There is impatience with the gullibility of those who are taken in by such transparent buffoons as Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, and George W. Bush. There is disgust with the hypocritical sanctimony that is all too often the public face of the "Religious Right." There is bemusement, sure, when you get cut off in traffic by a car with a bumper sticker proclaiming, "Christians aren't perfect -- just forgiven." There is horror and disbelief at those who do not appreciate what a blessing we have in the wall of separation between church and state. And there is annoyance with the missionary zeal that amounts to intolerance of anyone else's brand of spirituality.

With regard to the serious practice of Christianity's basic dogmas, well, if more Christians lived a life of humility, peacemaking, and genuine charity, I think even the jaded cultural elite would stand in awe.

This is Instructive

From a Nightline interview:

TERRY MORAN (ABC NEWS): Are you troubled at all that more than 100 people in US custody have died, 26 of them now being investigated as criminal homicides, people beaten to death, suffocated to death, died of hypothermia in US custody?

DICK CHENEY (VICE PRESIDENT): I won't accept your numbers, Terry. But I guess one of the things I'm concerned about is, that as we get farther and farther away from 9/11, and there have been no further attacks against the United States, there seems to be less and less concern about doing what's necessary in order to defend the country.

A reasonable followup, alas, an up not followed: So, tell me, Mr. VP, just how many criminal homicides are necessary to defend our country? Are you saying we should be encouraging our armed forces and intelligence agencies to commit more criminal homicides, so we'll be even safer?

My question: If defending our country means throwing away the constitution, is it really worth saving?

It's Called Burden of Proof, Counselor, Or, When Snide Attacks aren't Enough

This op-ed printed recently in the Birmingham News just cries out for a detailed rebuttal. Since items from the News only stay online for 7 days (edit: it appears I'm wrong about this), I've taken the liberty of reproducing the entire piece here, except for the author's email.

Prove it or admit you can't
Sunday, December 11, 2005

The debate over evolution, natural selection, creationism and intelligent design seems to me mostly a jumble of intellectually dishonest arguments. As with so many of society's debates, polarization of political positions has resulted in mere thinly veiled, snide attacks on the intelligence of those holding the opposite position.

Darwin hypothesized two essential prongs for his theory of evolution: (a) that species "evolved" one from another through some process; and a bolder one, (b) that the process was exclusively one of natural selection (survival of the fittest). Many people, and apparently most scientists, have accepted both prongs as fact. (See National Geographic Magazine, November 2004.)

Some religious people - the creationists - are troubled by the first prong, because it appears inconsistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis' description of creation.

Scientists are dismissive of creationists because of the fossil and geological records of the Earth's development. Creationists are hard-pressed to cite scientific evidence opposing that record, and Darwinists then claim victory for both prongs of Darwin's theory. Here, the scientists abandon their intellectual honesty.

Most people uncomfortable with Darwinism find trouble only with the second prong of his theory - the more speculative theory that development of species occurred solely through a process of natural (random) selection, without input of any "supernatural" or "intelligently designing" force. These believers in "intelligent design," if they are religious, may view Genesis as allegorical and not literal.

On the second prong of Darwinism, however, "intelligent designers" have the widely held view (88 percent, according to National Geographic) that an intelligent force has been at work in the universe with a role in the development of species.

Darwinists who attack intelligent design have scant evidence for their second-prong theory - that change occurs exclusively by natural selection, in no way attributable to intelligent design. Their best argument is that slight variations appear in species that could in theory have occurred naturally.

Understandably, they are in the uncomfortable position here of proving a negative. Consequently, they most often resort to two other arguments, both fundamentally dishonest.

First, they often obfuscate the debate by falling back on the weightier evidence for Darwin's first prong. Second, they define away their proof problem. Since they cannot prove that intelligent design did not cause the changes or proliferation of species, they argue that such a notion is inherently nonscientific, and that such a causation is out of bounds in any scientific discussion.

A little intellectual honesty is in order. Having stated a theory that expressly excludes intelligent design, science should admit it is incapable of proving or disproving intelligent design. Such proof is simply beyond the tools available to mortal man.

Having admitted that, they should admit - to that extent - that Darwin's second prong, natural selection of species, is not proven fact and cannot be proved fact, but merely a valid scientific theory that cannot be proved to be the ultimate causation of development of species, to the exclusion of intelligent design. They may legitimately state it is the only "scientific theory," but they must be willing to admit clearly the implications of that phrase.

As a believer in intelligent design, and one with some training in science, I can live with schools teaching Darwin's theory so long as this truth is admitted clearly within the context of that teaching. It is not asking too much of science that it admit what it can and what it cannot prove.

Attorney David M. Wooldridge lives in Homewood. His e-mail address is [redacted]
© 2005 The Birmingham News

I'll offer my thoughts and snide attacks in the next post.

Now this is truly funny.

The Museum of Depressionist Art. Just go there.


Pictured, Buddhist Monk misses Nirvana due to Cell Phone Interruption.

OK, Ready! Gimme an 'F'!

So the Fordham Foundation graded (almost) all the states' published science education standards and, oopsy, we Flagged it! Yes, that's Dear Alabama, right in that diagonal swath of failure extending from Kansas to Key West. Y'know, Toto, I THOUGHT we weren't in Kansas anymore, but now I'm not sure. Maybe if could espy a cadre of Discovery Institue scientists, we'd know for sure...

Oh! Here they are:

Grey Lady Gets Shrill

I'm so old, I remember when columnists writing in the Times were only allowed to call BS on GWB if they promised not to call him a liar. So now the NYT reports to choir practice and joins the chorus.

Money quote:

It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why.

Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.

More ponies, anyone?

Pardon, Your IDiocy is Showing

New insights from the frequently-regarded-as-flat state of Kansas:

In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

I guess the good news is that class time devoted to IDiocy will be diluted by the need to make time for phrenology, alchemy, and astrology.

Redemption cometh like a .... ?

Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason.

Galileo's resting a little easier. Wonder if anyone's told canine-fancier Ricky about this one?

By the way, you seem to be getting on in years, Excellence. Do you have some grey, Poupard?

"But of course."

He-said, she-said journimalism at its worst

Just when you thought that the much-hailed revivification of actual journalism sparked, Frankenstein-like, by the PlameGate fiasco* would leave tried-and-true journalistic hackery behind, along come Milbank and Pincus with a multitude of unattributed pejoratives to slime Joseph Wilson. Hiding behind such formulations as "Nobody disputes that...," they spout the administration's trademark Roveian spin intended to discredit opponents without addressing the substance of their criticism. Particularly interesting to me is that the "beyond dispute" category appears not to include such minutia as the fact that HE WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG! This is substantially borne out by the Senate intelligence committee report, which the article cites three times, using it against Wilson each time. However, on perusing the conclusions document (pdf alert), I see nothing that in any way refutes Ambassador Wilson's central contention. O refutation, where are thy footprints? Cause they ain't here.

The reporter/stenographers make no mention of his decision to go public in the first place with the NYT op-ed. Was this also a self-aggrandizement scheme? It seems to me to be fraught with considerable peril, as we clearly see now. They also fail to point out that some of his critics, eg, Heinyrocket, have been allowed to make outrageous claims that bear little relation to reality without being called on their prevarications.

And get this: "He also turned an arcane matter involving the Intelligence Identities Protection Act into a proxy fight over the administration's credibility and its case for war in Iraq." No, I think it was a fight over the administration's credibility and the lack of a case for war BEFORE said administration resorted to distraction techniques which appear to have been all too successful on the likes of Milbank and Pincus.

Oh, but I forget: he has a Jaguar convertible. Case closed.

*Who can forget Jon Stewart's conspiratorial whisper,
"We've replaced the White House press corps with actual journalists"?

Latest CNN Web Poll Marred by Ambiguity

Are President Bush's five visits to the areas damaged by Hurricane Katrina helping the disaster response?

Depends. If by the disaster response, you mean natural disaster, helping find bodies and clean up, I'd say definitely not. But if you mean the PR disaster, then I'd say I definitely don't give a rip.

BTW, current response is 71% "no."

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.