Say, what?

Terri Sciavo was in no position to ask for her feeding tube to be left in.

Now we have a case where someone is in a position to ask, and he may not receive.

A man who is terminally ill and fears that doctors may allow him to die of thirst said he was "disappointed" yesterday after the Court of Appeal overturned an earlier judgment in his favour. Last July, the High Court granted a challenge by Leslie Burke, 45, and declared that key sections of General Medical Council guidance on withdrawal of life-prolonging treatment were unlawful. But yesterday three appeal judges allowed an appeal by the GMC against the ruling, setting aside six declarations by the trial judge. Permission to appeal was refused.

Burke suffers from a degenerative disease which will eventually kill him. Before that, it will take away his ability to swallow.

Lord Phillips explained that Mr Burke appeared to fear that ANH would be withdrawn before the final stages of his disease, when it would not be capable of prolonging his life. "If this is Mr Burke's fear, there is no reason for him to have it," Lord Phillips said.

Maybe – maybe – it's not as bad as it sounds. The ruling may be pretty narrowly worded:

The judges added that, "where a competent patient indicates his or her wish to be kept alive by the provision of ANH, any doctor who deliberately brings that patient's life to an end by discontinuing the supply of ANH will not merely be in breach of duty but guilty of murder". But they stressed that "in the last stage of life" ANH - far from prolonging life - may even hasten death. "It is only in this situation that, assuming the patient remains competent, a patient's expressed wish that ANH be continued might conflict with the doctor's view that this is not clinically indicated." Mr Justice Munby ruled in the High Court that the patient had the right to insist on ANH but the Court of Appeal disagreed. "A patient cannot demand that a doctor administer a treatment which the doctor considers is adverse to the patient's clinical needs. That said, we consider the scenario that we have just described is extremely unlikely to arise."

In effect, this seems to say that a patient has a right to be kept alive as long as possible. The problem arises when the patient and the doctor disagree over what steps will actually accomplish that end.

I guess this is another example where the situation isn't as black-and-white as the headlines would indicate.

Our treatment of terrorists

Remember Abu Ghraib? How about the tales of abuse at Guantanamo Bay? Maybe you've heard the statements by the likes of Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, and Nancy Pelosi? According to these notables, our treatment of detainees is a taint on our reputation, and is reminiscent of the Soviet Gulag or Pol Pot's killing fields. Kennedy claims that the only thing that's changed at Abu Ghraib is that it's now under new management.

Congressman Tom Tancredo states that in the wake of a terrorist nuclear strike on US cities, bombing Mecca would not be out of the question. People on all sides of the poliitical spectrum erupt in outrage.

To be sure, a nuclear strike on a Muslim holy site would almost certainly be counter-productive. However, if one of our major cities were vaporized, I suspect our leaders would be very hard pressed to do anything but launch a strike. Public pressure to "do something" would be very strong.

Nor is this my idea alone.

Regardless of how we feel now about the treatment of terrorists, and suspected terrorists, I can envision a day when Americans will care less about interrogation techniques used in the quest to get intelligence about terrorists. That day will be when there's a chemical or biological attack in one of our cities that kills and injures tens of thousands of Americans.

...snip...

If there's a biological or chemical terrorist attack, killing and wounding tens of thousands of Americans, how much would you care about "our reputation and how we are viewed in the Muslim world"?

And indeed, if the worst happens, the citizens of the US may decide they're tired of all this hand-wringing over what the Arab Street thinks. They may decide it's time the world started wringing its hands over what the American Street thinks.

Bad idea? Bad policy? I suspect it is. But when patience runs out, don't count on rational behavior.

And a word to the Islamic community:

There's an important terrorism issue for Muslim communities, especially those residing in Western countries. They should be concerned about backlash and retaliation against Muslims in the wake of a large-scale disaster. Muslims must in no uncertain terms make it clear, as have spokesmen for the Free Muslim Coalition (www.freemuslims.org), that the terrorists do not speak for them, and they must report terrorists within their communities.

And Muslims can't hide behind assertions that the media is biased against them. They need to do what it takes to make their voices heard in spite of the obstacles.

Frankly, the Muslim community has demonstrated that it can make its voice heard. If a news magazine reports that someone may have carried a copy of the Koran over a spot where a black cat once crossed, riots break out and people are killed. Muslims know how to get attention for their views.

To all those Muslims who object to terrorism done in the name of their religion and their god, I say they need to make their voices heard. Otherwise, why should anyone assume they exist?

The Roving Rove

A thought on how to deal with Karl Rove.

It appears that somewhere along the way, Bush has been quoted as saying that he would fire the person who leaked the name of Joe Wilson's wife.

If he said that, or if the press insists on putting those words in his mouth, maybe he should simply stipulate that he did, in fact, say it. He can fire Rove.

He never said a word about how long any responsible party was to stay fired.

(Hey, if micro-parsing is good enough for Clinton...)

Sins of evolutionists and creationists

For a count of generations back to the beginning of life, and a grand view of deep time, go to this page Darwin Among the Believers http://www.techcentralstation.com/072205B.html By Frederick Turner 07/22/2005 TCS In a recent TCS essay ("Darwin and Design: The Evolution of a Flawed Debate") I attacked what I regarded as the excesses of both sides of the evolution-creationism debate. There were angry responses in the mail and the blogosphere from both the creationist and the evolution sides, which pleased me, since there were clearly oxen on both sides that felt they had been gored, and caps in my piece that were felt to have, uncomfortably, fit. The angry evolutionists were especially interesting, as they often wound up admitting implicitly that their real agenda was atheism -- while denying that there was any social policy message in that agenda. In the essay I did state flatly that the theory of evolution had been proved. I wanted it to be clear where I stood. Much of the mail I received protested about that statement. I hold to it, and hold to it not as my own opinion, but as a fact, like the existence of Australia, which is not my opinion but a fact. But I do know that there are many who sincerely, and given their range of knowledge, rationally, do not believe in the theory of evolution. By the theory of evolution I mean the origination of new species from common ancestral forms by an iterated process of genetic mutation, natural selection, and hereditary transmission, whereby the frequencies of newly altered, repeated, and old genes and introns in a given lineage can cross ecological, structural, and behavioral thresholds that radically separate one species from another. In one sense, this can be summed up in a syllogism, which must be true if we make the basic and essential act of faith that logic itself is true: survivors survive. Given enough time, variation among the genes of individuals, variations in habitat in space and time, the process by which genes translate into proteins, tissues, and organs, and the thresholds that define biological species, all of which can be observationally verified, the principle of the "survivors survive" syllogism must bring about a huge branching of different kinds of life. The above summary statement of the theory will not convince opponents, who will be able to pick philosophical holes in it (which holes have been sewn up by countless scientists and philosophers in the last 150 years). But what opponents of evolution do not perhaps realize is what they are up against in terms of sheer human and civilizational achievement based on the evolutionary paradigm. This is not a proof of evolution, any more than the four-thousand year history of the survival of the Jewish people is a proof of Judaism or the worldwide congregation of Christianity is a proof of that religion; but it is an indication of the kind of scholarship that would be needed to refute it. There are at least 50 major journals in the academic field of biology. All accept without question the theory of evolution as I outlined it above. They are not attempting even to prove the theory, any more than math journals attempt to prove that the sum of the internal angles of a plane triangle is 180 degrees, or engineering journals revisit the existence of gravity. But they would be nonsense without the theory of evolution, just as engineering would be nonsense without gravity. Each of those journals is published about four times a year; several of them have been in existence for over a hundred years. Each journal contains at least ten articles of about 2-20 pages, and each of those articles represents several months' or years' work by a team of trained biologists whose most compelling material and moral interest would be to disprove the work of all their predecessors and to make an immortal name by doing so. The work of the biological teams is required to be backed up by exhaustive experiment and observation, together with exact statistical analysis of the results. There is a continuous process of search through all these articles by trained reviewers looking for discrepancies among them and demanding new experimental work to resolve them. Since every one of these articles relies on the consistency and truth of the theory of evolution, every one of them adds implicitly to the veracity of the theory. By my calculation, then, opponents of evolution must find a way of matching and disproving, experiment by experiment, observation by observation, and calculation by calculation, at least two million pages of closely reasoned scientific text, representing roughly two million man-years of expert research and perhaps trillions of dollars of training, salaries, equipment, and infrastructure. But the task of the opponent does not end here. For biology is not the only field for which the theory of evolution is an essential foundation. Geology, physical anthropology, agricultural science, environmental science, much of chemistry, some areas of physics (e.g. protein folding) and even disciplines such as climatology and oceanography (which rely on the evolutionary history of the planet in its calculations about the composition of the atmosphere and oceans), are at least partially founded on evolution. Most important of all for our immediate welfare, medicine is almost impossible as a research discipline without evolutionary theory. So perhaps the opponent must also throw in another 4 million pages, four million man-years, and ten trillion dollars -- and be prepared to swallow the billions of human deaths that might follow the abandonment of the foundations of medical, mining, environmental, agricultural, and climatological knowledge. If what is at stake is a proposition in the theology of biblical interpretation that is not shared by a large minority or possibly a majority of Christians and Jews, perhaps it might be more prudent to check the accuracy of the theology, which, after all, is a human creation even if scripture itself is conceded to be divinely inspired. Might not God's intentions be revealed better in the actual history and process of nature, his creative expression, than in the discrepancies we might hope to find in its self-consistency and coherent development? Sins of evolutionists and creationists http://www.techcentralstation.com/071305B.html

Frederick Turner considers evolution to be proved. Nevertheless, he seems to wish "a pox on both your houses". He considers both sides of the debate to have sinned.

On the sins of the creationist contingent, he notes:

...the sin is intellectual dishonesty. It begins innocently as a wise recognition that faith must precede reason, even if the faith is only in reason itself. But under pressure from a contemptuous academic elite the appeal to faith rapidly becomes anti-intellectualism and what Socrates identified as a great sin, "misologic" or treason against the Logos, against reason itself – in religious terms, a sin against the Holy Spirit. Under further pressure it resorts to rhetorical dishonesty and hypocrisy, to an attempt to appropriate the garments of science and reason, and so we get "creation science", the misuse of the term "intelligent design", the whole grotesque solemn sham of pseudoscientific periodicals and conferences on creation science, and a lame parade of scientific titles and degrees. A lie repeated often enough convinces the liar, and many creationists may now have forgotten that they are lying at all.

Indeed, it seems as if creationists believe that science behaves like a religious order. The way to do battle with it is to adopt the trappings of the order, use the vocabulary, cite "proof texts" that support your point of view, and if you convince enough of the masses, the church will slowly move to align with the view you've been pushing. At the very least, you can provoke a schism, and your side of the schism can wage war against the infidels.

In a way, this argument seems to be that creationism has taken to lying about science, but it's an understandable reaction to the way academia has treated religion. I hope he's not making that argument – as I see it, this may explain, but it does not excuse, the falsehoods spread by creationists.

And indeed, he comes down more heavily against the evolutionists.

The polemical evolutionists are right about the truth of evolution. But the rightness of their cause has been deeply compromised by their own version of the creationists' sin. The evolutionists' sin, as I see it, is even greater, because it is three sins rolled into one. The first is a profound failure of the imagination, which comes from a certain laziness and complacency. Somehow people, who should, because of their studies in biology, have been brought to a state of profound wonder and awe at the astonishing beauty and intricacy and generosity of nature, can think of nothing better to say than to gloomily pronounce it all meaningless and valueless. Even if one is an atheist, nature surely has a meaning, that is, an abstract and volitional and mental implication: the human world and its ideas and arts and loves, including our appreciation for the beauty of nature itself. The second sin is a profound moral failure -- the failure of gratitude. If one found out that one had a billion dollars free and clear in one's bank account, whose source was unknown, one should want to find out who put it there, or if the donor were not a person but a thing or a system, what it was that has so benefited us. And one would want to thank whoever or whatever put it in our account. Our lives and experiences are surely worth more than a billion dollars to us, and yet we did not earn them and we owe it to someone or something to give thanks. And to despise and ridicule those who rightly or wrongly do want to give thanks and identify their benefactor as "God" is to compound the sin. The third sin is again dishonesty. In many cases it is clear that the beautiful and hard-won theory of evolution, now proved beyond reasonable doubt, is being cynically used by some -- who do not much care about it as such -- to support an ulterior purpose: a program of atheist indoctrination, and an assault on the moral and spiritual goals of religion. A truth used for unworthy purposes is quite as bad as a lie used for ends believed to be worthy. If religion can be undermined in the hearts and minds of the people, then the only authority left will be the state, and, not coincidentally, the state's well-paid academic, legal, therapeutic and caring professions. If creationists cannot be trusted to give a fair hearing to evidence and logic because of their prior commitment to religious doctrine, some evolutionary partisans cannot be trusted because they would use a general social acceptance of the truth of evolution as a way to set in place a system of helpless moral license in the population and an intellectual elite to take care of them.

Darwin and Design: The Evolution of a Flawed Debate http://www.techcentralstation.com/071305B.html By Frederick Turner Published 07/14/2005 Does the theory of evolution make God unnecessary to the very existence of the world? If there is no God, what authority, if any, guarantees the moral law of humankind? These questions are crucial in the current controversies that are dividing the nation. For just as our laws must be not for religious believers alone, they must also be not for unbelievers alone either. Here, though, I would like to deal not with the answers, which would require a much larger work than a brief essay, but with some aspects of the controversy over evolution itself. The battle between the evolutionists and the creationists is a peculiarly tragic one, because it is amplifying the worst tendencies of both sides, and making it more and more difficult for most people to find a resolution. On the polemical creationist side, the sin is intellectual dishonesty. It begins innocently as a wise recognition that faith must precede reason, even if the faith is only in reason itself (as Gödel showed, reason cannot prove its own validity). But under pressure from a contemptuous academic elite the appeal to faith rapidly becomes anti-intellectualism and what Socrates identified as a great sin, "misologic" or treason against the Logos, against reason itself -- in religious terms, a sin against the Holy Spirit. Under further pressure it resorts to rhetorical dishonesty and hypocrisy, to an attempt to appropriate the garments of science and reason, and so we get "creation science", the misuse of the term "intelligent design", the whole grotesque solemn sham of pseudoscientific periodicals and conferences on creation science, and a lame parade of scientific titles and degrees. A lie repeated often enough convinces the liar, and many creationists may now have forgotten that they are lying at all. The polemical evolutionists are right about the truth of evolution. But the rightness of their cause has been deeply compromised by their own version of the creationists' sin. The evolutionists' sin, as I see it, is even greater, because it is three sins rolled into one. The first is a profound failure of the imagination, which comes from a certain laziness and complacency. Somehow people, who should, because of their studies in biology, have been brought to a state of profound wonder and awe at the astonishing beauty and intricacy and generosity of nature, can think of nothing better to say than to gloomily pronounce it all meaningless and valueless. Even if one is an atheist, nature surely has a meaning, that is, an abstract and volitional and mental implication: the human world and its ideas and arts and loves, including our appreciation for the beauty of nature itself. The second sin is a profound moral failure -- the failure of gratitude. If one found out that one had a billion dollars free and clear in one's bank account, whose source was unknown, one should want to find out who put it there, or if the donor were not a person but a thing or a system, what it was that has so benefited us. And one would want to thank whoever or whatever put it in our account. Our lives and experiences are surely worth more than a billion dollars to us, and yet we did not earn them and we owe it to someone or something to give thanks. And to despise and ridicule those who rightly or wrongly do want to give thanks and identify their benefactor as "God" is to compound the sin. The third sin is again dishonesty. In many cases it is clear that the beautiful and hard-won theory of evolution, now proved beyond reasonable doubt, is being cynically used by some -- who do not much care about it as such -- to support an ulterior purpose: a program of atheist indoctrination, and an assault on the moral and spiritual goals of religion. A truth used for unworthy purposes is quite as bad as a lie used for ends believed to be worthy. If religion can be undermined in the hearts and minds of the people, then the only authority left will be the state, and, not coincidentally, the state's well-paid academic, legal, therapeutic and caring professions. If creationists cannot be trusted to give a fair hearing to evidence and logic because of their prior commitment to religious doctrine, some evolutionary partisans cannot be trusted because they would use a general social acceptance of the truth of evolution as a way to set in place a system of helpless moral license in the population and an intellectual elite to take care of them. The controversy over intelligent design and evolution is, like many current quarrels, largely artificial, a proxy fight between atheists and biblical literalists over the existence and nature of a divine authority and the desirability of state authority as a replacement for it. Many people not warped in attitude by the exacerbations of the conflict see no contradiction between the idea that the universe, life, and human beings evolved according to natural processes, and the idea that a divine being or beings can be credited with the existence of everything, having set those natural processes going in the first place. The big question is whether nature can give us a moral law that is robust enough to serve a modern democratic free enterprise society -- if it can, that moral law would be acceptable both to believers, who would see it as God's natural revelation, and to unbelievers, who could trust its metaphysical impartiality. The Real Intelligent Designers http://www.techcentralstation.com/060905B.html By James Pinkerton Published 06/09/2005 The evolution vs. creation debate will never stop. But that endless wrangle is destined to take some new turns. How so? Because the evolution side of the debate, which is to say, the science side, is about to beget some serious creationism of its own -- that is, creations by human scientists. No serious scientist believes the literal Biblical creation account, but many earnest and well-credentialed scientists do believe in Intelligent Design (ID), as a perspective on evolution. And ID, of course, is religiously inspired. For instance, there's the Intelligent Design Network (IDN), a non-profit group headquartered in Shawnee Mission, KS. According to the network, ID is simply an approach to evolution which "holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection." But that "intelligent cause," which the IDN does not further identify, is by definition some sort of metaphysical -- or, if one prefers, divine -- Creator. And while religion is at the core of ID, its proponents generate lots of science-y arguments. One of the best known ID-ers is Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and author of Darwin's Black Box. Behe argues that it just isn't possible that random evolution could have produced the flagellum -- the propeller/tail -- on a bacteria. Such an organ, he concludes, is "irreducibly complex," which is to say, only a Master of Complexity could have created it. But it's a fallacy to argue that just because one person -- or even all the people of an era -- can't figure out how something works, therefore such mysterious workings are beyond any human comprehension, ever. To take one humble example, years ago I saw Siegfried and Roy perform their tiger-based magic in Las Vegas, and was frankly astonished at some of the illusions they generated at the aptly named Mirage casino. I had no idea how they did their tricks, but since I knew that they employed mechanics, not metaphysics, to do their show, I was content just to enjoy it, marveling all the while at human ingenuity. And of course, if one waits long enough, he will get a peek behind the conjuring curtain, learning how tricks are done and also that like the rest of us, Siegfried and Roy suffer from Murphy's Law, too. And so it is with science: eventually, some scientist will figure out how the "trick" of the bacteria's flagellum is done. But the ID-ers can't wait. They say that they must "study" evolution now, because, in the words of the IDN, "it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion." So to defend their particular religious worldview, they must undercut the work of Charles Darwin. Similarly, the Seattle-based Discovery Institute (DI) presents itself as a serious-minded explorer of possible options. The DI's Center for Science and Culture, for example, presents itself as just another group of think-tankers committed to open inquiry, although clearly stating that it "supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory" even as it "supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design." But the true mission of the DI was fully revealed in a 1999 posting of an internal DI document called "The Wedge Project" -- a document corroborated recently by The New Yorker -- which described not only the DI's anti-Darwinian goal but also its plan for achieving that goal. The paper begins by decrying the "devastating" effect of Darwinism, Marxism, and Freudianism, upon the "bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." These three fathers of "isms" were the propagators of a "materialistic conception of reality" that has "infected virtually every area of our culture." And so the DI mission is clear: "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." These heady fighting words certainly put the ID movement in its proper ideological and theological perspective. There won't be much defending of Marx or Freud from me. But Darwin was nothing like Marx or Freud. Indeed, biological Darwinism spawned "Social Darwinism," an extreme form of libertarianism. As TCS's own Nick Schulz, a certified non-leftist free marketer, observes, "There's plenty of room for God in a Darwinian universe. Darwin operates on different plane altogether from theology." Provocatively, Schulz compares Darwin to Friedrich Hayek, the legendary opponent of central planning and proponent of free markets. "Both men, in their nuance," Schulz explains, "demand seriousness of thought, not sentiment; both respect complexity that defies simplistic engineering, biological or social." And that's the problem with ID: it's simplistic. To argue that complex biological phenomena are "irreducibly complex" is to abandon the scientific quest. As Richard Dawkins, who boasts the bold professional title of Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, explains in The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design,

To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like "God was always there," and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say "DNA was always there," or "Life was always there," and be done with it.

So the better mission for the ID-ers, should they choose to undertake it, would be to identify the Intelligent Designer. That's a question that's been wrangled over by theologians for eons, with no firm conclusion yet. But of course, such inquiry has nothing to do with science. As Schulz suggests, religion is simply on a different plane than science. The whole point is that you take it on faith: you either believe or you don't. In fact, the Catholics put Mysterium Fidei, the mystery of faith, at the center of their belief system. Which is fine, but once again, it's not science. For those still interested in the ID debate, there's no shortage of material. And for those Darwinians in need of reinforcement, the American Museum of Natural History in New York City has a special website. Or one could settle for H. Allen Orr's two-word description of ID in The New Yorker: "junk science." So enough on what might be called RID, for Religious Intelligent Design. One can either believe in it, or not, but if one does, it must be taken on faith. But here's something coming that's real, replicatable, and thus inarguable. Let's call it SID, for Scientific Intelligent Design -- that is, designed here on earth by mortal, tangible human beings. There'll be no need to take SID on faith, because it'll be visible -- in your face, even. Indeed, early examples of SID have been visible for a long time. Plant and animal breeding, using mostly proto-scientific empiricism and intuition, reaches back probably 10,000 years. Consider, as one example of early SID in action, our best friend, the dog. Gazing down at a Chihuahua next to a Cocker Spaniel, it's hard to believe that those different breeds are the same species, Canis lupus familiaris. And all dogs, however cute, are descended from the fierce wolf, Canis lupus. Yes, these interconnections are hard to believe at first, but biologists can prove them. But canines and crops, of course, were just an overture. The true SID-aceous Era is just beginning, and it will affect humans, as well as animals. Broadly speaking, scientists are following three distinct paths toward human SID, which we can summarize as "hardware" (prosthetics and robotics), "software" (artificial intelligence, augmented reality, virtual reality), and "wetware" (cloning). In most cases, the scientists involved aren't thinking grand thoughts about human evolution. Instead, they are thinking about helping the elderly and others regain motor functions, or about improving computational power, or about curing many wasting, chronic illnesses. In that sense, they are ironically akin to the "proverbial blind watchmaker" of nature; they are not consciously participating in anything so grand as evolution. But a few scientists are "sighted watchmakers." They are, for better or for worse, visionaries. And there's nothing incidental or accidental about their advocacy of "transhumanism." In the words of one such scientist, Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute, "We will invent our successors." But whatever the motivations, from all directions, SID is coming. In hardware, it's coming. In software, it's coming. And in wetware -- including the hot-button issue of stem cells from fetal tissue -- it's coming. (For those following the current legislative debate over embryonic stem cells in Washington, one might note that American legal restrictions are already being mooted by the world marketplace; fetal-based heart treatment, apparently effective, was recently dispensed in Ecuador, using embryonic stem cells supplied by an institute in Barbados.) For as long as there are free minds and free markets, these innovations are going to keep on coming. Why? Because to envision things, to build things, to create systems of things -- that's deeply satisfying to many people, and so they keep on doing it, despite all the difficulties and dangers they might face. So, leaving God or gods out of this, let's say it: human beings are the Intelligent Designers. That might seem sacrilegious to some, but it's true to others, and real to the world. And in fact, we can always deal with the fruit of Design that's Intelligent. It's Unintelligent Design that we should be worried about. And oh yes, Malevolent Design. We should fear that. July 19, 2005 Students Deserve to be Taught "a Lot of Science" http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/grummo_20050719.html Gregory Rummo Earlier this year, the issue of teaching alternate theories for the origins of life in the public schools in the state of Kansas bobbed to the surface once again. The crux of the controversy was explained in the school board’s Recommendations for Further Revision to the Second Draft of Kansas Science Education Standards: “…[A] disagreement continues to exist within the Science Writing Committee with respect to very substantive issues relating to the inherently controversial issue of teaching students about the origin of life and its diversity. There is general agreement that standard biological evolutionary theory must be presented. However, Draft 2 continues to implicitly discourages (sic) any critical analysis of the theory that would ‘weaken’ it. This implication is reinforced by the absence of any learning objective that would inform students of important evidence inconsistent with evolution’s critical assumptions and historical narratives. This is in spite of agreed upon standards that explicitly state that students should critically analyze all scientific theories and consider competing alternatives.” The “agreed upon standards” are a part of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act which states that “a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.” The uproar from Saint Darwin’s ardent defenders was predictable. None was willing to participate in the public hearings held in early May. Yet a new national survey shows that almost two-thirds of U.S. adults (64%) agree with the basic tenet of creationism, that “human beings were created directly by God.” Another 10 percent subscribe to the theory that “human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them” (intelligent design). Moreover, “a majority (55%) believe that all three of these theories [evolution, creationism and intelligent design] should be taught in public schools.” Such open-mindedness is in keeping with the findings of fact that came out of the hearings in Kansas; “An objective approach to teaching origins science is one that reasonably informs students about relevant competing scientific views. State endorsement of an objective approach that favors neither Naturalistic Explanations [n]or the Scientific Criticism of those Explanations will more appropriately inform students about origins, will provide good and liberal science education, will cause the state to not take sides on the issue, and is a formula that is most likely [to] lead to the best and religiously neutral origins science education.” Why does the mere mention of objectivity and a critical examination of Darwinian evolution send shudders of fear through its evangelists? And what exactly is it that so fiercely drives them to defend their theory? It is clear that there is more than science at work here. Darwinism is the core belief under girding philosophical naturalism, expressed in such documents as the Humanist Manifesto III which establishes the Humanist belief system, as “rejecting any ‘supernatural’ influence and rel[ying] on modern science and the view that humans are the product of ‘unguided evolutionary change.’” In a similar vein one could cite George Gaylord Simpson: “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind,” or Jacques Monod, “Man has to understand that he is a mere accident.” Monod is typical of the origins exclusionists, writing that Darwinism was “…no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition—or the hope—that on this score our position is likely to be revised.” Nonetheless, most aren’t buying that brand of religion. In large numbers, we remain intractable in our belief that a supreme being was the ultimate cause behind the creation of the universe; that there was a first “unmoved mover,” a creator or an intelligent designer and that all we call reality did not happen by random, naturalistic phenomena. Paul the apostle was just as ardent in his beliefs as modern-day Darwinists. In describing the natural world he explained that belief in an intelligent designer was a priori: “His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made...” The 16th-century scientist Francis Bacon wrote, “A little science estranges a man from God. A lot of science brings him back.” Clearly, this is what is at the heart of Darwinist’s fears of the teaching of “a lot of science.” This appeared in the Sunday New Jersey Herald on July 17, 2005 ### Gregory J. Rummo is a syndicated columnist and the author of two books, "The View from the Grass Roots," published in July 2002 and "The View from the Grass Roots -Another Look," available in June 2004. Visit his website, GregRummo.com to find out how to purchase autographed copies. GJRummo@optonline.net

Why Evolution is such a hot topic

Tech Central Station's Frederik Turner recently wrote a couple of articles on the ongoing battle over evolution.

For the record, he believes evolution is true.

Although nothing in science is ever proven true, we can say evolution is true in the sense that there's so much evidence supporting it that it would be be perverse to withhold acceptance.

...continued in full post...

To get some idea of the weight of the evidence in favor of evolution, Turner offers the following point:

what opponents of evolution do not perhaps realize is what they are up against in terms of sheer human and civilizational achievement based on the evolutionary paradigm. This is not a proof of evolution, any more than the four-thousand year history of the survival of the Jewish people is a proof of Judaism or the worldwide congregation of Christianity is a proof of that religion; but it is an indication of the kind of scholarship that would be needed to refute it.

In other words, a successful argument against evolution has to provide convincing alternative explanations to a very intimidating volume of work – more convincing than the evolutionary explanations that underlie all of that work.

There are at least 50 major journals in the academic field of biology. All accept without question the theory of evolution [snip description of theory]. They are not attempting even to prove the theory, any more than math journals attempt to prove that the sum of the internal angles of a plane triangle is 180 degrees, or engineering journals revisit the existence of gravity. But they would be nonsense without the theory of evolution, just as engineering would be nonsense without gravity. Each of those journals is published about four times a year; several of them have been in existence for over a hundred years. Each journal contains at least ten articles of about 2-20 pages, and each of those articles represents several months' or years' work by a team of trained biologists whose most compelling material and moral interest would be to disprove the work of all their predecessors and to make an immortal name by doing so. The work of the biological teams is required to be backed up by exhaustive experiment and observation, together with exact statistical analysis of the results. There is a continuous process of search through all these articles by trained reviewers looking for discrepancies among them and demanding new experimental work to resolve them. Since every one of these articles relies on the consistency and truth of the theory of evolution, every one of them adds implicitly to the veracity of the theory. By my calculation, then, opponents of evolution must find a way of matching and disproving, experiment by experiment, observation by observation, and calculation by calculation, at least two million pages of closely reasoned scientific text, representing roughly two million man-years of expert research and perhaps trillions of dollars of training, salaries, equipment, and infrastructure.

And, just to add to the refuters' troubles, by the time any one claim can be offered, examined, and found to be without foundation, another 500 journal articles will have been added to the pile of material to account for. If evolution is, in fact, wrong, there's no particular reason for new data to comport with it, and every reason for this new data to show something else.

And just to make matters worse, scientific theories don't exist in isolation. Every mechanism that's uncovered has its effects on mechanisms in other disciplines. Biology has to obey the laws of physics and chemistry – the laws of physics have to be compatible with what we observe in chemistry and biology, and so on.

Geology, physical anthropology, agricultural science, environmental science, much of chemistry, some areas of physics (e.g. protein folding) and even disciplines such as climatology and oceanography (which rely on the evolutionary history of the planet in its calculations about the composition of the atmosphere and oceans), are at least partially founded on evolution. Most important of all for our immediate welfare, medicine is almost impossible as a research discipline without evolutionary theory. So perhaps the opponent must also throw in another 4 million pages, four million man-years, and ten trillion dollars – and be prepared to swallow the billions of human deaths that might follow the abandonment of the foundations of medical, mining, environmental, agricultural, and climatological knowledge. (Emphasis added)

That last sentence is why I consider the fight for evolution important. My passion over this issue boils down to four words:

Bad theories kill people.

If I had some assurance the deaths would be confined to those who have been tilting at Darwinian windmills for their own private agendas, I wouldn't mind nearly as much. But when science is shackled and blinded, the result is going to be barriers to progress and the sacrifice of lives well beyond the anti-Darwin community.

Go ahead and risk your own life all you like – don't pull others unawares into the same peril.

Sweetness is wasted on cats

Cats, it turns out, can't taste sweet flavors. They have a genetic defect that renders them unable to perceive sweetness.

Cat owners have long recognized that, unlike most mammals, domestic cats are uniformly uninterested in sweet-tasting foods. According to an early study conducted at Monell in the 1970s, the same indifference to sweets is also evident in wild cats such as lions, tigers, leopards, and jaguars.

One interesting feature is that we have a chance to see how the theory of evolution can be brought to bear on this fact. Personally, on reading the lead-in to the article, I came up with three predictions:

...continued in full post...

1: The genetic defect will be a break in a gene that builds part of the recepter for sweet flavors. That is, examination of the cat genome will show that, rather than being altogether absent, the gene is there, but it's broken.

2: Other cat species in which this indifference to sweets has been shown will turn out to have the same pattern of damage to the same gene.

3: If more than one gene is involved in the process,the other pieces will still be there, and still be functional in most of the species we investigate.

The hypothesis I'm working from here is that the affected cat species all descended from a common ancestor, and they inherited the same broken gene from that ancestor.

Intelligent Design/Intelligent Origin Theory, on the other hand, needs to explain why a genome with the shards of a broken gene left behind constitutes "intelligent design". Why build in a broken piece (and the rest of the pieces, if more than one piece is involved in the ability to taste sweet) instead of just leaving it out altogether? Why break this same piece in the same way in all these different species?

As it turns out:

The mammalian sweet receptor is composed of two protein subunits, known as T1R2 and T1R3. Each is coded for by a separate gene. In the new study, reported in the July 2005 inaugural issue of PLoS (Public Library of Science) Genetics, the researchers show a defect in the gene encoding the T1R2 protein in domestic cats.

OK, two parts. Interesting.

The Monell researchers also detected the same gene defect in tiger and cheetah, suggesting that it is common to species throughout the cat family. "This type of gene is known as a pseudogene and is somewhat like a molecular fossil," says Li. "It presumably once coded a functional protein, but no longer does so."

OK, the same defect, in different species within the family. Check.

Parallel studies showed that the defect is specific to the gene coding for the T1R2 protein, as the gene coding for the cat T1R3 protein is similar to those found in other mammals and appears to express a complete and functional protein.

The other piece, T1R3, is still present, despite being non-functional because of the absence of a working T1R2 gene. Check. Seems to be a silly design, if in fact it was designed. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, has no problems with it.

Additional prediction: If another mammal in a different family is found which lacks the ability to taste sweet flavors, it will be due to a different defect – there's more than one way to break a system.

Flat Tax Trilogy

The Washington Times features a series of excerpts from Steve Forbes' flat tax book.

It's a three-part series:

Americans deserve flat tax

A lower rate and simpler structure for Federal taxes will ease the burden on the taxpayer and stimulate growth, which will increase revenues.

A fair and simple flat tax

Among key features of the flat tax: Generous and refundable exemptions for adults and children. First, the tax rate is 17%. Period. That's seventeen percent of all money above the exemption amount. All adults get a $13,200 exemption. Any single adult making less than $13,201 pays no taxes at all. Married couples pool their exemptions, so as long as the household income is below $26,401, no tax is owed. Single heads of households get a $17,160 exemption to compensate for the additional burden of raising a child alone. Families would receive generous exemptions for dependents: a $4,000 exemption for each child or dependent, and a refundable tax credit of $1,000 per child age 16 or younger. Parents of eligible children will receive the $1,000 tax credit for each child, as under the current system. In addition, if the child tax credit exceeds federal taxes owed, the family can receive a refund. For example, if a family makes $15,000 but paid zero dollars of tax they can still receive $600 of the child credit (15 percent of the $4,000 of income over $11,000), even though they paid absolutely no federal income tax. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows my taxes, as a single homeowner, would go up by 14%. I suspect other factors would offset that, both in personal savings (no more paying a tax preparer every year, for instance) and in shifts in the economy. For example, not all my gross income is subject to taxes. The flat tax plan would boost the taxes on my taxable income by half a percent. If the goal is to make sure no one pays more under the flat tax than they do under the current system, it seems to be pretty successful.

Flat tax vs. national sales tax

Many like the idea of a national sales tax, and doing away with the income tax altogether. But there are problems. First of all, it will increase the price of everything by whatever tax rate you propose – some plans advocate 30%. Your $2 gallon of gasoline will immediately go to $2.60. Will this be offset by higher take-home pay, or by savings elsewhere? Maybe. But aside from the increase in take-home pay, changes from lower costs take time to ripple through the economy. Possibly too long for short attention spans to take note of them and decide they believe in them.

Better living through chemistry

I'm sure we've all suffered through the experience of trying to melt cheese, only to have it turn stringy. (I once had the fun of trying to salvage an attempt at making cheese dip at a SF convention, with a crock pot and a microwave as my heat sources.)

Part of the problem is that with cheese, we're already starting with a curdled product.

Cheese is made by curdling milk with an enzyme (rennet) or with heat or both. ... Because we are already dealing with curds, it shouldn't be surprising that further curdling can occur. The natural proteins in cheese are individual units like little wads of string. They float around totally separated, so there is room for light to go between them. When you heat these proteins – or add acid or, with some, just expose them to air – the bonds in the natural wadded-up protein release and partially unwind. Since it has changed from its natural form, it is now called a "denatured" protein.

...continued in full post...

Because the proteins in cheese are already linked, they can easily overcook and curdle. The temperature and ingredients with which a cheese is combined, as well as the nature of the cheese itself, influence how easily curds will form. Simply preventing overheating may save a dish. In many recipes, the directions tell you to remove the dish from heat and then stir in the grated cheese. This helps you avoid the overheating that can cause curdling. Cheese sauces that contain starch also help us avoid curdling. Most are made by adding grated cheese to a cream sauce. Just make sure that any dish to which you are adding grated cheese contains some starch. Scientists do not know exactly how starch prevents proteins from joining at the temperature they normally do when heated. It may simply be that when the heated starch granules soak in liquid and swell, they become large objects that physically keep proteins apart. That leaves us with the battle against stringy cheese. If you stir a cheese sauce much after the cheese is added, particularly with certain cheeses such as Swiss, it may become stringy. Because mozzarella can become so stringy, many cooks would not dream of putting it into a sauce. The reason, as explained by Norman Olson of the University of Wisconsin, is that some cheeses, including mozzarella and Swiss, contain calcium phosphate, a compound that can link cheese proteins in long strings. To reduce this, cooks have traditionally added dry white wine to such foods as fondue. Anthony Blake, director of food science and technology for the international flavor and fragrance company Firmenich SA, lives in Switzerland and is an enthusiastic cheese lover. He says wine contains tartaric acid, which helps prevent calcium phosphate from linking the cheese proteins. This can prevent stringiness, but citric acid in lemon juice is actually much more effective. Citric acid binds with calcium and can overcome stringiness, even in the extreme case of mozzarella. I love to make fettuccini with a sauce of mozzarella, prosciutto or country ham, mushrooms, and tomatoes. To prevent it from becoming stringy, I sprinkle a little lemon juice on the grated mozzarella before adding it to a cream sauce, then stir it in over low heat. You will be astounded by how well this works.

Of course, you can buy tartaric acid, and citric acid, if you don't want the lemon flavor, or alcohol from wine, in your dish.

Where have all the programmers gone?

Speaking to hundreds of university professors, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates says he's baffled more students don't go into computer science.

It really shouldn't be all that surprising. There are lots of things kids love as consumers, but aren't ready to go in to the work of producing.

...continued in full post...

One thing I really ought to look in to – what are the entry requirements for programmers at Microsoft, among other companies?

If companies demand applicants have a computer science degree, they may be screening out any number of talented applicants. Indeed, they may be screening out people just like the people who founded those companies.

I tried to transfer over to the Information Tech section at the sewage treatment plant, and although I was frequently more knowledgeable about computers than the pros were, I was told I "lacked the minimum qualification". Apparently, being able to do the job isn't enough.

In addition, over the last couple of decades, I've watched computer science curricula shift. It used to be computer science classes were all math classes. Now, it's not at all uncommon to see them offered through business departments. Is the field stable enough that a degree will be worth anything by the time you've made it across the stage at graduation?

If Bill Gates isn't finding computer people, I'm inclined to wonder where he's looking.

John C. Roberts nominated

The folks at Democratic Underground are all over it.

This is the best the RETARDICANS can do? A lifetime lawyer, a partisan right wing tool and someone with less juidical experience than Clarence Thomas had when Nebish Boosh nominated him? link

...Continued in full post...

Zorra: Tue Jul-19-05 10:00 PM WTF? This man has minimal experience as a judge. How can he possibly be considered for a Supreme Court seat? Oh, yeah, he is a loyal party member. link

Based on his resume... ...it doesn't appear as if Mr. Roberts has *any* experience as a judge. He's a mob lawyer, plain and simple and the mob is George Orwell's party. link

In other words, he's perfect for Bush's Supreme Court. What did you guys expect? And you just know that when the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee start making noises that don't sound like Hosannas during the confirmation hearings, Bush and his GOP goon squad are going to start bringing out the rubber truncheons and whacking the liberals on the elbow in retaliation for "partisan politics." Yeah, sounds like Bush really "consulted" with those 60 Senators and I'll bet you 55 of them were the Republicans. Lip service, as I'd said before. link

I'm trying to get as much as I can on this guy. So far, it seems that just over half of the people on Daily Kos are saying that we should be relieved that this guy isn't a raving lunatic and that the Dems should save their firepower for "extraordinary circumstances." Fuck that. The SCOTUS *is* extraordinary. link

Here we fucking go This is no compromise at all. This nomination is as "in your face" as it is possible to get. Time to strap on the gloves folks. link

I thought the gloves had been on with the Rove thing. Or was that just for show? link

I think you are right, shraby. And this pick could very well move the talk away from Rove. Gawd, Bush is such a clown. link

crazed fundie freak Robert's photo looks like a younger ashcroft. link

This is so scary!!! God I hope Reid, Boxer and the rest stand up for us! link

If you have to SHUT THE GOVERNMENT DOWN! COMPLETELY DOWN! Fillibuster *EVERYTHING* if they try to go nuclear on you! This is the fundamental battle we've all elected you to fight. This is where we expect you to fight to your fullest abilities to win! Don't let any business go through the Senate or the House unless they pull back this nomination. link

It's our worst nightmare come true. So much for all of the people who told us not to worry. Can we worry now ? link

And on and on.

Where's your towel?

Fans of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy may recall the importance of always having your towel with you. In an interview, counterterrorism expert Joval Aviv was asked for advice for people caught in a terrorist attack. One of the things he says you should always have with you is a towel.

...continued in full post...

[Q] What advice do you have for individuals that have the misfortune of finding themselves in the middle of a terror attack? [A] Since mass transportation is the next attack, when you travel to work have with you, a bottle of water, a small towel and a flashlight. What happened in London is exactly a point to look at. Those people who were close to the bombs died, then others were injured or died from inhaling the toxic fumes or getting trampled. The reason you take a bottle of water and a towel is that if you wet the towel and put it over your face, you can protect yourself against the fumes and get yourself out of there.

Other advice includes:

Trust your gut instinct.

If your gut feeling tells you when you walk onto a bus there is something unusual or suspicious, get out and walk away. You may do it 10 times for no reason, but there will be one time that saves your life.

Change your routine.

If you travel during rush hour every day, try to get up a little earlier and drive to work or take the train when it’s still not full. Don’t find yourself every day in the midst of rush hour. Terrorists are not going to waste a bomb on a half-empty train.

How likely are we to need this information?

I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.

I suspect we'll at least see an attempt. Back in October of 2001, who would have thought we'd go four years without another big attack on our soil? I doubt the terrorists have ceased to want to attack, they have simply not had the means to do so. But what else is there to do?

[Q] What more do you think the government can do to protect the public? [A] Number one, and this is the beef I’ve had with Homeland Security for the last four years, is educating the public on how to deal with those types of events. There’s no education. We’re raising the color code alert and that means nothing to anyone. Whether it’s green, yellow, pink, no one ever educated the public how to identify suspicious items or people. In Israel, so many of them [terrorists] have been apprehended just because people have phoned in. We don’t have that training on campuses, schools or kindergarten. In Israel, it’s very popular right now [amongst terrorists] to put one device to explode and time another one for five minutes later when it’s all calm, people are getting up and the rescue teams have responded. You need to know all those things and think about those things. The government must pursue that. Law enforcement will never have enough people on the street to detect things. We don’t have that kind of manpower. That’s why the government must enlist the public.

My Paganism

From the comments to a recent post:

...Side question: in what way are you pagan? Or is that just for a cool sounding buzz in your blog's title?

Well, it is a cool addition to a blog title. It's actually one of the few titles I've chosen that haven't been horrible puns. The title I used for a pagan forum was "The Rite Stuff", and for a Fantasy Role-Playing game forum, I used "Dial M for Mordor".

I'm pagan in the sense that I am not a member of any of the Abrahamic religions. I have been initiated into a Wiccan tradition, and hold the rank of High Priest in the tradition.

One day, a co-worker asked me about Wiccan holy days, and I decided that, rather than spend the next several hours talking with him about them, I'd print out some of my essays. Curiously enough, the theme of the month for one year at Witches' Voice had included each of major festivals.

These are:

• Imbolc
• Spring Equinox
• Beltane
• Summer Solstice
• Lammas
• Autumn Equinox
• Samhain
• Yule

When I hefted the printout, I realized I had enough for a small book. I'm currently re-writing it so it will present a more unified book.

Other essays on the same site have touched on:

• The Wiccan Rede
• The Threefold Law
• The sacred and the profane
• Abortion
• Tolerance
• Faith
• Magic

And more, besides!

In politics, I ran with the Libertarian party for quite a while, because I noticed the guiding principle of the party was essentially the Wiccan Rede. I eventually left when it became apparent to me that they were committing the same sort of errors the "newage" (rhymes with "sewage") crowd commits in interpreting the Rede. Among other things, one of the State officers had proclaimed that anyone who supported the Iraq War was not a Libertarian.

I have taken him at his word, and no longer support the Party.

The Wiccan Rede is quoted as, "If it harms none, do what you will." Far too many turn this into a Commandment: "Thou shalt not harm."

It's not a commandment. "Rede" means advice. Further, even if it were a commandment, all it says is that you have blanket permission to do things that cause no harm. Strictly speaking, it's silent on the cases where harm results.

The implication, though, is pretty obvious. Whether or not you cause harm matters. Given the choice, you should choose to cause no harm. Given real-world choices between greater and lesser harm, you choose the lesser.

One of the sages of Wicca, Doreen Valiente, has said, "Allowing harm to continue unchecked is not 'harming none'. Rather, it harms everyone."

The hundreds of thousands of people found in Saddam's mass graves have arguably been harmed. So have the victims of suicide bombings encouraged, at least in part, by Saddam's $25,000 payments. The US was in a position to stop this harm, and those who say it was wrong to interfere are violating the spirit – at least – of the Rede.

I take my Paganism seriously, and it is far more to me than an excuse to party, or a way to shock my elders. To me, it is not, as Laura Schlessinger had once labeled it, "a teenage fad". (Though at my age, I wouldn't mind being mistaken for a teenager on occasion!) It informs my politics and my judgments in many areas of life.

Although I am pretty conservative, I remain unpredictable, and you can never fully predict where I'll come down on a given issue. (Hi, Joan!)

Why "techno" Pagan? Just a way of dispelling any notion that I might be a back-to-nature type. I embrace technology, and indeed, I expect it to provide the key to our leaving this planet better than we found it. Technology, and the human creativity that has yielded it, is a positive good, and I embrace it wholeheartedly.

Gad! Look at the time!

Look at the date!

Happy Bastille Day!

Every move you make...

...I'll be watching you.

The aftermath of the London bombings were netcast. People nearby had camera phones capable of broadcasting video feed to the net, and they did so.

Shortly after bombs ripped through London's transportation system Thursday morning, U.S. and British television networks began airing the first footage of the aftermath – dim images of shaken commuters streaming through a smoky underground tunnel. The video provided an immediate and intimate look at the scene but was hardly polished or professional. That's because it was shot by passengers with mobile phones – the first widespread use of that technology in covering a major breaking news story....

That's a real Panopticon. And unlike the passive security camera network, every one of these cameras was wielded by a person on the spot, applying intelligence to decide what was interesting. The results were likely a lot better – and they'll only improve as the technology gets more capable and more ubiquitous.

...continued in full post...

In order to respond to a terrorist attack, rather than merely document it, it helps if police are on the scene, not in a video room watching monitors. (Big Brother's video system could do nothing without the ability to dispatch enforcers to pick up Winston Smith and detain him.)

Old-fashioned centralized efforts, like networks of security cameras, cost a lot of money and don't contribute much to this sort of a response. Getting citizens more involved in noticing, and responding, to terror threats is likely to do more good.

At the very least, a program of this type could be a parallel track for our anti-terrorism efforts. Put some money into programs that might work, and put more money into programs that demonstrate greater effectiveness.

And decentralized, public surveillance has another advantage: It's not controlled by Big Brother.

A network of security cameras can – and almost certainly will, judging from experience – be abused by authorities. A system that depends on the cooperation of thousands (or millions) of citizens, on the other hand, isn't so easily turned to oppression.

Supporting the troops

Critics of the Bush administration rear up in righteous ire at any suggestion that they may not support our troops. What does it mean when they say they support the troops? I've seen the occasional bumper sticker that says, "Support our troops – Bring them home." Is this support? Dennis Prager doesn't think so.

Liberals, Democrats and others on the Left frequently state that they "support the troops." For most of them, whether they realize it or not, this is not true. They feel they must say this because the majority of Americans would find any other position unacceptable. Indeed, for most liberals, the thought that they really do not support the troops is unacceptable even to them.

Lest this argument be dismissed as an attack on leftist Americans' patriotism, let it be clear that leftists' patriotism is not the issue here. Their honesty is.

...continued in full post...

In order to understand this, we need to first have a working definition of the term "support the troops." Presumably it means that one supports what the troops are doing and rooting for them to succeed. What else could "support the troops" mean? If you say, for example, that you support the Yankees or the Dodgers, we assume it means you want them to win.

But most of the Left does not want the troops to win in Iraq. The Left's message is this: "You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the Left believe none of that. We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the Left's generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you."

At this point, I have a question.

How would this position be any different from the Christian paradigm of "hate the sin, love the sinner"?

Indeed, I sent an e-mail to Dennis Prager making this point:

It occurs to me what the Left says when it argues as you describe is a variation of "hate the sin, but love the sinner".

Committed Christians may say, "You gays may think you are happy; you may think you are living a good and moral life; you may believe you are fighting for your rights against the worst human beings of our age and protecting society against the scourge of right-wing fundamentalism. But we Christians believe none of that. We believe you are living a sinful lifestyle; we believe homosexuality is immoral and against God's law; we believe you are damaging the institutions of the country for no good reason and will destroy millions of families for no good reason; but hey, we love you."

Can a committed Christian honestly say he loves gays?

Maybe this is a bad analogy, or maybe not. I'd love to hear thoughts on the subject.

No connection between Saddam and Osama

FOR MANY, the debate over the former Iraqi regime's ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network ended a year ago with the release of the 9/11 Commission report. Media outlets seized on a carefully worded summary that the commission had found no evidence "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" and ran blaring headlines like the one on the June 17, 2004, front page of the New York Times: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie."

That sounds pretty definitive, doesn't it? This may be another instance where the newspaper headline glosses over a lot of important details.

...continued in full post...

But this was woefully imprecise. It assumed, not unreasonably, that the 9/11 Commission's conclusion was based on a firm foundation of intelligence reporting, that the intelligence community had the type of human intelligence and other reporting that would allow senior-level analysts to draw reasonable conclusions. We know now that was not the case.

John Lehman, a 9/11 commissioner, spoke to The Weekly Standard at the time the report was released. "There may well be--and probably will be--additional intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture. This is not phrased as--nor meant to be--the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities."

There could hardly be a clearer case--of the ongoing revelations and the ongoing denial--than in the 13 points below, reproduced verbatim from a "Summary of Evidence" prepared by the U.S. government in November 2004. This unclassified document was released by the Pentagon in late March 2005. It details the case for designating an Iraqi member of al Qaeda, currently detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an "enemy combatant."

1. From 1987 to 1989, the detainee served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades.
2. A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994.
3. The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban.
4. The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan.
5. The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000.
6. The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition.
7. The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members.
8. The detainee was a member of al Qaida.
9. An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997.
10. The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels.
11. From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaeda leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.
13. Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002.

Indeed, more than two years after the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was ousted, there is much we do not know about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. We do know, however, that there was one. We know about this relationship not from Bush administration assertions but from internal Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) documents recovered in Iraq after the war--documents that have been authenticated by a U.S. intelligence community long hostile to the very idea that any such relationship exists.

We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi

We have been told by Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden's longtime mentor Abdullah Azzam, that Saddam Hussein welcomed young al Qaeda members "with open arms" before the war, that they "entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation," and that the regime "strictly and directly" controlled their activities. We have been told by Jordan's King Abdullah that his government knew Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war and requested that the former Iraqi regime deport him. We have been told by Time magazine that confidential documents from Zarqawi's group, recovered in recent raids, indicate other jihadists had joined him in Baghdad before the Hussein regime fell. We have been told by one of those jihadists that he was with Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war. We have been told by Ayad Allawi, former Iraqi prime minister and a longtime CIA source, that other Iraqi Intelligence documents indicate bin Laden's top deputy was in Iraq for a jihadist conference in September 1999.

All of this is new--information obtained since the fall of the Hussein regime. And yet critics of the Iraq war and many in the media refuse to see it. Just two weeks ago, President Bush gave a prime-time speech on Iraq. Among his key points: Iraq is a central front in the global war on terror that began on September 11. Bush spoke in very general terms. He did not mention any of this new information on Iraqi support for terrorism to make his case. That didn't matter to many journalists and critics of the war.

CNN anchor Carol Costello claimed "there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda." The charitable explanation is ignorance. Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who serves as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, knows better. Before the war he pointed to Zarqawi's presence in Iraq as a "substantial connection between Iraq and al Qaeda." And yet he, too, now insists that Saddam Hussein's regime "had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, it had nothing to do with al Qaeda."

But the critics' position seems to be that unless Saddam Hussein chaired the planning meetings for the World Trade Center bombings, we had no business going after him.

Patriot act abuses

The Los Angeles times has some numbers for the claimed and actual abuses inflicted on our civil liberties under the Patriot Act.

Item	Number	Percentage of civil rights complaints
Civil Rights complaints to Justice Department's Inspector General	7,136	100%
Number of complaints deemed related to Patriot Act	1	0.014%
"Sneak and peek" warrants, allowing searches without telling a subject	155	2.17%
Roving wiretaps	49	0.69%
Personal records seizures under Section 215 of the act:	35	0.49%

Islam: Religion of peace?

Is Islam a religion of peace? It depends.

Ultimately, whether Islam is a religion of peace or not can only be answered by the individuals who practice it. Theirs is the choice to be peaceful, or not.

Radiation, Duesberg, and Don'ts-berg

Steve Milloy looks at the latest report saying "no safe dose of radiation".

For the sake of being able to somehow characterize low-level radiation exposures as a risk, the panel simply assumed that because high-level exposures to radiation increase risk of health effects — like the slightly elevated cancer risk observed in the atomic bomb survivors — then any level of radiation exposure is a cancer risk.

In effect, they assume a "linear, non-threshold model" (LNT model) for effects of radiation exposure. They assume that zero radiation exposure results in zero (radiation-induced) cancers, and the measured exposures in Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bomb survivors results in some known number of extra cancers.

Then they draw a line between that number at that high exposure, and zero at zero. One percent of that high exposure therefore results in one percent of the number of extra cancers. One one-millionth of that exposure yields one-millionth of that number of extra cancers.

And so on.

They assume.

So what's wrong with that?

The assumption may well be garbage.

...continued in full post...

Even if it's not garbage, sensible policy weighs the cost of preventing each additional cancer against the cost savings resulting from not having that cancer develop. This includes not only the cost of treatment, but also the value of additional years of life for every person who doesn't die of cancer, and the value of the enhanced quality of life due to not having to deal with a cancer diagnosis.

These costs are not without limit. Even people who blandly state that the value of a human life is without limit still have definite limits on how much they're willing to spend to preserve even their own lives. (At the very least, they're limited by how much they have to spend.)

But there's no assurance that the LNT model is even right.

As far back as 1980, articles have been written by one T. D. Luckey on the subject of "radiation hormesis". In at least a couple of review articles, he has collected data that shows that small doses of radiation may yield better health than zero doses. The exact mechanism is far from clear, but the fact seems to be that health improves as you increase radiation exposure from zero to a fairly small level, and only starts to drop off later on.

This is not terribly unreasonable. Any number of living things have a range of conditions in which they thrive, and they are less healthy as you get away from that ideal level. Take temperature, for example. Put a lab rat in an oven at 2000°F, and it will die in moments. Therefore, by the LNT model, a lab rat in an oven at zero temperature should live forever.

Even when LNT works for one specific disease, there's more to the life of an organism than one disease. If a low level of radiation promotes health through some mechanism that saturates at a low exposure, it may still produce a beneficial result that outweighs the slight increase in the one measured disease condition at that exposure.

Unfortunately, Milloy goes off in a slightly weird direction.

It was first noticed about a century ago that cancer cells exhibit "aneuploidy" — they don’t have the correct number of chromosomes. Aneuploidy occurs when cells divide improperly and a daughter cell winds up with an extra chromosome. An aneuploid cell may die, but it may also survive and repeat the error, perhaps eventually leading to cancer.

I find I can't remember any mention of all cancers exhibiting aneuploidy. I recall a mention of a single case of cancer with a visible chromosome abnormality, but that was an exceptional case. I'm sure some cancers exhibit aneuploidy, but I never got the impression that it was a general case. And since most microbiologists know now to count, I have my doubts about people having missed this fact for this long.

So where does this idea come from?

The problem with this idea is not so much scientific as political. Bethell points out that the man who “rediscovered” the old work on aneuploidy is controversial University of California-Berkeley researcher and National Academy of Sciences member Peter Duesberg, who famously had his grants from the National Institutes of Health cut-off for being critical of the direction of AIDS research in the late-1980s.

Aha! That would be a problem.

As near as I can tell, Duesberg's notions about AIDS are a perfect fit with the data – but only as long as you work with the subset of data he has assembled. When you look at all the data, you find the theory that HIV causes AIDS is remarkably robust.

At the very most, Duesberg may have found some cases of AIDS that were caused by some other mechanism, acting at a very low level in the population. An effect that exists at only a very low level is likely to be lost in statistical noise, assuming it doesn't happen to be statistical noise.

If Duesberg's technique of ignoring data that doesn't fit his thesis is not confined to AIDS, then I can see why people might want to wait for solid evidence from another quarter before spending time examining any thesis Duesberg comes up with.

As is the case with excessive regulation of radiation exposure, or with any other life-saving or health-promoting measure, you have to look at the costs and the benefits. In the case of research, or anything where the outcome is uncertain, you have to look at probabilities and expected values.

If you have a dollar to spend on a safety measure, do you spend it to avert something that has one chance in a million of killing you, or something else with one chance in a hundred-thousand of killing you? All things being equal, you avert the thing that has the greater chance of killing you.

If you have a dollar to bet with, do you buy the lottery ticket with one chance in 10 million of paying you a million dollars, or the ticket with one chance in 100 million of paying you a million dollars. Another no-brainer.

It's not always that simple, but:

Duesberg still isn’t getting any NIH money even though his aneuploidy idea has survived early challenges, according to Bethell’s article, and the older notions of cancer development are going nowhere fast.

Are they? Maybe, maybe not. I haven't followed the research for quite some time, so I don't know what is, or is not happening.

It seems that before regulators spend another $1 trillion of the public’s money on radiation protection that may be based on faulty assumptions, someone ought to throw some research money Duesberg’s way.

OK, "someone" certainly can. Every person has the right to give money to whatever research he or she sees fit, as long as the research doesn't violate certain laws. If Bill Gates, or even Steve Milloy, believes this lottery ticket has good odds of winning, they're invited to invest as much as they like in it.

For those who have problems with Duesberg's track record – OK granted. "Past history is no guarantee of future performance." But it's all we get to go on.

Valerie-gate

Hal Lindsay looks at Judith Miller's refusal to divulge the name of her source in the Valerie Plame case. He cites inconsistencies in how people are applying the First Amendment.

If there is a difference between Judith Miller's refusal to obey a federal judge and a final ruling from the Supreme Court and Judge Roy Moore's refusal to remove the Ten Commandments from an Alabama courthouse, I fail to see it.

And

Of Miller's refusal to obey the rule of law, the the New York Times had this to say: "There are times when the greater good of our democracy demands an act of conscience."

I agree. Every time I pass an abortion clinic, I believe murdering the unborn does not serve the greater good of our democracy. Nobody gave the victim of an abortionist a vote. But if I violate the law prohibiting me from exercising my conscience too close to the kill zone, my act of conscience has legal penalties.

So does Judith Miller's.

One quote, though, which really deserves to be a pull quote for the article:

And frankly, I find it stretches the limits of credulity to suggest that Judith Miller (or any other liberal reporter) would risk jail to protect a member of the Bush administration in the first place.

Indeed.

London's turn

Four explosions in London, three in the underground system and one on a bus.

A previously unknown group, claiming allegiance with Al Qaeda, is taking credit.

Let's just call it 10.0

(From "This Is True")

School officials in Victoria, Australia, say it's too hard for students to calculate equations using the constant 9.8 meters/second/second – the acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface – so it's changing the Year 12 physics exam for the Victorian Certificate of Education to use a rounded-off figure of 10 m/s/s.

Close enough? No: "The difference could cause a parachutist or bungie jumper to plummet into the ground, or the launching of a rocket to fail," say people who actually understand physics. After hearing the criticism the Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority announced that it would not penalize students who used the correct figure. (Melbourne Herald Sun, Australia) ...No penalty for wrong answers, no penalty for the right ones – modern education in a nutshell.

Well, it could be made right.

I sent the following e-mail:

Greetings: With respect to having students use 10.0 m/s^2 as the acceleration from gravity in calculations instead of 9.8 (or 9.81), there is a quick fix available. All you have to do is add enough mass to the Earth to make its gravitational pull equal to 10.0. This is about 2% of the total mass of the planet. I pulled out my copy of the CRC handbook, and decided this works out to some 235,000 metric tons of debris per square meter of the planet's surface. At the average density of the planet, this debris would pile up to a height of 42.6 kilometers (26.5 miles). It would be hard on buildings, forests, lakes, streams, and mountains, and it would be outweighed only by the environmental impact report, but it would make the lives of physics students sooooooo much easier...

Roe-ing away

James Taranto writes on what he calls "The Roe Effect" – abortion tends to decrease populations, and the decrease falls selectively on populations that favor abortion. The result is Republican (or at least conservative) victories on a national scale.

This is, by the way, a prime example of evolution in action.

...continued in full post...

There are a couple of reasons why Republicans might benefit from Roe v. Wade. First of all, the Democrat Party has painted itself into a corner on abortion. It has found itself having to take stands that are not widely popular. The party arguing the other way has a much easier time of things.

One reason Republicans have an advantage is that as long as Roe remains in effect--taking off the table any restriction that imposes an "undue burden" on a woman seeking to abort her pregnancy--Republicans are an extreme antiabortion party only in theory. When it comes to actual legislation, the GOP favors only modest--and popular--regulations. The Democrats, on the other hand, must defend such unpopular practices as partial-birth abortion, taxpayer-subsidized abortion, and abortions for 13-year-olds without their parents' knowledge.

Although Republicans are extreme anti-abortion "only in theory", let it be noted that even very moderate restrictions on abortion are labeled "extreme anti abortion" by the leaders of the Democrat Party. When every parent who wants to know when a daughter is having surgery is being called an extremist, you will find that the "extremist" label doesn't work quite as well in shaping the ideas and voting patterns of at least those parents.

---

Then there's "The Roe Effect".

It is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, to observe that every pregnancy aborted today results in one fewer eligible voter 18 years from now. More than 40 million legal abortions have occurred in the United States since 1973, and these are not randomly distributed across the population.

And indeed, it appears they're not randomly distributed. Variations include:

• Black women have a higher abortion ratio (percentage of pregnancies aborted) than Hispanic women.
• Hispanic women have an abortion ratio that is higher than that of non-Hispanic whites.
• It seems self-evident that pro-choice women are more likely to have abortions than pro-life ones, and common sense suggests that children tend to gravitate toward their parents' values. (Remember, the genetic contribution found by that study in the news only accounted for some of a voter's choices.)

Darwin's theory of evolution is based on two very simple facts which combine to create a very powerful effect:

1) Living things differ from each other, often in random ways.

2) Differences often have a non-random effect on which living things live to reproduce.

The peppered moth experiments illustrated that a moth's color could have a significant effect on whether it lives to reproduce. If you weed out moths of one color over generations, that color will become very rare. (For the moment, we'll ignore arguments over the origins of new species and of life itself. Selection is so well established no one with two brain cells to rub together can deny it.)

If you have some environmental factor that decreases the number of people who vote for one party over another, then all things being equal, you're going to find that the population of voters for that party shrinks over time.

Needless to say, critics argue against such an effect. I personally find it very hard to make the case that there would be no effect.

Having an abortion early in life need not effect a woman's lifetime fertility, but I'd be willing to bet it does anyway. It should be possible to conduct a survey and find the correlation coefficient between number of abortions and number of living offspring. I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money it's negative.

Even if there is no correlation between abortions and ultimate family size, I'll note that each abortion is going to postpone childbirth by at least a few months. Since people become more conservative as they get older, all things being equal, each abortion means the children who are born will be born to more conservative parents.

A thoughtful researcher could probably find all manner of possible relationships between number of abortions and political outlook; I'll stop here.

I'll just leave you with this thought:

Roe v. Wade – Think of it as evolution in action.

Isolating Muslims with openness

Discarded Lies cites a Dutch plan to videotape sermons given by imams. One sermon would be picked at random for broadcast and discussion by guests of the TV program over which it is broadcast.

A prominent Dutch Muslim scholar complained this measure would "deepen Muslim isolation in the country.

Deepen Muslim isolation? Any other religion would be jumping at the chance for free national publicity of this kind. But then, most religions aren't advocating murderous warfare on unbelievers.

I'm sure there are a number of other religions that would volunteer to be similarly "isolated", if it would make the Muslims feel less picked upon.

Neocon quiz

According to this quiz, I am "most likely" a realist.

(Hat tip: Betsy Newmark.)

Law of proportionate belief

Arnold Kling proposes his "Law of Proportionate Belief". Briefly stated, his law is that:

...one should believe in a certain proposition or policy prescription in proportion to the arguments for that position.

Well and good, and quite sensible.

But, as the old saying goes, the devil is in the details.

...continued in full post...

The biggest detail has to do with how you count arguments. Is every argument as weighty as every other?

Consider the issue of gay marriage. I do not find the arguments either for or against gay marriage to be overwhelming. If I were forced to choose a position, I would favor allowing gay marriage, because my best guess is that two gays who choose to marry are not causing harm to anyone else.

However, there are some people who will argue that allowing gay marriage would be one of the worst travesties possible. And there are some people who will argue that not allowing gay marriage would be one of the worst travesties possible. My opinion is that both of those strong positions violate the Law of Proportionate Belief.

One argument holds that redefining marriage to allow same-sex marriages will have a corrosive effect on the family structure. Another is that it might promote more stable gay relationships.

It seems to me, you can't just count up the number of arguments someone might make for or against a position. You have to weigh them, and people will differ over how much weight to give any particular argument. What might appear to be arrogance to one person might be a very high weight assigned to a particular argument–with or without good reason–by another.

Winning the drug war

In many martial arts, you learn to "go with the flow". You defeat your opponent by flowing with his attack, joining it, and re-directing it in tge direction you want to go. Your opponent throws himself against the floor.

Here, a conservative Christian proposes to end the drug war, and take a huge bite out of the drug crime problem by apparently giving in. He would have us not only legalize drugs, but sell government-certified pure drugs in the marketplace.

Let's look at the demand problem this week. That's the easy one because it can be solved by government decree: Just get Congress to pass a law legalizing drugs and setting up super-discount outlets for heroin, pot, and other flavors of dunce drugs, and – poof! – the game is 90 percent over.

...continued in full post...

The Libertarian Party has advocated legalization for years. It's easy to accuse the Party of being made up of druggies and would-be druggies. Somehow, it seems harder to make that label stick to someone whose book is the darling of the Religious Right. Maybe his credentials will get people to listen to the reasoning behind legalization, which includes:

With legalization,

The magic of the forbidden fruit will evaporate, especially if President Bush decides to skip the government emporiums and sell exclusively through churches. (At least that would beat bingo and bake sales as a fund-raiser.) Envision this remark in a circle of teens slouched around your TV set on Saturday afternoon: "Hey, guys, let's go buy some crack from Father O'Toole and get high tonight." Approximately 12 seconds after the sale, your phone would ring with the news, and you and the other parents would come down on your kids like an avalanche down Everest.

Would increased availability mean increased use? Not necessarily.

Think back to the 1920s. Marijuana could often be found growing wild down by the river in most states, and all the kids knew what it would do if you smoked it, but no child with any social standing would have anything to do with a loser who was brainless and pathetic enough to try it more than once. That, I suggest, would soon become the prevailing attitude again if we demystified drugs by putting them where they'd be readily available – albeit, perhaps, attached to a sermonette.

How about kids going around the established stores to avoid stigma?

Would this social stigma push our young people back to buying on the street? Not often. The risk of doing time for selling a $5.95 baggie for $9.95 (tops) in an alley would be a strong motivation for going into used car sales or joining the French Foreign Legion. Besides, who would pay extra to get potentially fatal or sugared-up junk when the government-guaranteed pure stuff is so cheap? The whole drug mystique would dwindle into silliness and dissolve in ridicule. Who wants to be the butt of Leno two-liners?

Besides, how often do we have that problem with kids buying booze on the street? There's some, but how much? Here's a parallel case, and we should be able to derive some real numbers. What are they?

Another case the Libertarian Party makes is that the effect of the drug war (increasingly intrusive search-and-seizure laws, random drug testing, second-guessing of physicians who prescribe certain medicines, asset forfeiture laws, and so on) is worse than the problem it's trying to address.

Any good arguments otherwise?