I was intending to start blogging again with the New Year, and I will, but I just couldn't let this pass without saying something. Maybe because I hate LiebesBush so much, maybe because it's further proof that he's a Republican mole in the Democratic party, maybe because it's further proof that he's just a terrible terrible human being, I don't know. But read the horror of LiebesBush's justifications for "Why We Need More Troops in Iraq" which should probably be re-titled "Why I think we should expand the war in Iraq to Iran."

On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.

See this? He's doing just what Bush did with Iraq only with Iran. He's trying to suggest, weakly, that Iran and 9/11 are related. And the claim that "extremists and terrorists" are "sponsored by" Iran is completely beyond the pale. If there is a contribution to the insurgency, it would mostly be to Sadr and the Shiite militias, certainly not the entire insurgency and the evidence for this has been dubious at best. People seem to think that just because Iran is Shiite that they're all buddy-buddy with Shiites in Iraq - not so, cultural factors, the Persian/Arab divide, memories from the Iran-Iraq war (which was fought by a majority Shiite army in Iraq) create substantial divisions even between Iraqi and Iranian shiites. The Iraq Study Groups evaluation of Tehran's influence in the Iraqi insurgency was that they were using "soft power" not "hard power" in influencing affairs in Iraq, and that if anything they've passed on opportunities to further destabilize the country and in Afghanistan Iran has even been a stabilizing influence (not surprising that it would rather it's neighbors not be constantly embroiled in civil wars). (ISG on Iran) LiebesBush makes it sound like we're practically fighting a pitched battle with Iranian soldiers in Baghdad, this is an extremely irresponsible exaggeration.

Because of the bravery of many Iraqi and coalition military personnel and the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable. We and our Iraqi allies must do what is necessary to win it.

Why does LiebesBush sound like he's president Bush's puppet? Oh, maybe it's because he is president Bush's puppet. Delusional statements like these that mirror the president's statements are a pretty substantial proof of why it would be worth losing the majority to kick this guy out of the party.

To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government. After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province -- an increase that will at last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat al-Qaeda in that province.

Time for escalation, you heard it, LiebesBush is all for more troops rather than acknowledging that this is fundamentally a failed policy. We can not bring Iraq back with more troops, it was a mistake, and people like LiebesBush and Bush are responsible. The real policy we should be focusing on is removing people like LiebesBush and Bush from power, not figuring out ways to put more of our soldiers in harm's way in a futile attempt to achieve an elusive and increasingly impossible "victory" in Iraq.

The addition of more troops must be linked to a comprehensive new military, political and economic strategy that provides security for the population so that training of Iraqi troops and the development of a democratic government can move forward.

You know, this sounds like a reasonable idea. You know, having a plan. But what, more than anything has characterized this leadership from the beginning of the damn war? An absence of a goddamn plan! Why does LiebesBush think that somehow, magically, if we put in 30k more troops that this administration will magically grow a brain and manage any kind of future policy in Iraq with competence? Where has he been for the last 6 years?

Yeah, in a perfect world 30k more troops and a brilliant plan to bring moderates to power and provide security would lead to a stable Iraq. In that world Iran would respond to threats of violence by backing down and hiding in a corner. In that world we would have a leadership capable of designing and implementing effective plans for ground operations in Iraq. In that perfect world though, we'd never be in this mess, the Iraqi army would never have been summarily dismissed, looting would never have been allowed creating an insecure environment from the start, we wouldn't have destroyed their infrastructure as part of the invasion, and we wouldn't have supported a pathetic succession of crooked politicians like Chalabi over the desires of the Iraqi people. That world does not exist LiebesBush, we are dealing with the real world, in which people like you have screwed this up so bad that more troops will just mean more targets.

Bring them home.

Labels: Iran, Iraq, Lieberman

My torts professor would refer to Life as the magazine for people who can't read and Time as the magazine for people who can't think. His description continues to ring true with Time's Person of the Year cop out. The Critique of the Year is by Siva Vaidhyanathan:

User-generated content, whether via low-power radio or community blogs, only goes so far to fill the void. And if the subject of that content is "you," instead of "us," we gain nothing from the new medium.

We do ourselves a major disservice when we exaggerate the revolutionary power of ourselves as individuals. Narcissism may be good marketing. But it’s not good for humanity.

Hat Tip: Michael Zimmer

The discussion begins at about 19:30 choose the "listen again" link for Friday the 22nd.

Anyone who gets BBC radio can listen in today to "World Have Your Say" (you can also listen online from their site) between 1:45 and 2pm EST today to hear me as "quitter" discuss Virgil Goode's rather odd antipathy towards the Koran and Minnesota Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's desire to use the Koran during his public swearing in ceremony.

It's interesting that we're even having this debate since people seem to think that swearing on the Bible is some kind of requirement for becoming a member of congress (it is not) essentially Ellison wants to have a picture of himself holding a Koran for the public ceremony and Virgil Goode seems to have a problem with this.

As a member of his district it's not so much the non-existent issue of the swearing in process that we find disturbing but his hostility to Muslims as a whole in terms of immigration and participation as US citizens that is the problem. He more or less explicitly says he doesn't want Muslims to become US citizens in his letter, and that is what I find disturbing, hopefully the other contributors to the show will acknowledge this, but who knows.

It will also feature Glenn Greenwald of Unclaimed Territory, Debbie Schlussel of debbischlussel.com (for background on her insanity read her post on Barack Obama), and Myron from Republitarian. It should be interesting.

Soy guy won't back down on his crazy claims that soy makes you gay. It's embarrassing.

I love the first paragraph:

Last week's column ("Soy is making kids 'gay'") got a lot of attention – 500 e-mails and three dozen media interview requests – because it blindsided the overwhelming majority of readers.

That's right, it blindsided us, but not in the way you're thinking. Then he justifies why he just makes shit up:

The shocking statements in my column produced much incredulity, the more so because I did not footnote or go into detail. I simply did not have room to introduce all the biggest problems with soy and do it in a scientific, footnoted format.

And he does, and you follow the links and no where are his claims that say causes feminization or homosexuality supported. He clearly sees the word isoflavones, and phytoestrogen, and then makes about 20 leaps of logic to "gayification of the youth". The isoflavones that are present in soy products need to be taken in highly concentrated forms in order to have any effects (usually as a natural remedy for menopausal symptoms), and even then they're really minimally effective. And finally, female sex hormones do not make you gay. I can't even believe that had to be said, but oh well.

What a loon.

Jesus has chosen to unveil himself on the material plane, rejoice!

Thanks Jeff.

It's that time of year, kids! Time for the King William's College Christmas Quiz, the most confounding and difficult test of general knowledge in the universe. Average score (without the aid of internet, encyclopedia, etc) is 2.

2.

It is, of course, impossible to get anything like any of them right without research, and students sit the quiz twice: once, unaided, at Christmas, and then after the New Year, once they've had time to research the answers. Even with research, it is unlikely a single person would get them all: the questions are written rather cryptically, although sets of ten can often be "unlocked" once one cracks the thing that links them...

So, start your engines. I've gotten around 15 or so already...

I think I agree with Modern Drunkard that MADD has become a modern prohibitionist (and generally puritanical) movement.

The latest proof? MADD has severed ties with Ms. Teen USA because she was hanging out (and kissing) Ms. USA

Mothers Against Drunk Driving said Wednesday it was severing ties with Miss Teen USA Katie Blair because it was "disappointed" by news reports that she had partied with Miss USA Tara Conner.

The day before, Conner had tearfully admitted drinking as a minor at New York nightclubs. She turned 21 on Monday.

"In the past, MADD has teamed with Miss Teen USA to raise awareness about the serious and often deadly consequences of underage drinking," said Heidi Castle, a spokeswoman for MADD, in a statement. "However, we do not feel, at this time, that Ms. Blair can be an effective spokesperson on underage drinking and will not ask her to represent MADD in future initiatives."

I was enjoying the stories about how Miss USA and Miss Teen USA were hooking up at a club. That's fine by me, and hell, what do people think teenagers do with their free time? This puritanical shit has got to stop. Miss USA had to tearfully apologize for hanging out at a club and drinking underage? In what other country in the world would it be the expected thing to do to send a 20-year-old girl to rehab because she went out to a club got drunk and kissed another hot girl? How stodgy can we possibly get as a society?

And then MADD shows up to further scold them for their misbehavior that didn't even involve driving. How can they say they're anything but a prohibitionist movement? It's not about the drinking and driving with this lot, it's just about the drinking.

We're being overrun by the neo-puritans. Just check out this article about a 17-year-old in Georgia being put in jail for receiving consensual oral sex from a 15-year-old. We've gone absolutely crazy in this country over sex and drinking and it's getting way tiresome. Sex is not a crime, drinking is not a crime, hot beauty-pageant winners kissing definitely is not a crime, let's all take a deep breath and remember that 95% of us get laid before marriage in this country. We should all report to prison or just admit that our sexual hypocrisy is out of control.

Labels: MADD, miss teen usa, miss usa, prohibition

Our favorite insane dictator, Saparmurat Niyazov, megalomaniac extraordinaire, has died.

I wonder if the next guy will keep his golden statue that rotates to face the sun, or all the other bits of cult of personality paraphernalia he's accumulated. After all, you kind of need to replace the previous cult of personality with your own if you want to be the next crazy dictator of Turkmenistan.

Labels: Niyazov, turkmenistan

Twisty Faster, Patriarchy-Blamer-in-Chief, points today to a little study out of our dear old UVA showing that happily married women are calmer about stressful situations when they hold their husbands' hands. Not exactly sure how this study improves the sum of human knowledge, given that the study group was a whopping 16 people, and the researcher didn't think to try it the other way around (are men less stressed out when their wives are about?), thus giving the whole thing a rather lopsided air -- one which, as is demonstrated by the very University press release describing the thing -- lends itself all too well to ridiculously patriarchal extrapolations.

For some reason, a year and three quarters after this study was done, it has been rediscovered by reporters hungry for any dang thing to write about in the slow-news lead up to the holiday, as shown by the articles to which Twisty links. I think I may have just magically done my own study, in which I conclude that lazy journalists are less stressed out when stereotype-reinforcing fluff pieces come their way. Can I get a grant now?

95% of Americans have had premarital sex.

Everyone really is doing it!

Doesn't mean we won't stop sending people to jail for it, though.

Or making stupid posters about it. Sigh.

Linkies via Feministing.

This week in the C-Ville, Virgil good makes an ass of himself and by extension, the entire 5th District of Virginia.

Thanks a lot Virgil.

So what's Virgil's problem? Apparently he's terrified of being overrun by muslim immigrants, and thinks the Koran is some kind of demonic document to be feared by all. Here's the text of his charming constituent letter where he exhibits a cheerful mixture of xenophobia, religious bigotry, and general paranoia.

Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.

The Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, "As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office." Thank you again for your email and thoughts.

Can we please get rid of this guy in 2008 too?

Labels: assholes, virgil goode

Previously we wrote about an advance on generating embryonic stem (ES) cell-like cells from men by isolating spermatagonial stem cells from testes. These cells were powerful, and appeared to do most of what ES cells would do, at least in mice.

Now bona fide ES cells can be derived using oocytes to create parthenogenic embryonic stem cells (or pES cells). Here's the abstract from the Science article:

Genetically matched pluripotent embryonic stem cells generated via nuclear transfer (ntES cells) or parthenogenesis (pES cells) are a potential source of histocompatible cells and tissues for transplantation. Following parthenogenetic activation of murine oocytes and interruption of meiosis I or II, we have isolated and genotyped pES cells and characterized those that carry the full complement of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) antigens of the oocyte donor. Differentiated tissues from these pES cells engraft in immunocompetent MHC-matched mouse recipients, demonstrating that selected pES cells can serve as a source of histocompatible tissues for transplantation.

So, basically what the researchers did is freeze the cells destined to become mature oocytes (or eggs) in meiosis, which is the division of a diploid (in humans it's 2 x 23 chromosomes) cell that ultimately results in halving of the genetic material to create a haploid cell (once copy of each of the 23 chromosomes). The problem is that it's more complicated because of exchange of genetic material between chromatids could generate homozygosities where heterozygosities existed before, but the researchers accounted for this by subsequently screening the cell lines they generated for the correct Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) genotype. Apparently natural killer cells can also detect the absence of a MHC complex in what is known as "hybrid resistance" so a homozygosity generated in this process could potentially be detrimental for the recipient.

I realize that's complicated, but here I'll state it more simply. The researchers have figured out a way to make embryonic stem cells that are immunologically compatible to the woman who donates the oocyte, and additionally are nearly genetically identical. Because of recombination in meiosis, a heterozygous locus may become homozygous, but at least no new genes will be introduced that the body would then attack as foreign.

This is cool for many reasons. If this can be generalized to humans, which is likely, this means that women can have embryonic stem cells made that are highly-genetically matched to them, and immunologically compatible for the generation of replacement tissues. Initially I think treatments for diabetes - pancreatic islet cells - will follow, as well as hematopoietic stem cells for bone marrow transplant, and possibly liver and other tissues. Also, many lines can be generated and banked based on MHC profile.

The second reason it's cool is because it bypasses the idiotic religious belief some people have that life begins by some sperm-magic at conception. Not only does life not begin since it is continuous, but the whole sperm-magic thing is so tiresome. If they object to this procedure it can't be because a conception has been terminated, they'll have to come up with a new dogma to attack this.

Sadly, women won't be able to use this to bypass men altogether and just reproduce themselves (although I think they could if they figured out how to fuse two eggs and induce them to enter embryogenesis), since it would be the ultimate form of inbreeding. Pretty much any dangerous recessive gene you have would have the potential for becoming homozygous, and generating genetic disorders in the offspring. But for tissue generation? This is really cool.

Labels: embryonic stem cells, science

How many kids are enough? And who gets to decide?

Apparently this pompous ass, at least by his own lights.

A patient with two kids and a third on the way wants her tubes tied. She's in her early twenties and just can't afford more kids, and has her hands full already. But her doctor thinks tubal ligation is a terrible idea because studies show she's at risk for . . . what? A heart attack? Cancer? A stroke? No! The far more insidious disease of regret.

Holy Christ on a hamroll! Anything but regret! So, this doc apparently believes his job isn't just to make you well, but to keep you from ever feeling sorry about anything (Strangely, he appears to assume that you couldn't regret not being able to feed your kids because they are multiplying at an exponential rate). So this guy tries to dissuade her from tubal ligation, and with some pretty outrageous arguments. Like, "what if all your children died in a fire?" Um, thanks for that horrible thought, jerkwad. And yes, of course, since children are fungible goods, the natural reaction to the deaths of my three kids would be to just replace them with more. WTF?

All you med students on this blog, can you confirm that this guy is being totally uncool, and his superiors ought to slap him around a bit? I get that the patient is young, but the possession of two X chromosomes doesn't mean that your sole source of pleasure is in bearing as many larval humans as possible. I think most people would find three to be a damn reasonable cutoff. Given that she's managed three before the age of 25, leading me to believe that regular old-fashioned birth control methods aren't cutting it for her, I also find her desire for a permanent method of avoiding future surprises completely understandable.

Finally, how did this guy get to be a doctor? Given his morbid fear of regret, I would think he might be better suited to a less stressful form of employment, like making Gods-eyes at a summer camp or professional whistling. Silly doctor man.

I wish they'd call this surge or boost what it is - escalation. It sounds like Bush has decided to completely ignore the Iraq Study Groups conclusions (aided and abetted by party-traitors like Lieberman), and actually send more troops into this pointless war.

I've been irritated about these articles since they started talking about them last week. But then, to cheer me up, here comes Colin Powell, with a brand new set of "retirement balls" as SNL called them, saying the obvious we're losing and we should leave.

Hey, whatever stupid mistakes Powell made shilling for this administration I'm willing to forgive for his candid advice now. This is a mistake, it will only get worse, we're a sitting duck in the middle of a religious civil war, and we should leave, ASAP. You're damn right buddy.

I guess we could stay, and ignore our death tolls, as long as we kill lots of Iraqis so it doesn't seem so bad.

Labels: Colin Powell, escalation, Iraq, Iraq Civil War

Brown Study blog may have the best Christmas card ever.

The outside:

The inside:


I've been wanting to use little ol' Lyndie as a call out in powerpoint presentations but some one keeps telling me it's a bad idea. I still think it would be funny to have her point at bad data or something.

Labels: Lyndie England, offensiveness, war on christmas

Newt Gingrich is planning to create a 527 dedicated to treason.

No really, it's in the NYT.

The committee will also promote Mr. Gingrich’s latest manifesto, a 10-point Contract With America for the 21st century, which includes Social Security privatization, electoral reform, radical streamlining of government, and "patriotic education" for schoolchildren and immigrants. The document also includes a call to "recenter America on the creator from whom all our liberties come" and to appoint judges who understand "the centrality of God in American history."

He's trying to destroy the constitution that he swore to uphold. Isn't that treason?

Hmmm. I guess it's not technically giving "aid and comfort to our enemies", and the enemies in this case might be the British 230 years ago. But still, isn't this just a little bit sick? Isn't this guy supposedly all about smaller government? Wouldn't this be the ultimate intrusion of government into our private lives? TJ would be pissed, that's for sure.

Also, isn't this whole idea kind of stupid that god is "central" in our history? Unless you're Mormon or something, very little of American history is about revelations, prophecy, or things in which I would put god in the "center". Manifest Destiny maybe, in that case "god" allowed us the moral superiority to drive out everyone living West of the Mississippi so we could expand all the way to the west coast. A bunch of believer flew some planes into our buildings a few years ago, and even Falwell and Robertson said that was god punishing us, so I guess that's another example.

What are some more examples of god being central in American history? And you can't just go and say god does everything, that's a cop out.

P.S., one of my proudest moments was meeting Newt Gingrich, getting his autograph, and then saying it's a damn shame people like him prevent us from treating people like his sister like human beings.

Labels: Establishment Cause, idiots, Newt Gingrich, treason

Not surprisingly, Dobson's BS anti-gay piece for time has been attacked by the scientists he quoted. Apparently Dobson, like all creationists/bigots/fundamentalists doesn't understand you can't just cherry-pick the science so that it says what you want.

But Gilligan claimed that Dobson distorted her findings, and says that she disagrees with his theory that same-sex couples are unsuitable parents. In a pointed letter to Dobson and released to the press, Gilligan demanded that he apologize and "cease and desist" from quoting her work in the future.

"I was mortified," Gilligan wrote, "to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine."

"My work in no way suggests same-gender families are harmful to children or can't raise these children to be as healthy and well adjusted as those brought up in traditional households," Gilligan asserts.

"I trust," her letter concluded, "that this will be the last time my work is cited by Focus on the Family."

Dr. Kyle Pruett of the Yale school of medicine was equally shocked to discover Dobson's use of his work in the column.

"You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes," he wrote in a similar letter to Dobson. "This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions."

In fact, Pruett's work suggests the opposite of Dobson's assertions. "On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece," he points out, "I wrote, 'What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex.'"

Typical denialists tactics. You don't like that the science shows that gay parents can be just as competent as heterosexual parents, so what do you do? You use selectivity, false experts, red herrings, BS gay agenda conspiracies and other dishonest tactics to distract from the reality which you hate.

Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Labels: dobson, gay rights, idiots

The newest hypothesis about the Neanderthals suggests that they died out because the women and men hunted together. There was no division of labor, and so when no game could be found, no one ate. Early humans had some division of labor, and had a more diverse food stock.

Only in the Wall Street Journal could someone take this little nugget and turn it into an anti-feminist rant. Naomi Schaefer Riley writes:

...Betty Friedan is probably turning over in her own gravesite right now, yearning to assure us that this finding has no bearing on modern society. And perhaps it doesn't. Just because a prehistoric version of feminism killed off the Neanderthals doesn't mean that we face the same fate...

She goes on to discuss the typical WSJ control issues concerning women--promiscuity (Paris Hilton is invoked, as usual); Bratz dolls; and of course, the feminists' holy grail, parenting without fathers. The horror, the horror!

** Update ** He's apparently a plagiarist too.

Dobson writes a piece for time about Mary Cheney having a kid with her partner and they should be ashamed for publishing it. Not only is it just idiotic, and wrong, and stupid, but what could he possible want to be done about this? And where did they get the idea that two women raising a child is worse than one? Ignoring the fact that humans have reared children with multiple women in the household for generations, the science shows that as fewer women are raising children in American households, it's increasing stress on moms, and a worsening trend. If anything, the more women per household, the better. But onto the idiocy.

With all due respect to Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father. That is not to say Cheney and Poe will not love their child. But love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development. The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy--any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl.

So, unless you have the ideal family unit you shouldn't have children? This is an interesting viewpoint, not only does it ignore that you don't need to be directly related to a man or a woman for them to play the role model for you as a kid, but it also completely misstates the science. Not surprisingly, there has not been a single study that shows that lesbian or gay parents raise children that are any more or less maladjusted than those in a nuclear family. Seriously, show me one, and I'll believe this "Mom and Dad only can raise a family" crap. Certainly the science shows things are more difficult for single parents, but that by no means precludes them from raising healthy happy kids.

Then there's this idiocy:

According to educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty. Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences. Other researchers have determined that boys are not born with an understanding of "maleness." They have to learn it, ideally from their fathers.

This sounds like total crap, and I bet if you talked to Carol Gilligan she'd be upset at Dobson using whatever it is she said out of context. I'd bet money that's the case. But besides that, this is just idiotic. Dads provide a sense of right and wrong and moms don't? Are you kidding me? Who buys into this kind of gender-pigeonholing anyway? This is idiotic and doesn't even deserve a serious response.

Finally, I'd just like to attack one more ridiculously stupid thing in this idiotic article. Dobson has made the mistake of bad-mouthing divorce.

This is a lesson we should have learned from no-fault divorce. Because adults wanted to dissolve difficult marriages with fewer strings attached, reformers made it easier in the late 1960s to dissolve nuclear families. Though there are exceptions, the legacy of no-fault divorce is countless shattered lives within three generations, adversely affecting children's behavior, academic performance and mental and physical health. No-fault divorce reflected our selfish determination to do what was convenient for adults, and it has been, on balance, a disaster.

First of all, let's see where we have divorce in this country:



And from my previous post on divorce.

This is a map of the states with divorce rates greater than 4 per thousand (excluding California, and Indiana and using 2002-2003 data for 2 other states that didn't report in 2004), the national average is somewhere between 3.7 and 4.1 depending on who you ask or whether you throw an estimate of California's rate in since they haven't reported a rate since 1990. The other key thing to remember is that divorce rates are falling in all states, by about 10% since the 90s. So, if California were included today based on its 1990 statistics it would probably now be well under 4, so don't let that worry you too much.

All the same, look at where divorce is actually a problem, in a nice band across the bible belt. The states with the lowest divorce rates? Massachusetts, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin have divorce rates that range from 1.8-3.0 per 1,000. The blue states included are in just barely at around 4.1-4.3 per 1,000. The highest two are Nevada at 6.3 and Arkansas at 6.1, over three times the rate of liberal Massachusetts. And even more interesting is the Barna survey done in 1999 showed that of all religious groups, Baptists and non-denominational Christians were the most likely to get divorced, surpassing all those evil heathen religions, Catholics and atheists. And where do the Baptists live? Well, largely in the areas highlighted in the above map.

Divorce in this country is at the lowest point it's been since before no fault divorce came of age. It was highest in the 1980s at a rate of about 40-43% and now has dropped to an overall rate of 30% of all marriages will end in divorce. The highest rates of divorce are in evangelicals and fundamentalist Christian sects. Now how about that? Maybe the real threat to the nuclear family are the stodgy and rigid concepts of manhood and womanhood inflicted by patriarchal assholes like Dobson.

Labels: divorce, dobson, gay rights, idiots, mary cheney

Is it possible? Was South Park right when they had that episode about the anti-Semitic sect of Judaism? This might be proof they were. Just goes to show extremists in any religion are truly ugly.

Now where did I put my macaroni and glue.

Labels: anti-Semitism, South Park

BoingBoing has linked this story on what Bill Gates thinks of DRM'd (Digital Rights Managed) music. It's pretty shocking.

Gates said that no one is satisfied with the current state of DRM, which "causes too much pain for legitmate buyers" while trying to distinguish between legal and illegal uses. He says no one has done it right, yet. There are "huge problems" with DRM, he says, and "we need more flexible models, such as the ability to "buy an artist out for life" (not sure what he means). He also criticized DRM schemes that try to install intelligence in each copy so that it is device specific.

His short term advice: "People should just buy a cd and rip it. You are legal then."

He ended by saying "DRM is not where it should be, but you won't get me to say that there should be usage models and different payment models for usage. At the end of the day, incentive systems do make a difference, but we don't have it right with incentives or interoperability."

Pretty amazing no? Also, everyone should want the Hannibal Deuce for X-mas. Now that's what happens when you've go no DRM on a machine.

Labels: Bill Gates, DRM

It looks like we're going into 2008 with some seriously Democratic-leaning voters.



That is, without even knowing the candidate voters would prefer a Democrat by about 18 percentage points. 65% of people think the country is headed in the wrong direction and only 25% think it's going in the right direction. If you look carefully you see even the Republican base is divided half for and half against the Democrats. Now if we can just keep Hillary from screwing this advantage up.

It just goes to show, the American people do not like Republican governance. Via Kos and from NPR.

Labels: Polling

Even I don't know what to do with this one. Should you be fired from your job as a public school art teacher just because, in your spare time, you paint with your butt?

Discuss.

Nature this week has a special topic "Animal Research: A matter of life and death", consisting of four editorials on the topic: Animal Research: Grey Matters by Emma Marris, Animal Research: Caught in the middle by Kerri Smith is an interesting interview with a research veterinary surgeon, Animal Research: Primates in the frame by David Cyranoski demonstrates how we are already at the limit in terms of ethics boards and additional requirements will start to seriously hamper research, and Animal Research: Mighty Mouse by Jane Qui discusses the power of transgenic and knock out mice for answering questions about gene function. They also performed polling of researchers on the topic which not surprisingly found:

When asked to rate how necessary animal research was for progressing biomedical science on a scale of 1 (not at all necessary) to 4 (essential), three quarters of all respondents, including those who do not work with animals themselves, said it was essential. About a fifth rated it as 3, and only a tiny minority (about 1%) thought it unnecessary.

Many noted that a main difficulty in discussing animal research is in dealing with the fact that some animal models aren't perfect. "We have not addressed legitimate issues that animal rights groups have raised, ...a mouse is not a human and the question to be tested will not be fully answered," said one neuroscientist, who works on animals. "We need to admit this but point out that it is more complex than that."

It should be noted that even researchers that don't "directly" work with animals are still probably using a great number of animal products, like serum to feed cells, proteins and enzymes purified from animals, antibodies raised in various animals etc.

I'd like to devote some attention to the first article, by Marris, which is an overview of the disparate attitudes scientists have towards their lab animals. Some of the responses are quite irritating coming from scientists. For instance:

Tom Burbacher runs an infant primate lab at the University of Washington in Seattle, which models the cognitive effects of prenatal exposures to environmental contaminants in macaques. He talks publicly about his work, but does not defend the entire enterprise of animal research, believing it is a waste of time to defend such a large, abstract concept. He adds that he feels that his work, which is clearly linked to human health, is easier to explain than some blue-sky research, such as mapping the brain or describing how vision works. "There is a lot of basic research going on that is harder to talk about," he says.

And why should basic research be harder to talk about? Why is it that basic research gets less respect for use of animals than studies that are supposedly more applicable to human health? Where do they think that the more bench to bedside studies come from? The ether? The fact is all levels of research can justifiably use animals, if you eliminate basic research, you don't magically keep the more clinically-oriented stuff, the clinical research is more often than not critically dependent on results from basic studies.

I much preferred this philosophy:

Chris Harvey-Clark, director of the Animal Care Centre at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, has even greater day-to-day contact with animals, working with research subjects from sea lions and hummingbirds to transgenic mice. Harvey-Clark, like many in similar positions, was once a private-practice veterinarian, and remains a confirmed animal-lover, saying he often feels emotionally closer to his charges at the centre than to his old clients' pets. In the face of their inevitable deaths, Harvey-Clark must work to retain his humanity and empathy. "How do you keep caring for the animals without being scorched by the fact that you are using them up?" he asks.

His answer lies in the fact that suffering and death have long characterized the relationship between humankind and the animal kingdom — from animal predators that prey on humans, to the slaughter of wild and farmed animals by humans for food. As Harvey-Clark puts it, "without a farm background, it is hard to understand that you can both care for things and also understand that they are going to wind up being food, or data".

This I think is a far more mature point of view about the nature of things, not just in science but in how the world works. I often am amused, for instance, that vegetarians think they somehow magically avoid deaths of animals by avoiding meat and buying organic. Do they think that when a farmer puts up an "organic vegetable" sign the animals and pests just stop eating them? Here's a secret, organic farming uses pesticides too (just a limited set that ironically includes inorganic chemicals like sulfur), the farmers will still shoot animals that eat the crops, and they use animal intensive pest control measures like the dumping of millions of freeze-dried ladybugs on crops to eat larvae and kill aphids. Beyond diet, it's impossible to avoid causing death of animals from activities as disparate as building a house, to driving your car (bugs and squirrels don't count?), to cleaning, to mowing your lawn, to public health measures like the genocidal elimination of malarial mosquitoes and screw worm. Humans are walking death machines, and that's ok, that's why we've been so successful as a species. The various ways people hide from themselves the fact that we exist due to our superior killing tactics is kind of amusing, and I believe it reflects that complete absence of interaction with nature that we experience as privileged North Americans. Somehow, now that all our predators have been killed, malaria and screw-worm eliminated, our environment is tightly controlled, sanitation is excellent etc., we've come to view nature as our friend, or we believe that we can co-exist peacefully. She's not our friend, she's a bitch and she'll kill us if we let her (anyone seen Grizzly Man?). Nature is cold and indifferent to our survival.

Finally though, Marris ends with one of those annoying appeals to the middle:

The old adage may truly fit here: there are as many views about animal research as there are thoughtful people. But as long as the debate is played out as a ping-pong game between hard-core activists and hard-core defenders, anyone in the middle who stands up to be heard risks getting hit.

Sorry, but the second you start giving ground it's just going to be more and more difficult to get the science done. Especially since I believe we've ceded as much ground as we can before the research is hampered. We already reduce, minimize and look for alternatives when possible, it's just that for a lot of these things there are no alternatives. Scientists (about 80% of them based on the polling here) would prefer not to use animals if alternatives existed, there simply aren't viable alternatives.

Labels: animal rights, Nature, research

This might be interesting, the FTC is going to insist that viral marketing campaigns have their agents disclose who they are working for. It seems that they figured out that having people falsely give what appears to be unbiased advice might be a dishonest business practice.

The FTC said it would investigate cases where there is a relationship between the endorser of a product and the seller that is not disclosed and could affect the endorsement. The FTC staff said it would go after violators on a case-by-case basis. Consequences could include a cease-and-desist order, fines and civil penalties ranging from thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. Engle said the agency had not brought any cases against word-of-mouth marketers.

Though the staff's opinion fell short of Commercial Alert's original request, the group's executive director, Gary Ruskin, said he was pleased the staff agreed that word-of-mouth marketing could be deceptive.

"This letter tells marketers like Procter & Gamble that their 'sponsored consumers' must disclose that they are shilling, or they are probably in violation of the prohibition against deceptive advertising. That's big," he said. "It will change practices in the word-of-mouth marketing industry."

I tend to agree. If you lie to sell a product, you're a fraudster, plain and simple. Commercial speech is not protected like other forms of speech, like political speech or the press. There is a common-sense difference between free expression and allowing people to say whatever they want to sell a product.

I wish the FTC would get even more severe and ban puffery - that is the practice of allowing advertisers to tell lies that are more or less obvious. For instance, showing a basketball player put on a pair of shoes then jump 500 feet in the air or whatever. It's bullshit, it's a lie, but it's an obvious lie, so that's supposedly ok (at least in this country - not in others).

Labels: advertisement, fraud, FTC

It ain't nature, and it ain't nurture. It ain't your genes; it ain't the fact that your "liberated" Aunt Peggy gave you a set of PJ Rose Barbie dolls for Xmas in a whimsical attempt at subverting gender norms.

Nope. It's all that dang soy milk that's making you gay!

Hee! I can't get upset about this one -- it's just too funny. And I always knew there was something strange about tofu, anyway.

Labels: idiots

What is the problem that religious people have with with fiction? Harry Potter is being accused of pagan indoctrination? What?

It's fiction people, fiction!

Labels: Harry Potter, Paganism, Religion

I forgot to blog this when I was traveling last Friday and saw it on the front page of the free hotel McNewspaper.

Some senators skeptical of Iraq Study Group's proposals. Guess which one(s)?

Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, expressed doubt that the United States could coax Iran into helping stabilize Iraq as part of a larger diplomatic initiative in the Middle East.

"I'm skeptical that it's realistic to think that Iran wants to help the United States succeed in Iraq," Lieberman said.

What did we say? LiebesBush is an underminer. A Republican mole in the Democratic party. Because, what of course was Bush's main objection to the ISG's recommendations? Why the same as LiebesBush's of course.

And he repeated his refusal to talk with Iran and Syria unless Tehran suspends its uranium-enrichment program, Damascus stops interfering in Lebanon and both drop their support for terrorist groups.

What is it about diplomacy that these people don't get? Yes, Syria and Iran are run by assholes who do things we don't like. The beginning of diplomacy is realizing that Syria and Iran could make the identical statement about the USA.

Just because you don't agree with your enemies doesn't mean you shouldn't talk with them, find dialogue, and common ground. Bush doesn't get diplomacy. It doesn't mean telling other countries they have to do everything we say, then we'll deign to talk to them. Diplomacy is about talking to your enemies without strangling them, and hopefully making them not your enemies one day.

Labels: Bush, Iraq, Lieberman

The physicists (Rob Knop) have weighed in on the treadmill problem.

The irritating thing? He just destroyed the whole problem.

Answer : they're both wrong. Not about the "yes" or "no", but about the explanations. In fact, the whole question, with the implicit assumptions behind it, doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. It's a nonsensible question posed as if there were a proper "yes" or "no" answer... and, thus, anybody who writes trying to justify one or the other position is forced into using some misconception.

...

Here's the real answer: You wouldn't be able to keep an airplane on the treadmill. Hence, the attempts to answer the question fall flat on their face. Mark, and others, correctly state that the wheels are ultimately irrelevant to the taking off of an airplane, that it's the movement of the plane through the air that matters. The thought experiment that is created, however, is an airplane that's still due to the action of the treadmill. This wouldn't work. As the aircraft's engines are pulling it through the air, eventually it would start to skid forward along the treadmill. Depending on how the treadmill was set, it would either be more or less efficient in its initial acceleration, but it would move forward across the treadmill.

That's fine, it's a thought problem that creates a somewhat impossible condition. I get what he's saying, I was just ignoring the issue of the wheels and treadmill and looking at this as a question asking if the plane was held fixed relative to the ground's reference frame, and engines were on at full thrust, would it take off? Of course not. You could make a take off argument that's based on the impossibility of holding a plane still under these conditions, but I still feel that's missing the point, which was the importance of thrust vs. lift for flight (which was the source of a lot of the really bad physics explanations on the comment threads). The treadmill really is a bad example of how you could hold a plane still while allowing it to ostensibly gun its engines to full speed (because the pilot would have to exert pressure on the breaks to allow the treadmill to keep the plane still). Maybe a better way to put it would be to just chain the plane to a post, so it's engines do not give it forward acceleration, does the plane move upwards? Nope. If you cut the chain? Nope, not until it moves a few hundred feet will the plane acquire the conditions necessary for lift.

Labels: physics

I realize this is pretty irrelevant but it's amazing what kind of stupid discussions smart people can have. Take this supposed problem of an airplane on a treadmill
the

"Imagine a plane is sitting on a massive conveyor belt, as wide and as long as a runway. The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction. Can the plane take off?"

Pogue at least gets the answer right, but is upsettingly unsure of it, and worse, other bloggers including Mark at BoingBoing are insisting on the wrong answer.

These guys need to go back to physics class.

Planes fly due to Bernoulli effect, that is, a wing moves through the air (this is critical) and generates lift, because the air moves faster over the top of the wing compared to the bottom or the wing is tilted creating a downward deflection of air. Slower moving air underneath the wing leads to higher pressure, while faster moving air moving over the wing leads to lower pressure, hence there is an upward lift on the wings. (Wikipedia has a full discussion of lift that I found helpful, including explaining why Bernoulli's equation works, even though the reason it works isn't the one you think is.)

The engines and wheels are largely irrelevant to this discussion (assuming we're talking about non-military jets, they have light enough bodies and powerful enough engines that they rely more on thrust than on lift for their flight), engines provide the thrust that moves the plane through the air, that generates lift on the wing, the lift makes the plane fly, not the engines, otherwise cars would be taking off left and right. Cars can take off, at very high speed they'll similarly generate enough lift from air traveling under the flat undercarriage and over the curved body to get airbourne (hence spoilers), but it's like a single wing flying with no control.

So, the answer is no, a plane (airliner, cessna, etc.) on a treadmill will not fly, because there is no lift, because there is no airflow over the wings. As anyone who has ridden a stationary bike knows, no matter how fast you pedal, the wind won't blow through your hair. To say a plane on a treadmill will take of is like saying attaching wings to your arms and pedaling on a stationary bike will somehow allow you to take off. It makes no sense.

Are they saying it will take off just to piss me off?

Am I getting paranoid?

Labels: physics

Americans hate Republican governance, and they hate Bush's war. just check out the latest polling it's the worst ever for Bush.

Just 21 percent approve of President Bush's handling of the war, the lowest number he's ever received, and an 8-point drop from just a month ago.

...

Opposition to the war is now taking on historic proportions, with 62 percent saying it was "a mistake" to send U.S. troops to Iraq - slightly more than told a Gallup Poll in 1973 that it was a mistake to send U.S. forces to Vietnam.

...

Seventy-one percent say the war is going badly, including 39 percent who believe the war is going very badly. Just 25 percent say it's going well. The negative assessment of the war was shared by a majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

...

Sixty percent think that Iraq will never become a stable democracy - the highest number ever - while 85 percent now characterize the situation there as a civil war.

Well, Bush won't admit Iraq is a civil war, but sadly reality has a liberal bias. Everyone else seems to be able to smell the shit sandwich and he's looking more and more like the Worst President Ever.

Labels: Bush, Iraq, Polling

Hey, here's a little tip for your next New York trip. If you go to NYC and go to time square and take pictures of the ads like it's some kind of novelty, you need to immediately insert an icepick into the orbit of your eye, and push it back-and-forth in your frontal lobe until the lobotomy is complete. Seriously.

That, and if you go to NYC and eat nowhere but at the Olive Garden and McDonalds, seriously, just stay home. Order in your 2000 calorie meals and take pictures of the ads during the O.C. or American Idol or whatever the hell idiotic crap is on your TV sapping your intelligence. You'll save money and not be in the way of all the New Yorkers who are just in Times Square because that's where all the movie theaters are. They'll thank you, or at least stop mentally wishing for your death.

Labels: advertisement, idiots, New York City

This is a major disappointment for Democrats. Representative William "cold cash in the freezer" Jefferson has won his run-off election in Louisiana.

This creates a worry, Washington can be just as corrupting for Democrats as for Republicans, although as Bill Maher says, they just sell out to a much more benign set of special interests. But how long will it before we have a Democratic ethics scandal because of this guy? They should throw him out of the party, out of congress, and ideally into jail. I mean, no one has 90k in cash in their freezer (and FBI cash at that) for an honest reason.

Labels: corruption, Democrats, William Jefferson

As if we didn't need another reason to hate the right wing nutbag Margaret Thatcher, she's expressed sadness that her Cold War dictator/buddy Augusto Pinochet died.

Former Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher is "greatly saddened" by the death of Augusto Pinochet, said a spokesman.

Chile's former military leader, who has died aged 91 in hospital, backed the UK during the Falklands conflict.

Baroness Thatcher also pressed for his release after his arrest in London in 1998 over alleged human rights abuses.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett used the death to pay tribute to Chile's "remarkable progress" since General Pinochet left office.

Mrs Beckett said Chile had become "an open, stable and prosperous democracy" since 1990.

A spokesman for Baroness Thatcher said the former PM would not be issuing a formal statement but would be sending "deepest condolences" to Gen Pinochet's widow and family.

Uggh, that woman just makes me sick. Makes me think Alan Moore was onto something.

Labels: Margaret Thatcher

Hey, anyone else think that people who make these rational actor economics arguments are totally full of shit?

This diary at Kos extensively documents the proof that they are. I'm glad someone got around to damning these arguments for me. I simply don't have the time. But every time I do see research on consumer behavior or economic decision making the exact opposite of what the economists claim seems to be true. The consumer tends to make exactly the opposite of the right decision when faced with a choice. Consumers rely on information from misleading advertisements, poorly-written and researched news articles, pretty labels, etc., to dissuade them from doing things like buying generics, purchasing efficient vehicles, or avoiding fraudulent or worthless products.

This, more than anything, is why I think the Milton Friedman/libertarian types are full of shit. Whenever their arguments are studied scientifically, they're proven wrong.

Labels: economics, kos, libertarians

Those of you who use blogger should consider a switch to the beta blogger being run by google. Not only is the interface easier, but it seems to have fixed the publishing problems we've been having for what, five days now?

Anyway, this will enable more reliable posts from my co-bloggers who are always emailing me about how Blogger is broken. Also, notice that we can now tag posts, this will help us track discussions about particular people or concepts without having to do searches about what's been discussed before.

Labels: blogging

The season finale of HBO's The Wire was last night, and if there is a better indictment of the scam of No Child Left Behind, I haven't seen it.

This season follows a former cop, Prezboluski, as he starts as a middle school teacher in inner city Baltimore. He struggles as a new teacher, and like many new teachers is highly idealistic and tries to do his best for the kids. His main obstacle? The obsession with standardized testing brought on by No Child Left Behind.

Now, standardized testing would be a good tool, but the problem is that it is implemented as a solution in itself, with the idea that just introducing standards will somehow magically fix all the other problem the kids face. These problems, wonderfully demonstrated over the season include absent parents, crappy parents, unstable homes, dangerous neighborhoods, interactions with criminals, and the seductive draw of easy money on the corners selling drugs. The Republican solution? Testing, testing, testing.

Now, I've attacked this method many times as one of the most cynical uses of children for political gain ever invented. Basically, the testing is implemented, and the kids score horribly. The schools aren't prepared for the tests, the kids are unprepared for all the reasons above, and the inevitable result is that the politicians' claims are confirmed. The scores come back and the politicians can point them out as the failures of whatever administration came before them.

The next year of course, the schools teach to the tests, the tests are made easier, and the scoring is adjusted to make the kids appear to have performed better. Then the same politicians can point to the statistics and claim their standardized testing has magically improved the schools, when in reality they've pulled a clever scam at the cost of addressing the real failings in public schools, and the situations that are creating poor performance.

So, back to The Wire, the results have come back after a semester of Mr. Prezbo's teaching, and this interchange is telling:

Mr. Prezboluski: How in the hell did we kick up percentages in math and reading both?
Veteran Teacher: You believe the numbers?

Mr. Prezboluski: 38% proficient, 8% advanced, what?

Veteran Teacher: Proficient means they're at least two grades below their level. Advanced can mean they're at grade level, or a year below. They score them like that and say we're making progress.

The real improvement came with Prezbo making efforts to make a personal difference in the kids lives, helping them one on one, and from another class (demonized by statistics-obsessed administrators) that took the most disruptive kids and tried to prevent school-wide poor performance by segregating them and working on improving their socialization.

I love this show and when each season ends I go into withdrawal until the next great and truthful HBO series starts up. But one thing is clear, when you tell the truth, in fiction or otherwise, it's damning to Republicans and their stupid policies.

Labels: Education, No Child Left Behind, The Wire

Oh yeah, we need to put this in all those candy machines in our nation's schools:

Looking for a contraceptive that's convenient _ and tasty? The first chewable birth-control method, a tiny, spearmint-flavored tablet that also can be swallowed without chewing, has hit pharmacy shelves.

Femcon Fe, which contains the same hormones as standard oral contraceptives, offers a new option for women who don't like swallowing pills and want to take their birth control with them, according to Carl Reichel, president of drugmaker Warner Chilcott of Rockaway.

OmniBrain is the new blog on the Scienceblogs network, and I think I already love it.

For one, they published on a technique which I've told people about and they always refuse to believe. That is, the various ways one may hypnotize a chicken. From the Farmer's Almanac article:

Dr. White shows her audiences two methods of hypnotizing chickens. The Oscillating Finger Method is probably the easier of the two. Place the bird on its side with a wing under its body and hold it down gently. Make sure its head is flat on the table. To hypnotize the bird, use one finger of the free hand, moving the finger back and forth in front of the bird's beak from its tip (without touching it) to a point that is about four inches from the beak. Keep the finger in a line parallel to the beak.

The second technique is the Sternum Stroke Method. Gently put the bird on its back. It may be necessary to use a book, purse, or other item to keep the bird from rolling onto its side. Hold the bird down. Lightly massage the bird's sternum, using the slightly spread thumb and index finger of one hand to do the stroking.

(Editor's Note: A third technique, discovered buried in the files of The Old Farmer's Almanac, is the Chalk Line Method. Draw a straight chalk mark about a foot long. Hold the chicken with its beak on one end of the line, staring straight out at the chalk mark. In a few seconds, the chicken will be hypnotized.)

They even blogged this video:



I told you people! And you didn't believe me, oh no, I'm just a crazy crackpot who believes in chicken hypnosis. Take that!

PZ Myers at Pharyngula has discovered Engineer's disease. Engineer's disease is a lot like frustrated white man syndrome (aka libertarianism), in that the individual afflicted develops a simple set of tools to evaluate the world, then assumes they function in nearly every situation. The resulting simplistic worldview is at once charmingly naive, and embarrassingly bone-headed.

All-too-common-dissent finds another crazy creationist engineer. This one opens a molecular biology and genetics text, discovers that it doesn't talk about "Darwinism" (not surprising), and concludes that biology doesn't need evolution.

My hypothesis is that the field of molecular biology is simply not understood by the majority of biologists and thus pretty secure from rational debate by laymen. By claiming that this discipline (which they probably don't understand either) proves Darwinism and that Darwinism is vital to understanding molecular biology, the Creationists can be silenced, humiliated and put in their place by simply invoking superior knowledge.

This is a rather extravagant claim coming from someone who knows no biology and who's impression of the field is derived from one specialist text that I suspect he didn't understand. I'd argue the other way: that there's a trend towards emphasizing molecular biology at the expense of other aspects of biology in undergraduate education. However, even so, it's extremely silly to claim that molecular biology isn't being driven in substantial part by evolutionary ideas, or that molecular biology isn't providing huge amounts of new information in support of evolution.

Ahh, Engineer's disease. It's great. I also liked this comment from the thread.

Thanks Doppelganger. My statement is that ID is the foundation of all of high-tech and thus not some personality cult phenomenon. In fact, your arguments against ID are all ID based! To get a Ph.D. in biology, you have presumably done some ID regarding a thesis. Now if your ID related theories can't account for what IS, then there is no point in using them to derive conclusions about what ID can't explain.

I could devote the brainpower to trying to unravel that, but I keep thinking about Malcom Gladwell and the whole "Blink" thing, and just know I don't need to expend extra effort figuring out such a moronic jumble.

The BBC has an interesting story on agricultural problems we face as global warming worsens.

It's this kind of thing, this failure to respond to an obvious disaster that makes me think we'll see Bush as the worst president ever. That and maps like these.



I look forward to seeing what RealClimate has to say. It always takes them a little while to get on stuff, probably because they're so damn thorough. I find climate science papers to be almost unreadable and complex with a difficult and extensive jargon. That's why RealClimate is so great.

No more Bolton! That's progress.

The Washington Post has a series of articles on Bush's future place in history. They are entitled:

He's Only Fifth Worst by Michael Lind.

This is an interesting essay. However, I think the flaw is that Lind focuses too much on failed wars. While I agree with him the Buchanan is tough competition for worst ever, I believe the ultimate legacy of George Bush's failed domestic policies are what will ultimately ruin him. I'm sure we haven't felt the full effect of irresponsible tax cuts, retarded education policies, permitting spying on and torture of American citizens, Medicare plan D, the catastrophic delay in environmental policy, the total failure to invest in R&D to wean us off foreign oil...this things, I believe, have as much potential to devastate our economy, undermine our democracy, and lead to death in misery as Buchanan's failure to stand up to the Southern states. Not to mention Bush's complete inaction in the face of the Katrina disaster, I think history will judge Bush as the first president to lose a major American city since Madison.

The second he's the worst ever by Eric Foner.

This is an interesting assay, and I think addresses some of the flaws I see in Michael Lind's essay. Yes, the presidents that were failures leading up to the civil war were pathetic, they hesitated, made bad decisions, and in his words, "they surrounded themselves with sycophants and shaped their policies to appeal to retrogressive political forces." Whereas the other classic failure presidents were mostly responsible for domestic disasters, corruption, disrespect for the constitution, and selling out the people's interests to corporations - doesn't that also sound familiar? Especially with regards to the flaw of inaction in the face of crisis, Bush is guilty guilty guilty. Katrina? My Pet Goat? C'mon.

Harding and Coolidge are best remembered for the corruption of their years in office (1921-23 and 1923-29, respectively) and for channeling money and favors to big business. They slashed income and corporate taxes and supported employers' campaigns to eliminate unions. Members of their administrations received kickbacks and bribes from lobbyists and businessmen. "Never before, here or anywhere else," declared the Wall Street Journal, "has a government been so completely fused with business."

...

Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history.

So in Foner's view, and I agree, Bush is kind of a perfect storm of failed president. He has combined the worst traits of presidents responsible for the Civil War, the presidents responsible for the Great Depression, and the criminal presidency of Richard Nixon. I think ultimately Bush's greatest failure will be inaction too though, and Foner misses what it is. Environmental reform and leadership in fixing our oil-dependent infrastructure have been critically delayed, and that combined with the anti-science attitutes on stem cell science are mistakes which we have not felt the full effects of yet, but decades from now we certainly will. America has lost vital ground in addressing problems of critical importance not just to human progress, but to our security and the health of the planet. That might just make the Civil War look like a flea compared to the elephant of global economic and environmental disaster for sheer potential for human misery.

Time's on his side (yeah right) by Vincent J. Cannato.

Cannato's piece? Pure denialism. His argument boils down to "other presidents were disliked initially and their reputation improved" and "Bush isn't a failure Domestically." Take this quote emphasizing Bush's successes:

Attempts at entitlement reform and tax reform have stalled, as has immigration reform. But there have been domestic policy successes: tax cuts, the No Child Left Behind Act, the prescription drug plan and housing policies that have expanded home ownership.

Ok. The tax cuts? 9 trillion in debt later, I do not call this a success.

No Child Left Behind? An embarrassing combination of unfunded mandate, and statistical flubbery to boot. It hasn't reformed education, we've just started "jukin the stats" as they'd say on the wire. It gives the appearance of reform, while actually making things worse, emphasizing teaching to an idiotic test rather than addressing the root causes of educational failure. That combined with the sheer offensive and cynical use of children for a political score. This is because the first year the kids always do bad, then they slacken the test like with the Virginia SOLs, or teach to it, and an immense improvement is seen that the politicians take credit for. This is a dirty, cynical and ugly political maneuver not education reform.

Finally housing policies that have expanded home ownership? This is the biggest load of simple-minded horseshit that is repeatedly trotted out by political failures as an accomplishment. Let me tell you a little secret. Other than during brief periods of economic collapse, home ownership always increases. More people, more homes, more homeownership, it's an upward trend that would exist with or without economic intervention. Taking credit for this is like taking credit for the tide coming in, or for an increase in the country's population. Both are regular, predictable, and not a political accomplishment. This claim is proof of total hackery on the part of Cannato. While he doesn't commit the total denialist sin of calling Bush a great president, he leaves open the possibility that some magical event will miraculously improve his reputation in the future. Unless documents are released that Bush has secretly been winning a war against genocidal robot aliens, I don't accept this as a likely occurence. A reform of this man's reputiation is not impossible, but not likely.

Finally, Move Over Hoover by Douglas Brinkley also agrees Bush is destined for the "bottom rung" but again focuses too much on Iraq as a failure. Yes, Iraq was a failure, but what consigns Bush to the bottom of the historical barrel is the total failure to deal with domestic crises, as well as a demonstration of domestic policy boneheadedness. He's worthless on all fronts.

Grrl Scientist says and I agree, that spelling is important.

Has anyone been following the story of the latest 10 commandments monument? I've been getting the skinny from Pharyngula on the story of the 10 commandments statue that just appeared out of nowhere in Dixie County Florida.

My question for the lawyers is. If they just dropped this thing there, the city didn't pay for or approve of it (which would trigger establishment problems), then that means we can drive down there and take it right? Or break it apart with hammers?

The Taliban are enforcing that Biblical rule about not teaching women. Oh, Muslims have that rule too? Hmmm. Maybe that should tell the biblical literalists something.

Well, articles are coming out on the Iraq study group's consensus and it sounds like they're passing the buck.

A overwhelming majority of Americans think Iraq is a civil war and these guys are saying we should stick around until 2008. Even worse, is this caveat:

The panel included a significant caveat for the 2008 goal for troop withdrawals by recommending that commanders should plan to pull out combat units by then unless "unexpected developments" make them decide that such a move would be unwise, the sources said.

So, it leaves these jackasses an excuse to continue their indefinite occupation of Iraq every time the violence worsens, which means we will stay in Iraq because it's a civil war and will only worsen. More wishful thinking, but now that it's bipartisan wishful thinking the neocons have a shield to hide behind as they delay the inevitable withdrawal of troops and catastrophic collapse.

Unless there is some miracle of leadership from Iraq, which seems unlikely since even the Bush administration seems to think Maliki can't find his ass with both hands, this is just going to be a worsening civil war. A week, a month, a year, it doesn't matter when we pull out. It's a civil war, we have no business being there. And if they can use the excuse of worsening violence to keep the troops there, then we'll never leave.

Hey, if you've got nothing to hide, there's no reason you shouldn't want to appear naked before strangers.



This image is of TSA's director of their security laboratory Susan Halloway. Apparently, she's not self conscious about us seeing her bust size and camel-toe, and I guess that's ok for her. Do you think anyone else is going to be thrilled about what might be the most invasive search yet? Oh, but don't worry, they're concerned too.

Ms Hallowell said the radiation dosage is comparable to sunshine but she accepts that passengers might not like the idea of staff seeing them naked.

The agency is trying to find a way to modify the machines with an electronic fig leaf - programming that fuzzes out sensitive body parts or distorts the body.

That's great, so at best you can expect to have your nethers fuzzed out like some junky exposing themselves on cops.

Can we have a new government yet?

Via Stranger Fruit.

Really, Republicans are pathetic. They had their chance, they failed, the people spoke, and they're out.

Now they're retaliating they only way they know how by passive aggressive partisanship. They're promoting an antiquated and grammatically incorrect insult to the Democratic party.

In recent months, media figures, including news reporters at CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, and the Associated Press echoed Republicans by employing the word "Democrat" as an adjective to describe things or people of, or relating to, the Democratic Party -- including referring to the "Democrat" Party itself, even though that is not the party's name. The ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic" -- or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, "to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation."

I'm not impressed. Maybe this is a sign. If this is the best they can do maybe they're destined for a decade of pathetic ineffectual powerlessness like the Democrat party just had.