Meet Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.
So, Haley Barbour caused the hurricane by writing an anti-global warming memo in 2001. I think we've set a new high water-mark (sorry, couldn't resist) for the phrase "poison pen".
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Wingnuts to the right
Meet John J. Tierney Jr.
The author said he has "grave, grave problems with the conduct of the operation in Iraq" and wouldn't want to see his 20-year-old son go there. But he said it is "automatic" that anybody who joins a protest by one of the offending groups is supporting communists.
The war may have grave, grave problems, and I wouldn't send my son, but anyone who protests is a commie. Nice!
The author said he has "grave, grave problems with the conduct of the operation in Iraq" and wouldn't want to see his 20-year-old son go there. But he said it is "automatic" that anybody who joins a protest by one of the offending groups is supporting communists.
The war may have grave, grave problems, and I wouldn't send my son, but anyone who protests is a commie. Nice!
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Richard Sternberg & ID
Caught this guy on O'Reilly tonight. He was the editor of a biological journal that published a paper by Stephen Meyer on "Intelligent Design". Sternberg was claiming he's been subject to tremendous harassment by the scientific community for publishing this supposedly peer reviewed paper. O'Reilly was only too happy to jump in and claim the usual claptrap about the secularist scientific community being intolerant of any dissent.
Or maybe, it's just really, really bad science! Real scientists tend to be against that, too. The always reliable Panda's Thumb has the full dissection of the merits of Meyer's paper.
They also point out that Sternberg has a creationist background, and the topic of the paper itself is well outside the normal area of study and review of this particular publication. That in itself lends suspicion to the idea that this paper was seriously peer reviewed, as Sternberg claimed. O'Reilly didn't mention either of these facts.
The thing is, if you want to compete in the real science world, you have to actually do real science - serious peer review, testing of hypothesis that can be independently verified, that sort of thing. If the IDers actually had some real science, maybe they'd be taken seriously by real scientists, and not have to play their cards via politicians, and on "the factor".
The conclusion of the article says it best:
"There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom - continuing challenge is a core feature of science. But challengers should at least be aware of, read, cite, and specifically rebut the actual data that supports conventional wisdom, not merely construct a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations. Unless and until the "?intelligent design"? movement does this, they are not seriously in the game. They'?re not even playing the same sport."
UPDATE: Excellent Analysis of the O'Reilly segment over at evolutionblog.
Or maybe, it's just really, really bad science! Real scientists tend to be against that, too. The always reliable Panda's Thumb has the full dissection of the merits of Meyer's paper.
They also point out that Sternberg has a creationist background, and the topic of the paper itself is well outside the normal area of study and review of this particular publication. That in itself lends suspicion to the idea that this paper was seriously peer reviewed, as Sternberg claimed. O'Reilly didn't mention either of these facts.
The thing is, if you want to compete in the real science world, you have to actually do real science - serious peer review, testing of hypothesis that can be independently verified, that sort of thing. If the IDers actually had some real science, maybe they'd be taken seriously by real scientists, and not have to play their cards via politicians, and on "the factor".
The conclusion of the article says it best:
"There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom - continuing challenge is a core feature of science. But challengers should at least be aware of, read, cite, and specifically rebut the actual data that supports conventional wisdom, not merely construct a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations. Unless and until the "?intelligent design"? movement does this, they are not seriously in the game. They'?re not even playing the same sport."
UPDATE: Excellent Analysis of the O'Reilly segment over at evolutionblog.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
More Anti-Evolutionists
Yes, it's true, you can be a moonbat anti-evolutionist without being a christian fundamentalist! I give you new age whackjob Deepak Chopra, and an appropriate fisking by pharyngula.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Why Cindy Sheehan Matters
I don't know why it isn't obvious that it isn't actually about her. Ultimately, it doesn’t actually matter whether the president meets with her or not. And no reasonable person thinks Cindy Sheehan should set US foreign policy. She’s not running for any office. So, it’s irrelevant whether or not she’s a crackpot or a partisan or anything else. The Ad Hominem attacks upon her are senseless. The death of her son simply gives her standing to ask the questions many are asking.
The point is that the president must explain to Cindy Sheehan and all Americans why our continued expenditure of American blood and treasure makes sense, and when it will end. She is a symbol for the majority of Americans who no longer think the war was worth it, and don’t think the current Iraq policy is succeeding.
And there are many questions.
Why does it not make sense to set a deadline to pull out troops?
If it takes 5 or 10 or 20 years for Iraq to have a military that can defend itself, does that mean Americans will be there, in force, taking casualties day after day, for decades? No one believes that will happen. So clearly there is a limit to what we as a nation are willing to invest in this war. At some point, we have to get out. That’s no secret to the insurgency, either. It’s silly to pretend that setting a deadline will somehow help the insurgents "wait it out". And it’s a reasonable argument that our continued occupation creates more insurgents than we are killing.
More questions:
What evidence is there that this war has made us safer?
What evidence is there that conditions are improving in Iraq?
What are the real numbers of trained Iraqi troops who can replace US soldiers?
I think Senator Russ Feingold has it exactly right, calling for a removal of US troops from Iraq by December, 2006. If the new Iraqi government can’t stand up and defend itself by then, it’s hard to imagine that they ever will.
I want to believe that we still can succeed, and at least leave behind a stable Iraqi government that is no threat to (1) us, and (2) it’s neighbors. If it is a theocracy, so be it, as long as we can achieve the other two goals. It doesn’t matter if they don’t support same sex civil unions. At this point, we can’t even be concerned if women have the right to vote. Unfortunately, that falls in the category of “nice to have”, but not necessary to stop us from getting out of there.
But I fear that we’ve bungled this war beyond hope of saving Iraq from an inevitable civil war 10 minutes after the last US soldier leaves. I truly hope I’m wrong.
President Roosevelt had weekly fireside chats throughout WWII explaining in detail what was happening in the war, and what it meant to our security. President Bush needs to tell us what is happening, and when we are exiting. He should sell this war as hard as he tried to sell Social Security reform. “It’s hard work” and “We’re making progress” just don’t cut it.
The point is that the president must explain to Cindy Sheehan and all Americans why our continued expenditure of American blood and treasure makes sense, and when it will end. She is a symbol for the majority of Americans who no longer think the war was worth it, and don’t think the current Iraq policy is succeeding.
And there are many questions.
Why does it not make sense to set a deadline to pull out troops?
If it takes 5 or 10 or 20 years for Iraq to have a military that can defend itself, does that mean Americans will be there, in force, taking casualties day after day, for decades? No one believes that will happen. So clearly there is a limit to what we as a nation are willing to invest in this war. At some point, we have to get out. That’s no secret to the insurgency, either. It’s silly to pretend that setting a deadline will somehow help the insurgents "wait it out". And it’s a reasonable argument that our continued occupation creates more insurgents than we are killing.
More questions:
What evidence is there that this war has made us safer?
What evidence is there that conditions are improving in Iraq?
What are the real numbers of trained Iraqi troops who can replace US soldiers?
I think Senator Russ Feingold has it exactly right, calling for a removal of US troops from Iraq by December, 2006. If the new Iraqi government can’t stand up and defend itself by then, it’s hard to imagine that they ever will.
I want to believe that we still can succeed, and at least leave behind a stable Iraqi government that is no threat to (1) us, and (2) it’s neighbors. If it is a theocracy, so be it, as long as we can achieve the other two goals. It doesn’t matter if they don’t support same sex civil unions. At this point, we can’t even be concerned if women have the right to vote. Unfortunately, that falls in the category of “nice to have”, but not necessary to stop us from getting out of there.
But I fear that we’ve bungled this war beyond hope of saving Iraq from an inevitable civil war 10 minutes after the last US soldier leaves. I truly hope I’m wrong.
President Roosevelt had weekly fireside chats throughout WWII explaining in detail what was happening in the war, and what it meant to our security. President Bush needs to tell us what is happening, and when we are exiting. He should sell this war as hard as he tried to sell Social Security reform. “It’s hard work” and “We’re making progress” just don’t cut it.
Republican War on Science
Today brings us the news that Senator Frist agrees with President Bush that we should teach intelligent Design alongside of evolution in science classes.
This issue is nothing less than a threat to the future economic leadership of this country. The Chinese sure aren't teaching their kids that evolution is "just a theory, not a fact". They're studying hard to become the new generation of top scientists developing the technological breakthroughs that will define the 21st century, while we squabble over the absurd politization of what makes scientific theory.
This false ideological war is insane on many levels. It's simply completely unnecessary for there to be any conflict between religion and evolution. The mysteries of the origins of the universe will probably never be addressed by science. It's a topic that science is ill-equipped to test, and can easily be left to philosophers and religious scholars.
Meanwhile, this so-called conflict between science and religion sets up a situation where bright people who happen to be christians will be dissuaded from studying biology and science, fearing it is somehow against their religious teachings. We have too few scientists already, and cannot afford to fall behind in the global marketplace of scientific innovation.
I'm looking forward to reading the new book, the Republican War on Science for more depressing details, on this, the most ideologically anti-science administration ever.
This issue is nothing less than a threat to the future economic leadership of this country. The Chinese sure aren't teaching their kids that evolution is "just a theory, not a fact". They're studying hard to become the new generation of top scientists developing the technological breakthroughs that will define the 21st century, while we squabble over the absurd politization of what makes scientific theory.
This false ideological war is insane on many levels. It's simply completely unnecessary for there to be any conflict between religion and evolution. The mysteries of the origins of the universe will probably never be addressed by science. It's a topic that science is ill-equipped to test, and can easily be left to philosophers and religious scholars.
Meanwhile, this so-called conflict between science and religion sets up a situation where bright people who happen to be christians will be dissuaded from studying biology and science, fearing it is somehow against their religious teachings. We have too few scientists already, and cannot afford to fall behind in the global marketplace of scientific innovation.
I'm looking forward to reading the new book, the Republican War on Science for more depressing details, on this, the most ideologically anti-science administration ever.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
My New Favorite Rush Limbaugh quote
"Wouldn't it be great if anybody who speaks out against this country, to kick them out of the country? Anybody that threatens this country, kick 'em out. We'd get rid of Michael Moore, we'd get rid of half the Democratic Party if we would just import that law. That would be fabulous. The Supreme Court ought to look into this. Absolutely brilliant idea out there."
Such a great idea, I can't believe the founding fathers blew that one.
Such a great idea, I can't believe the founding fathers blew that one.
Friday, August 05, 2005
Washington Post Slams President's Support of "Intelligent Design"
Choice excerpts:
"FOR MORE THAN 30 years, the conservative movement in America has been doing battle with the forces of relativism, the Â?do your own thingÂ? philosophy that eschews objective truth and instead sees all beliefs and all personal choices as equally valid. Instead, philosophically minded American conservatives have argued that there is such a thing as objectivity and that some beliefs really are better, truer or more accurate than others. Given this history, it seems appropriate to ask: Is President Bush really a conservative?"
"But the proponents of intelligent design are not content with participating in a philosophical or religious debate. They want their theory to be accepted as science and to be taught in ninth-grade biology classes, alongside the theory of evolution. For that, there is no basis whatsoever: The nature of the "evidence"? for the theory of evolution is so overwhelming, and so powerful, that it informs all of modern biology. To pretend that the existence of evolution is somehow still an open question, or that it is one of several equally valid theories, is to misunderstand the intellectual and scientific history of the past century."
"FOR MORE THAN 30 years, the conservative movement in America has been doing battle with the forces of relativism, the Â?do your own thingÂ? philosophy that eschews objective truth and instead sees all beliefs and all personal choices as equally valid. Instead, philosophically minded American conservatives have argued that there is such a thing as objectivity and that some beliefs really are better, truer or more accurate than others. Given this history, it seems appropriate to ask: Is President Bush really a conservative?"
"But the proponents of intelligent design are not content with participating in a philosophical or religious debate. They want their theory to be accepted as science and to be taught in ninth-grade biology classes, alongside the theory of evolution. For that, there is no basis whatsoever: The nature of the "evidence"? for the theory of evolution is so overwhelming, and so powerful, that it informs all of modern biology. To pretend that the existence of evolution is somehow still an open question, or that it is one of several equally valid theories, is to misunderstand the intellectual and scientific history of the past century."
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Disturbing Account of Iraqi Security Forces
This article/editorial suggests the thoroughly depressing idea that the security forces being trained to take over in Iraq are largely loyal to the religious leaders, and are eager to enforce religious law over any emerging secular/national/constitutional government.
The epilogue to the story is that the reporter was killed days after the article appeared.
The epilogue to the story is that the reporter was killed days after the article appeared.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)