Look Out: The Ant of All Ants

In other news worthy of rankling those who wonder why evolution isn't happening now, I give you the raspberry ant:

"Look out, Texas Gulf Coast, here comes Paratrechina pubens, or something like that. Tom Rasberry, an exterminator, is said to have discovered the ants in 2002. He offered to lend his name to the pest.

Scientists do not quite know what to call them, they are so new. But folks in the damp coastal belt south of Houston have their own names (some of them printable) for the little invaders now seemingly everywhere: on the move underfoot; infesting woodlands, yards and gardens; nesting in electrical boxes and causing shorts; and even raising anxiety at Hobby Airport and the Johnson Space Center.

The ant is a previously unknown variety with a staggering propensity to reproduce and no known enemies. The species, which bites but does not sting, was first identified here in 2002 by a Pearland exterminator, Tom Rasberry, who quickly lent his name to the find: the crazy rasberry ant."

But it gets even better. How about taking down livestock, and even fire ants:

"“They’re the ant of all ants,” said Dr. Nester, who said they had infested five coastal counties, “and are moving about half a mile a year.” But he said broad areas of Texas and beyond were probably not threatened because the ants preferred the warmth and moistness of the coast.

Variants of the species found in Colombia have been known to asphyxiate chickens and even attack cattle by swarming over their eyes, nasal passages and hooves, according to the Center for Urban and Structural Entomology at Texas A&M, which is conducting much of the research on the ants. It lists some of the findings on its Web site: urbanentomology.tamu.edu/ants/exotic_tx.cfm. The ants often eat fire ants, with which they are sometimes compared, and they “outcompete” fire ants for the food supply and reproduce far faster, Mr. Meyers said. "

They also have multiple queens, and are not attracted to any effective exterminants. Resistence is futile, at least until something evolves an appetite for the little prolific critters. Given their extremely high growth rate, it seems a nice niche to fill.

Selling Obama to Republicans

Here's an interesting article on selling Obama to the Republicans who feel disenfranchised by McCain. The author, a former lifetime and Goldwater Republican, has some good bullet points, and they are fleshed
out in detail in his article. I'll give you the short version:

1) Don't waste time on Democratic cornerstone issues like health care, education, and jobs. Republicans have other priorities.

2) Don't bash Bush. He's not in this election.

3) Do not try to change Republican sensibilities against higher taxes.

4)Obama was cosponser of a bill in the Illinois State Senate that resulted in the largest tax cut in state history. McCain was highly critical of Bush's tax cuts before flipping and supporting them.

5) Despite their rhetoric, the last five Republican presidents have grown government spending considerably, resulting in large deficits. Much of this is due to untrackable pork. Obama has passed legislation to make government spending public and transparent, resulting in this website.

6) Obama is the one that has engaged free market, nongovernmental solutions to problems personally. McCain's wealth comes entirely from the public trough and his heiress wife.

4. McCain defends the intrusive and unconstitutional expansion of executive power that has occurred over the last 8 years.

5. Obama is more willing to attack Al Quaeda wherever they are, whereas McCain is going to continue the policy of leaving them safe in places like Pakistan.

6. McCain, the child of privledge, and having a father who was an admiral, still only finished 894th out of 899 cadets at Annapolis. Obama, the rugged individual, came from a home on food stamps and earned academic scholarships to Harvard, and graduated Magna Cum Laude.

It will be interesting to see how much crossover there is. It is also interesting to see that the Republican party has drifted so far from its conservative roots (as embodied by Jefferson, not Robertson) that a Democrat could actually outscore them on their issues.

The Mainstream Media is Catching onto the ID Scam, DI Fumes

The mainstream press has finally caught onto the ID scam and its underhanded tactics with the phony "academic freedom" bills. Here's a nice article in the Washington Post that pretty much nails it:

"What's insidious about these measures is that at first blush they appear so harmless. Isn't everyone in favor of academic freedom? What's so wrong about allowing all sides of an issue to be heard? Why should teachers be punished for speaking their minds? Those arguments might have standing if there were any doubt about the reality of evolution, but, as an official with the National Academy of Sciences told the Wall Street Journal, 'There's no controversy.' Consider, also, that there really is no such thing as academic freedom in elementary and secondary education. A teacher can't deviate from the accepted curriculum to present alternative lesson plans or to offer his or her own notions. The Florida teachers association opposed the bills, though ostensibly they are meant to benefit educators. Clearly, the strategy is to devise an end run around legal decisions -- going all the way to the Supreme Court -- that restrict the teaching of creationism in public classrooms."

Right on the money. Yet John West of The Discovery Institute, keeps up the con and whines that the Post reporter just wasn't interested in the facts and that it's all just pro-Darwinist spin:

"Predictably, the Post asserts that the academic freedom bills are about “inviting creationism back into the classroom.” Except that they aren’t. In fact, the bills repeatedly and explicitly state that they only protect the presentation of scientific information, and that they don’t authorize the promotion of any religious doctrine."

Of course they don't, because the creationists lost that fight, so now they try to pretend that what they are pushing is the "science of Intelligent Design". Since ID is not religion, they would argue, it can properly be a part of the science curriculum, right next to evolution. And since Intelligent Design is creationism by a different name, dressed up in new legally palatable tux (they hoped), these bills do in fact invite creationism back into the classroom.

"I pointed this out to Ms. Armao in some detail. But it now turns out that the actual language of the bills didn’t matter to Ms. Armao. She already had the line she was going to take, and if the facts didn’t substantiate it, she obviously didn’t care."

Oh but the facts do substantiate it. The fact is that the people promoting these bills are creationists, and the only subject they seem to be concerned about is evolution. The fact is when asked if these bills would allow the discussion of ID in science classes, the backers of these bills are strangely silent. The fact is these people have associated themselves with Ben Stein's Expelled, which argues for Intelligent Design. And as that dying slagheap of a crockumentary, their behavior at the Dover trial, and most any other engagement with the ID crew demonstrates, they are not above misdirection and outright lying to accomplish their goals. If the only evidence you have on your side is your word, and your word has proven worthless, you don't have much of a case.

West is so desperate at being exposed that he even drags out that tired old "700 dissenting scientists against Darwin" canard, which research has revealed exaggerates the academic accomplishments and current positions of the listees, most of which are not educated in biology (the largest group is computer programmers). Further, many of them do not think they should be on the list, and felt very misled, and have actually asked to be removed from the list! And West wonders why "the actual language" the IDers use is not too relevant to people interested in reality.

And in a final indication of just how drained the DI crew is of substance, and revealing their creationist roots the just a few moments ago they were denying, West whines about the reporter being unimpressed by his:

"...list of scientific controversies involving key aspects of biological and chemical evolution, including the origin of the first life, the role of mutations, the limits of natural selection, and the origination of animal body plans during the Cambrian Explosion some 500 million years ago".

That should look familiar. It is a nice summary of all the standard creationist fallacies: how did abiogenesis happen, mutations are bad, selection only destroys, Cambrian creatures appear fully formed. Same old shit.

So far, the creationists have lost the battle of the "Academic Freedom Bills" in Florida, Alabama, and Missouri, with one dying in South Carolina. The wording of these bills is almost identical. Clearly there is a group behind the scenes behind this effort, and it shouldn't take one long to discern who it is. The guilty dog barks the loudest. So does the frustrated defeated one.

Dennis Prager's Gay Marriage Hysteria

We knew the reaction would be hysterical when the California Supreme Court ruled that gays had the right to marry (each other). We knew we'd see irrationality extraordinaire. But even I was amazed at the histrionic, totally out-of-touch reaction from Dennis Prager. If you thought they couldn't get loopier than the contention that the terrorists pose a worse threat to the US than did the Soviet Union, you are in for a bunch of "you ain't seen nothing yet".

The basic problem Prager and the other opponents of gay marriage have is that they think homosexuality is morally wrong, per se. They may sincerely care about the supposed damage it causes, but that does not motivate their position. And they know that doesn't hold water in modern society, so they try to dress up their objections in a rational cloak of pragmatic concern, hoping no one will notice that the core of their complaint is religious, ie, baseless. Their true colors show in their inability to sustain the argument long enough to make a convincing pragmatic case, similar to what happens to them when they attempt to argue against pron. Their arguments all end up amounting to "allowing porn will lead to more porn", as if such an argument is going to move anyone who doesn't think there is something wrong with porn in the first place. This is why they are so utterly unpersuasive, and why they end up sounding as silly as Prager does. Right out of the chutes he's off in his own little world:

"Nothing imaginable -- leftward or rightward -- would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.

Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison."

Imagine for a minute you didn't know what Prager was talking about, and what possibilities you'd entertain as being worthy of such a description. A return to slavery perhaps? Maybe elimination of property rights? The invention of small, affordable, private, flying machines? Finding a cure for old age? But allowing people to marry those with matching naughty bits? Change the society more than removing the income tax or reinstating prohibition? What on earth does Prager think is going to occur? Best not to drink your cokes while you read the earth shattering implications Prager envisions for our future. We'll skip over Prager's projections of the supposed arrogance of those who would tell others what is moral, or his amusing astonishment that we don't consider the religions of antiquity relevant in determining the morality of today. We'll also ignore the common red herring of "compassion", which along with phantom problems with people's feelings, are the favorite straw men trotted out by social conservatives when they don't want to honestly deal with what the other side has to say. No, let's get right into the meat of what horrible consequences await us in a pluralistically oriented marriage society:

"Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming -- to do so would be declared 'heterosexist,' morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman."

Oh, the HORROR! A little girl will be asked who she wants to marry, and she'll say which it is. This is going to cause society to collapse? The rest of those scenarios are typical projection. People like Prager only see the world two ways: him telling you what to do, or you telling him what to do. The notion that people might be left to make their own choices is anathema to him. Thus he can't see that the message of this ruling is that homosexuals can be who they are. There is nothing here about discouraging heterosexuals from being who they are.

"The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality."

Classic non sequitor. Prager acts as if sexuality fixed from birth is necessarily binary, and anything on a continuum must be socially constructed. Of course the evidence supporting any of this, as well as his assertion that allowing homosexual marriage will cause sexual confusion, is a big fat goose egg. He's apparently still under the impression that people can be influenced to be gay.

"Much of humanity -- especially females -- can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction -- until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is 'heterosexism,' a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society."

Yes Dennis, because that forces some people to deny who they are. And notice the subtle circularity we spoke of earlier. WHY is it up to society to turn homos into heteros? No answer of course. God said it, Prager believes it, and that settles it.

"Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law."

Yes Dennis, the same way any advocacy of same-race marriage is regarded as hate speech. Again, the threat that this poses to society is? The damage this does to heterosexual marriages is?

"Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man's finger -- if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now. Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become."

This is complete claptrap. We allow interracial marriages, but there is no boycotting of ring companies showing same-race couples, ditto for films. Prager is simply making shit up here.

"Traditional Jews and Christians -- i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture -- will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it -- a man and a woman."

It's called freedom of religion Dennis, you should try it sometime. Again, the threat this poses for society is what again?

And in case that isn't all absurd enough, Prager goes where even I could imagine he'd go. He actually thinks allowing gay marriage will, well, you just have to read it to believe it:

"Indeed -- and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists -- the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father -- the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will."

While no one is going to claim that the sexes are entirely socially interchangeable, it has been made clear over the last few decades of female equality under the law that many of the differences thought to be intrinsic to men and women turn out to be largely socially constructed. This is not something we needed some California judges to tell us. Prager is lost in a time warp, where only women can be nurturing, and only men can work grimy jobs. And believe it or not, homosexuals have a solid sexual identity as males and females. Allowing homosexual marriage does not magically make us all hermaphrodites.

Now where again is the explanation of what exactly this is going to do to society? How again is it going to so radically change it? Prager has no idea. Every one of his concerns is either 1) a lack of understanding of the difference between allowing something and mandating it, 2) totally dependent on religious assumptions, and 3) based on gross ignorance of the basis of homosexuality and the identities such people have. There is not a shred of science behind anything Prager, or anyone else fighting gay marriage, has to say. They are simply this generation's version of those who resisted the shift from horses to cars, or who thought blacks could never be equal citizens to whites, or that women can't handle the right to vote, or that the slaves couldn't be freed. Time will pass them by, as it did all those groups.

The Empty Arguments Against Gay Marriage Come rolling In

As expected, the ruling in California allowing gay marriage has produced responses from the anti-gay marriage crowd. Unfortunately they consist of the same, tired, inconsistent, question-begging we've come to expect on this issue.

First comes Dinesh D'Souza, arguing, by mere assertion, that the government has a right to mandate who can marry, but not how one should raise one's children. Having dismissed the right to marry who one wants by fiat, he then attacks the ruling's basis, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment:

"In issuing its ruling the California court appealed to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The basic logic is that gays have a right to be treated like everyone else. But just like everyone else, gays do have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex! What gay activists want is something else: the right to marry members of the same sex. This is not a right currently enjoyed by anyone. What these gay activists seek is not equal treatment but rather to change the definition of marriage. "

Interesting. Not so long ago, there were laws forbidding interracial marriage, and it does not take much imagination to see how someone supporting those laws might have argued exactly as D'Souza does:

"The basic logic is that these people in interracial relationships have a right to be treated like everyone else. But just like everyone else, they do have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the same race! What these activists want is something else: the right to marry members of a different race. This is not a right currently enjoyed by anyone. What these activists seek is not equal treatment but rather to change the definition of marriage. "

There is not a dime's difference between the two arguments. All that changes is who's ox is getting gored. D'Souza does get one thing right. This is about changing the legal definition of marriage. However, as the Loving vs Virginia case that ended the laws against interracial marriage illustrates, as well as the laws previous to that in human history that allowed polygamous marriages attest, we have a rich history of changing the rules as it suits our society. D'Souza's argument is either arbitrary, disallowing gay marriage simply because he doesn't care for it, or circular, amounting to arguing that gay marriage should be illegal because the law says it is wrong.

The rest of D'Souza's article is the usual "activist judges going against the will of the people" tripe we've come to expect from the civically challenged right, and is unworthy of further response.

Worse yet is Carol Platt Liebau. In rich irony, Ms. Liebau waxes melancholy about the lack of persuasive arguments from "traditionalists" opposed to gay marriage, while offering none of her own. She lays out a fairly cogent summary of how our society, through medical advances like birth control, and the associated social changes, separated the act of sex from both procreation and marriage. Yet she fails to understand how this negates all the arguments one would make for returning to the good old days. One cannot put the genie back in the bottle, and why would we? Sex is, after all, a wonderful experience. Why should we wish to put it back in the married-only box, insofar as it ever was there. Liebau has no answer.

It certainly isn't this pathetic effort from William Murchison, filled with brillant gems of reasoning like this:

"Marriage it ain't. That's between people of opposite but complementary attributes and physiologies. The merger, so to speak, of those attributes and physiologies is what we call marriage. Flap your arms and attempt to try an aerial passage across the Grand Canyon: You'll have as much luck at that as at same-sex marriage. Can't do it. Period."

In other words, you can't change the definition of marriage because it isn't defined that way. Nice circle Bill.

Liebau is right about one thing. Those opposed to gay marriage are going to have to do a lot better than this. The kinds of arguments proffered by her and D'Souza are the kind that only play to the choir, and that choir is getting smaller every day.

A Real Man? Yeah, maybe in 1808

For the latest evidence of how social conservatives are stuck in a time warp, check out the latest article from John Hawkins. While his general theme is a good one (who can argue that we need less responsibility), his perspective is so warped it is hard not to laugh:

"We human beings are born savages, not much different than highly intelligent wolves. It's only because we have been socialized, civilized, taught better, and bathed in the grace of God that we have the wherewithal to live together respectfully in a civilized society."

I've been over this with Hawkins before. We are naturally social beings, and don't need to be taught not to kill each other and otherwise act civilized. Most of us simply lack the urge to act differently, especially those of us unpolluted with god thoughts. But as outdated as that is, check out this humdinger:

"To begin with, a real man should be able to shoot a gun, catch a fish, hunt, take and throw a punch, know what to do if a tornado or hurricane hits, cook a steak, jump-start a car, change a tire, drive a stick shift, give a firm handshake, read a map, handle a budget, swim, tie a tie, give a 5 minute speech, comfort someone who has just had a loved one die, negotiate a raise or a price on something he's going to buy, and tell a pushy salesman 'no.'"

What year does Hawkins think it is? 1808? While I'm not one to down another person's choice of entertainment, in 2008 that's all shooting, fishing, hunting, and boxing are. In our modern society, they are no more relevant to being a real man than are horsemanship and ableness with a sword. Hunting and fishing went out of style with the invention of grocery stores.

Unfortunately, this attitude is prevalent among social conservatives. They argue as if nothing has changed about society in the last 200 years.

Atheists Need Religion? An Empty Argument

For a good example of just how empty the argument that atheists need religion, check out the recent article from David Stokes, where he teases us into thinking he is going to make some sort of argument, and instead he treats us to two pages of, well, not much of anything, except unanswered questions and baseless assertions. If this is the best the religionists can do, we atheists have little to fear.

After prattling on about Thomas Beckett for no apparent reason, he hits us with this nice little assertion:

"Freedom of religion is a very good thing. Freedom FROM religion, though promoted by some as the wave of the future, is not."

This is a common refrain among those who favor more religious meddling in state affairs, but they never defend it with reason or evidence, and such is the case here. The argument is obviously logically flawed at its core: in order for me to have religious freedom, I must be free from all religions that don't suit me. Thus, if I am an atheist, I must be free from religion, period. The 1st amendment was created to give us freedom of conscience in religious matters. It was not to say we have freedom of religion, so long as we pick one. That would put our religious freedom on the same level as the bartender in The Blues Brothers who, when asked what sort of music they played there, responded with "We've got both kinds. We've got country, and western."

Stokes obviously disagrees. His evidence? France's revolution was more violent than ours, and ended with the Despotism of Napoleon. No, I'm not kidding. This is his idea of a case study. OK David, let me give you another case study. Which part of the world has been more violent, both with enemies abroad and perceived enemies within, the religious states of the middle East, and the US, or the relatively secular states of Europe? The answer is obvious. So if we have a dramatic and broad general difference between religious and nonreligious states right now, why on earth would Stokes run back to the 18th century for evidence to bolster his case?

First, his case is so absurd he had to go back that far to find anything that looked to support him. Second, just like the scientific cranks, it is a lot easier to make shit up going way back in history, where the average reader may not have the knowledge or initiative to get it, to understand how flawed your argument is. It is easier to lie about ancient France than modern France because the ancient French are dead and cannot defend themselves. One should always be wary of someone making an argument who goes way back in history for his evidence when evidence in the here and now should be abundant. You are being conned.

Stokes' next assertion is the old no-morals-without-religion canard:

"Anti-theists notwithstanding, we need religion as part of the glue that holds civilized society together."

Yes, except that most of the modern world lacks that glue, and yet has civilizations that are, in some ways, more together than we are. They are certainly more together than the religious nations of the middle east. How does Stokes explain this? He can't, which is why he doesn't bring them up. The basic problem with the argument above is that it conflates religion with ethics and morals, and they are not the same thing at all. As most of the modern world shows us daily, people can be moral and irreligious. Some of us even find that easier than the pious morality Stokes would have us embrace.

"Yes, there are some predominately secular nations in Europe functioning as democracies. But they tend to have that socialist quirk that makes the state itself a religion. Let’s see how it looks over there in twenty-five years."

Socialist quirks make the state a religion? I'm sure the people in Germany, France, and Sweden would be shocked, if not bemused, to hear that having more state services than the US makes their government their religion. Needless to say, this assertion by Stokes is self-serving nonsense, without a shred of supporting evidence. His 25-year parting shot makes that clear. He knows his case doesn't hold now, so he's going to substitute speculation of the state of those nations in 25 years for real evidence of their supposedly sorry state now. In other words, he's making shit up...again.

Within that discussion he also made an assertion that had me sitting bolt upright in my chair:

"when religion and the state are “one” tyranny can happen. No thinking non-Muslim religionist wants that kind of thing for America."

They don't? Where was Stokes when Mike Huckabee was saying to cheering crowd that the constitution needs to be changed to be more like the Bible? Has he missed all the battles over science education in this country where religionists are trying to get the state to teach their creation myths (however politically disguised) as science? Is he not aware of all the battles over abortion, stem cell research, and same sex marriage, in which one side draws their argumentation entirely from religion?

Now if Stokes wants to dismiss all those people as "nonthinking", I won't argue the point. But the argument that there is no drive to turn the US into a theocracy by a large segment of the populace is simply ignorant of what is going on. The argument that religion makes for a more peaceful open society is absurd on its face, and contradicted by essentially the entire modern world. That Stokes has to keep going back to ancient history to make his case proves he has none. That he quotes John Adams, as if his opinion means anything in the modern world, reveals that his is an authoritarian view, rather than a scientific, evidence-based one. If the last 200 years have proved anything, it is that the latter is far better at getting at the truth.