In more inspirational news, many cities are offering financial incentives for their citizens to "go green. Low flow toilets, low-flow shower heads, more efficient lighting, hybrid cars, less environmentally demanding lawns, and of course installing solar panels on one's home could all earn you some cash, depending on where you live.
I applaud the politicians of those cities for these efforts, and ask them to do more. Telecommuting is far more technologically possible than one might glean from observing businesses. There should be incentives to have more employees telecommute. Those that can't ought to be encouraged to car pool, and highway expansions ought to be a much higher percentage of HOV lanes. What a statement about our society and traveling habits that in America, "high occupancy" means "more than one person". Get rid of those concrete barriers that prevent shoppers from driving between store parking lots and force them to drive halfway around the block. Up the ante on the requirements on drive-thrus.
Of course there is a ton we can all do to be more green with our lives, and much of it doesn't cost us anything but a little effort and awareness? When did it become necessary in America for everything to be triple packaged? I buy an item on Amazon and it shows up in a sealed box in a sealed box. Stop that crap. We buy a bag of bread on put it in a bag. We drive to the mailbox. We take an item that is free, water, and package it in plastic bottles we use up by the millions each year. We have disposable cameras.
Government can only do so much with an issue like this. In the end, real change will only come with a change in the culture. When climbing mountains in remote areas of the US, there is a culture of preservation among climbers. "Pack it in, pack it out" is the standard, and most keep it, to the benefit of all. We don't need litter cops out there enforcing the rules. We like the results, that is enough motivation. Humanity needs a similar attitude about the planet, and the need becomes more acute as more and more of us come to be.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
Hooray for Terri Irwin
In the spirit of science, Terri Irwin, widow of Crocodile Hunter Steve Irvin, has challenged the argument by the Japanese that their whaling is necessary for scientific research, in the most direct way possible: getting a group together herself to go demonstrate that the research can be done without killing the whales.
"The widow of TV "Crocodile Hunter" Steve Irwin announced Thursday she will launch non-lethal research of whales in Antarctic waters next year in hopes of showing that Japan's scientific whale kill is a sham.
Tokyo has staunchly defended its annual cull of more than 1,000 whales as crucial for research, saying it is necessary to kill the whales to properly gather information about their eating, breeding and migratory habits.
Environmentalists and anti-whaling nations say the slaughter is commercial whaling in disguise, because much of the meat from the whales ends up being sold commercially.
Japan had planned to kill up to 50 endangered humpback whales this season, but backed away from the plan in the face of strong international condemnation.
Japan had planned to kill up to 50 endangered humpback whales this season, but backed away from the plan in the face of strong international condemnation.
'We are determined to show the Japanese they can stop all whaling, not just humpbacks,' Irwin said."
Terri ought to be saluted for her efforts. Those efforts also should be considered by stark contrast to the behavior, or lack thereof, from various groups skeptical of mainstream science. Whether they are denying relativity, evolution, global warming or heliocentrism, the pattern is the same: all rhetoric, no research, and no competing theories. Way to show them how it's done Terri.
"The widow of TV "Crocodile Hunter" Steve Irwin announced Thursday she will launch non-lethal research of whales in Antarctic waters next year in hopes of showing that Japan's scientific whale kill is a sham.
Tokyo has staunchly defended its annual cull of more than 1,000 whales as crucial for research, saying it is necessary to kill the whales to properly gather information about their eating, breeding and migratory habits.
Environmentalists and anti-whaling nations say the slaughter is commercial whaling in disguise, because much of the meat from the whales ends up being sold commercially.
Japan had planned to kill up to 50 endangered humpback whales this season, but backed away from the plan in the face of strong international condemnation.
Japan had planned to kill up to 50 endangered humpback whales this season, but backed away from the plan in the face of strong international condemnation.
'We are determined to show the Japanese they can stop all whaling, not just humpbacks,' Irwin said."
Terri ought to be saluted for her efforts. Those efforts also should be considered by stark contrast to the behavior, or lack thereof, from various groups skeptical of mainstream science. Whether they are denying relativity, evolution, global warming or heliocentrism, the pattern is the same: all rhetoric, no research, and no competing theories. Way to show them how it's done Terri.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The Beast Most Loathsome of 2007
The Beast 50 Most Loathsome of 2007 is out, and is good for many a belly laugh as rich and poor, Republican and Democrat are skewered mercilously and colorfully. Some of my favorites are below. Pay special attention to #9:
"43. Sherri Shepherd
Charges: Perfectly illustrated the Creationist's level of intellect when she declared her disbelief in evolution, and was immediately stumped about the shape of the earth, explaining her ignorance was due to the fact that she was too busy feeding her children to acquire rudimentary knowledge about... well, about anything, presumably. Further compounded her astonishing lack of basic knowledge when she authoritatively declared that Jesus Christ came before the ancient Greeks, and that she didn't think "anything predated Christians." Judging by these statements, Sherri probably thinks there are dragons on the other side of her desk.
Exhibit A: Accurately reflects the intelligence of her viewing audience.
Sentence: Pushed off the edge of the earth.
29. Dinesh D'Souza
Charges: Wrote a book blaming 9/11 on -- who else? -- liberals, because if we didn't live in a free society, then fundamentalists wouldn't dislike us so. Even conservative nuts blasted D'Souza's empathy for poor al Qaeda. Lately, he's been engaging prominent atheists in debates, revealing himself to be a pseudointellectual ass, and then declaring victory. D'Souza's master plan for attacking atheism is the ridiculous Pascal's wager: Atheists could be wrong, and then they'd go to hell, but if the religious are wrong, then they suffer no ill effect -- aside from living their lives in delusion, of course. And possibly going to someone else's hell for believing the wrong religion. D'Souza seems to think that if he speaks more loudly and rapidly than his opponent, he is winning, but his arguments are weak and idiotic, and he never even attempts to truly debate the existence of any god, which is the ostensible point of these debates. Instead, he likes to compare body counts -- Stalin and Mao killed more than the religious leaders of their time -- rather than actually debate whether there is a God, or for that matter a Jesus. This, of course, is because there is no case to be made.
Exhibit A: "[Atheists] are God-haters... I don't believe in unicorns, but then I haven't written any books called The End of Unicorns, Unicorns are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion." But what if everyone you met did believe in unicorns, and not only that, but worshiped a unicorn, held a book about unicorns to be the divine truth of the universe, invoked unicorns in political contexts, and speechified about how non-believers were indecent people waging a war on morality, which could only be predicated on the unquestioning belief in unicorns? Then, maybe, D'Souza would think about writing that book. But of course, that's not really true, because if that was the world we lived in, then Dinesh D'Souza would believe in unicorns.
Sentence: Spanish inquisition.
27. Britney Spears
Charges: Never was talented; now she's not even pretty. Look, it's okay to say someone's getting chunky when the only reason she was ever famous was her ability to make people horny. Let's face it: fat Britney don't sell units. In the end, it doesn't bother us that Britney is human wreckage, what bothers us is that she is always, always on television being wreckage. What the hell is with this media trend of hounding the sickly until they finally expire? It's not interesting; it's not informative; what it is is a sick shot in the arm for people who hate themselves and revel in the misfortune of others -- and, ahem, that's just not our thing. We don't care if she shaves her head, or shows her snatch, or turns up in a dumpster. It's just too easy to kick this rapidly frumping swamp slut while she's on the nod and not even pretending to care that her kids are being taken from her. In the immortal words of that fucked up youtube queen, Leave Britney alone!
Exhibit A: And this goes for all you fucked up superstar bimbos: You're rich, bitch! Get a fucking driver! Then you can knock back all the oxy you want and wash it down with Grey Goose, and nobody will arrest you. Get it? Sheesh!
Sentence: Obscurity, children returned.
23. Bill O'Reilly
Charges: If judgmentalism were sugar, anyone in the same city as this paragon of intellectual overconfidence would lose their teeth within five minutes. O'Reilly is everything that's wrong with America: Won't ever admit he was wrong about anything (and will lie repeatedly rather than correct himself), accuses all who disagree with him of treason or insanity, attacks all who criticize him, and glories in his own troglodytic bluster. Anoints himself an authority on morals, despite common knowledge that he is a sexual harasser. Pretends to be an "independent" who just happens to look, sound, and act exactly like a Republican. Hasn't engaged in a valid exchange of ideas in his entire career, because he knows he'd be crushed in seconds by an average college freshman. O'Reilly wins by interrupting, shouting, and if all else fails, cutting off his opponent's microphone. A tiny, scared child of a man.
Exhibit A: "And this is what white America doesn't know, particularly people who don't have a lot of interaction with black Americans. They think that the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris, and Snoop Dogg." Gee Bill, where would they get that idea?
Sentence: Marinated, barbecued, and served at Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem, where the blacks eat just like real people.
14. Glenn Beck
Crimes: If Fox News isn't quite asinine enough for you, just click on over to Headline News, where the CNN brand is eagerly defiling its vestigial credibility by giving an hour a day to the dumbest dumbfuck in dumbfuckistan, Glenn Beck. A white-knuckle, dry drunk, closet case man-child with apparent xenophobia issues and a penchant for end-times theology, Mormon convert Beck is palpably horny for the apocalypse, passive-aggressively accusing even the world's most benign Muslims of plotting America's destruction and likening withdrawal from Iraq to slavery. Beck's combination of faux everyman persona and deliberate misinformation -- The hottest year on record was 1934 (actually 2005), tax cuts increase revenue (patently false Reaganomic mysticism), Antarctica is cooling, Scooter Libby went to jail -- seems increasingly insane, as his whole persona seems to be a frantic pantomime of how he thinks an even-keeled, "smart" bigot would act. Thinks Al gore is "like Hitler." May actually be in love with the president of Iran.
Exhibit A: "I don't know if the Muslim community will ever step to the plate like the Japanese-American community did during World War II. You know, it was absolutely disgraceful how we rounded innocent people up then and, sadly, history has a way of repeating itself no matter how grotesque that history might be. The Muslim community can prevent this if they act now."
Sentence: Anchored to the Florida shore, Beck is forcibly compelled to vigorously deny the gradual rise of water levels around him as boats full of gay, Marxist Muslim illegal immigrants arrive and disembark nearby. Eventually, after two decades, Beck drowns.
13. Anne Coulter
Charges: A skeletal freak who hates the world and lives to anger people into buying her books. Says Jews need to be "perfected," as if Christians are in better shape. Is against her own right to vote. Called John Edwards a faggot, when really he's just a little swishy. Is about as sexy as a preying mantis. If Coulter were a man, she'd never be allowed on TV.
Exhibit A: "Faggot isn't offensive to gays; it's got nothing to do with gays."
Sentence: Forced marriage to Osama bin Laden.
9. You
Charges: You believe in freedom of speech, until someone says something that offends you. You suddenly give a damn about border integrity, because the automated voice system at your pharmacy asked you to press 9 for Spanish. You cling to every scrap of bullshit you can find to support your ludicrous belief system, and reject all empirical evidence to the contrary. You know the difference between patriotism and nationalism -- it's nationalism when foreigners do it. You hate anyone who seems smarter than you. You care more about zygotes than actual people. You love to blame people for their misfortunes, even if it means screwing yourself over. You still think Republicans favor limited government. Your knowledge of politics and government are dwarfed by your concern for Britney Spears' children. You think buying Chinese goods stimulates our economy. You think you're going to get universal health care. You tolerate the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques." You think the government is actually trying to improve education. You think watching CNN makes you smarter. You think two parties is enough. You can't spell. You think $9 trillion in debt is manageable. You believe in an afterlife for the sole reason that you don't want to die. You think lowering taxes raises revenue. You think the economy's doing well. You're an idiot.
Exhibit A: You couldn't get enough Anna Nicole Smith coverage.
Sentence: A gradual decline into abject poverty as you continue to vote against your own self-interest. Death by an easily treated disorder that your health insurance doesn't cover. You deserve it, chump.
5. Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid
Charges: Graduates of the Neville Chamberlain school of appeasement, the Democratic leadership continues to ignore the constitution-and the American people-by keeping impeachment "off the table" and refusing to defund the war. True pushovers, they're too stupid, cowardly, weak and outmatched politically to accomplish anything substantive, their "strategy" essentially boiling down to whining a lot while handing Bush whatever the hell he wants. There is just no way that appearing this weak and ineffectual could be any better for them politically than impeachment. Everything that the White House gets away with, it gets away with because congress allows it.
Exhibit A: Failure to woo the two thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto is moot: They could defund the war with a 41-senator budgetary filibuster. But that would take guts and conviction.
Sentence: 2 cups anthrax bisque.
4. Seung-Hui Cho
Charges: A useless fucking nerd who shot a bunch of better people because he couldn't get laid. Take note, all you pent-up losers out there: If you think you're about to go on a murderous rampage, either take up a drug habit, find a hooker, or just kill yourself. Your inability to cope with a comfortable life in a developed nation is nobody else's fault, except maybe your parents. Nothing says "I have a tiny penis" like a douchebag taking pictures of himself with a gun.
Exhibit A: Cho's infamous "disturbing" stories are only disturbing in how completely terrible they are, but now every kid with an imagination is going to be hauled off to the nuthouse if he expresses himself.
Sentence: Used as kindling at bonfire kegger for rich, popular kids."
Hat tip Stranger Fruit
"43. Sherri Shepherd
Charges: Perfectly illustrated the Creationist's level of intellect when she declared her disbelief in evolution, and was immediately stumped about the shape of the earth, explaining her ignorance was due to the fact that she was too busy feeding her children to acquire rudimentary knowledge about... well, about anything, presumably. Further compounded her astonishing lack of basic knowledge when she authoritatively declared that Jesus Christ came before the ancient Greeks, and that she didn't think "anything predated Christians." Judging by these statements, Sherri probably thinks there are dragons on the other side of her desk.
Exhibit A: Accurately reflects the intelligence of her viewing audience.
Sentence: Pushed off the edge of the earth.
29. Dinesh D'Souza
Charges: Wrote a book blaming 9/11 on -- who else? -- liberals, because if we didn't live in a free society, then fundamentalists wouldn't dislike us so. Even conservative nuts blasted D'Souza's empathy for poor al Qaeda. Lately, he's been engaging prominent atheists in debates, revealing himself to be a pseudointellectual ass, and then declaring victory. D'Souza's master plan for attacking atheism is the ridiculous Pascal's wager: Atheists could be wrong, and then they'd go to hell, but if the religious are wrong, then they suffer no ill effect -- aside from living their lives in delusion, of course. And possibly going to someone else's hell for believing the wrong religion. D'Souza seems to think that if he speaks more loudly and rapidly than his opponent, he is winning, but his arguments are weak and idiotic, and he never even attempts to truly debate the existence of any god, which is the ostensible point of these debates. Instead, he likes to compare body counts -- Stalin and Mao killed more than the religious leaders of their time -- rather than actually debate whether there is a God, or for that matter a Jesus. This, of course, is because there is no case to be made.
Exhibit A: "[Atheists] are God-haters... I don't believe in unicorns, but then I haven't written any books called The End of Unicorns, Unicorns are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion." But what if everyone you met did believe in unicorns, and not only that, but worshiped a unicorn, held a book about unicorns to be the divine truth of the universe, invoked unicorns in political contexts, and speechified about how non-believers were indecent people waging a war on morality, which could only be predicated on the unquestioning belief in unicorns? Then, maybe, D'Souza would think about writing that book. But of course, that's not really true, because if that was the world we lived in, then Dinesh D'Souza would believe in unicorns.
Sentence: Spanish inquisition.
27. Britney Spears
Charges: Never was talented; now she's not even pretty. Look, it's okay to say someone's getting chunky when the only reason she was ever famous was her ability to make people horny. Let's face it: fat Britney don't sell units. In the end, it doesn't bother us that Britney is human wreckage, what bothers us is that she is always, always on television being wreckage. What the hell is with this media trend of hounding the sickly until they finally expire? It's not interesting; it's not informative; what it is is a sick shot in the arm for people who hate themselves and revel in the misfortune of others -- and, ahem, that's just not our thing. We don't care if she shaves her head, or shows her snatch, or turns up in a dumpster. It's just too easy to kick this rapidly frumping swamp slut while she's on the nod and not even pretending to care that her kids are being taken from her. In the immortal words of that fucked up youtube queen, Leave Britney alone!
Exhibit A: And this goes for all you fucked up superstar bimbos: You're rich, bitch! Get a fucking driver! Then you can knock back all the oxy you want and wash it down with Grey Goose, and nobody will arrest you. Get it? Sheesh!
Sentence: Obscurity, children returned.
23. Bill O'Reilly
Charges: If judgmentalism were sugar, anyone in the same city as this paragon of intellectual overconfidence would lose their teeth within five minutes. O'Reilly is everything that's wrong with America: Won't ever admit he was wrong about anything (and will lie repeatedly rather than correct himself), accuses all who disagree with him of treason or insanity, attacks all who criticize him, and glories in his own troglodytic bluster. Anoints himself an authority on morals, despite common knowledge that he is a sexual harasser. Pretends to be an "independent" who just happens to look, sound, and act exactly like a Republican. Hasn't engaged in a valid exchange of ideas in his entire career, because he knows he'd be crushed in seconds by an average college freshman. O'Reilly wins by interrupting, shouting, and if all else fails, cutting off his opponent's microphone. A tiny, scared child of a man.
Exhibit A: "And this is what white America doesn't know, particularly people who don't have a lot of interaction with black Americans. They think that the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris, and Snoop Dogg." Gee Bill, where would they get that idea?
Sentence: Marinated, barbecued, and served at Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem, where the blacks eat just like real people.
14. Glenn Beck
Crimes: If Fox News isn't quite asinine enough for you, just click on over to Headline News, where the CNN brand is eagerly defiling its vestigial credibility by giving an hour a day to the dumbest dumbfuck in dumbfuckistan, Glenn Beck. A white-knuckle, dry drunk, closet case man-child with apparent xenophobia issues and a penchant for end-times theology, Mormon convert Beck is palpably horny for the apocalypse, passive-aggressively accusing even the world's most benign Muslims of plotting America's destruction and likening withdrawal from Iraq to slavery. Beck's combination of faux everyman persona and deliberate misinformation -- The hottest year on record was 1934 (actually 2005), tax cuts increase revenue (patently false Reaganomic mysticism), Antarctica is cooling, Scooter Libby went to jail -- seems increasingly insane, as his whole persona seems to be a frantic pantomime of how he thinks an even-keeled, "smart" bigot would act. Thinks Al gore is "like Hitler." May actually be in love with the president of Iran.
Exhibit A: "I don't know if the Muslim community will ever step to the plate like the Japanese-American community did during World War II. You know, it was absolutely disgraceful how we rounded innocent people up then and, sadly, history has a way of repeating itself no matter how grotesque that history might be. The Muslim community can prevent this if they act now."
Sentence: Anchored to the Florida shore, Beck is forcibly compelled to vigorously deny the gradual rise of water levels around him as boats full of gay, Marxist Muslim illegal immigrants arrive and disembark nearby. Eventually, after two decades, Beck drowns.
13. Anne Coulter
Charges: A skeletal freak who hates the world and lives to anger people into buying her books. Says Jews need to be "perfected," as if Christians are in better shape. Is against her own right to vote. Called John Edwards a faggot, when really he's just a little swishy. Is about as sexy as a preying mantis. If Coulter were a man, she'd never be allowed on TV.
Exhibit A: "Faggot isn't offensive to gays; it's got nothing to do with gays."
Sentence: Forced marriage to Osama bin Laden.
9. You
Charges: You believe in freedom of speech, until someone says something that offends you. You suddenly give a damn about border integrity, because the automated voice system at your pharmacy asked you to press 9 for Spanish. You cling to every scrap of bullshit you can find to support your ludicrous belief system, and reject all empirical evidence to the contrary. You know the difference between patriotism and nationalism -- it's nationalism when foreigners do it. You hate anyone who seems smarter than you. You care more about zygotes than actual people. You love to blame people for their misfortunes, even if it means screwing yourself over. You still think Republicans favor limited government. Your knowledge of politics and government are dwarfed by your concern for Britney Spears' children. You think buying Chinese goods stimulates our economy. You think you're going to get universal health care. You tolerate the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques." You think the government is actually trying to improve education. You think watching CNN makes you smarter. You think two parties is enough. You can't spell. You think $9 trillion in debt is manageable. You believe in an afterlife for the sole reason that you don't want to die. You think lowering taxes raises revenue. You think the economy's doing well. You're an idiot.
Exhibit A: You couldn't get enough Anna Nicole Smith coverage.
Sentence: A gradual decline into abject poverty as you continue to vote against your own self-interest. Death by an easily treated disorder that your health insurance doesn't cover. You deserve it, chump.
5. Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid
Charges: Graduates of the Neville Chamberlain school of appeasement, the Democratic leadership continues to ignore the constitution-and the American people-by keeping impeachment "off the table" and refusing to defund the war. True pushovers, they're too stupid, cowardly, weak and outmatched politically to accomplish anything substantive, their "strategy" essentially boiling down to whining a lot while handing Bush whatever the hell he wants. There is just no way that appearing this weak and ineffectual could be any better for them politically than impeachment. Everything that the White House gets away with, it gets away with because congress allows it.
Exhibit A: Failure to woo the two thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto is moot: They could defund the war with a 41-senator budgetary filibuster. But that would take guts and conviction.
Sentence: 2 cups anthrax bisque.
4. Seung-Hui Cho
Charges: A useless fucking nerd who shot a bunch of better people because he couldn't get laid. Take note, all you pent-up losers out there: If you think you're about to go on a murderous rampage, either take up a drug habit, find a hooker, or just kill yourself. Your inability to cope with a comfortable life in a developed nation is nobody else's fault, except maybe your parents. Nothing says "I have a tiny penis" like a douchebag taking pictures of himself with a gun.
Exhibit A: Cho's infamous "disturbing" stories are only disturbing in how completely terrible they are, but now every kid with an imagination is going to be hauled off to the nuthouse if he expresses himself.
Sentence: Used as kindling at bonfire kegger for rich, popular kids."
Hat tip Stranger Fruit
Monday, December 24, 2007
Hooray for the Humpbacks!
"Giving in to U.S. pressure and worldwide criticism, Japan's government on Friday announced a whaling fleet now in the Southern Ocean for its annual hunt will not kill the threatened species as originally planned."
Sadly however, some other species of whales, not quite so endangered, will be hunted. The Japanese insist the kills are for scientific research. Sadly, there was nothing in the article to suggest the Japanese position was invalid. It seems to be a matter of differences of priorities between Japanese scientists and conservation groups intent on increasing the humpback population to it's pre-modern-whaling level of around 100,000. The population stands at aroud 30,000 to 40,000 today, qualifying it for a "vulnerable" rating by the World Conservation Union.
The Austrailian government has taken a much stronger view:
"Australia, meanwhile, announced this week it was launching a new push to stop Japan's annual whale hunt, including sending surveillance planes and a ship to gather evidence for a possible international legal challenge. Late Friday, Australia led some 30 other countries in lodging a diplomatic protest with the Japanese ambassador to Australia over the whaling program.
'The Australian government welcomes the announcement by Japan that it will suspend its plan to kill humpback whales this season,' Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said in a statement. 'While this is a welcome move, the Australian government strongly believes that there is no credible justification for the hunting of any whales.'"
Let's hope we get to see the scientific debate of that last point.
Sadly however, some other species of whales, not quite so endangered, will be hunted. The Japanese insist the kills are for scientific research. Sadly, there was nothing in the article to suggest the Japanese position was invalid. It seems to be a matter of differences of priorities between Japanese scientists and conservation groups intent on increasing the humpback population to it's pre-modern-whaling level of around 100,000. The population stands at aroud 30,000 to 40,000 today, qualifying it for a "vulnerable" rating by the World Conservation Union.
The Austrailian government has taken a much stronger view:
"Australia, meanwhile, announced this week it was launching a new push to stop Japan's annual whale hunt, including sending surveillance planes and a ship to gather evidence for a possible international legal challenge. Late Friday, Australia led some 30 other countries in lodging a diplomatic protest with the Japanese ambassador to Australia over the whaling program.
'The Australian government welcomes the announcement by Japan that it will suspend its plan to kill humpback whales this season,' Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said in a statement. 'While this is a welcome move, the Australian government strongly believes that there is no credible justification for the hunting of any whales.'"
Let's hope we get to see the scientific debate of that last point.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
You want Christmas Lights? You got em
If you like Christmas light displays, you are in for a treat. Check these out:
Good
Better
Best
The Trans-Siberian Orchestra is responsible for the background music.
And if you prefer more traditional Christmas music:
Nutcracker
Santa Claus is Coming to Town
Enjoy, and Merry Christmas!
Good
Better
Best
The Trans-Siberian Orchestra is responsible for the background music.
And if you prefer more traditional Christmas music:
Nutcracker
Santa Claus is Coming to Town
Enjoy, and Merry Christmas!
John Kwok vs William Dembski
With the release of Dembski and Wells' latest foray into pseudoscience, "The Design of Life" came the inevitable battle of the Amazon reviews, with the champions of each side of the debate lending their opinions to the efforts. An early entry was a scathing review by John Kwok, which detailed Judge Jones' ruling on ID, exposing the scam. Shortly after that, the review disappeared, leaving only the 5-star reviews of Dembski and Wells' sycophants. This caught the attention of the crew at Panda's thumb, and the poor ratings on the book followed by the truckload. Kwok's review also reappeared, and buried in the comments of that review, on page 11, we get a hint as to why:
"12/12/07
Dear Bill:
You have until NOON EST tomorrow to have Amazon.com reinstate my review of the 'The Design of Life'. If you do not, then I will write to Dr. Robert Zimmer (Stuyvesant HS '64), formerly Provost, Brown University, and currently, President, University of Chicago, to insist that he initiate a course of action that will result in having you stripped of your 1988 Ph. D. degree in Mathematics for an ongoing series of actions - of which this is but the latest - which demonstrate that you lack the moral turpitude to retain possession of this degree.
You should also be aware that I have bcc'd copies of this e-mail to two reporters from prominent USA newspapers : The New York Times and The Washington Post. I have also bcc'd a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and a fourth journalist as well.
Respectfully yours,
John Kwok"
Draw your own conclusions, but I for one am overjoyed at seeing someone finally play hardball with the DI propaganda machine. They have gotten away with making asinine false statements for far too long without repercussion, other than further reduction of what little respect they still have in academia. Let's hope we see more of the victims of the DI respond in kind.
"12/12/07
Dear Bill:
You have until NOON EST tomorrow to have Amazon.com reinstate my review of the 'The Design of Life'. If you do not, then I will write to Dr. Robert Zimmer (Stuyvesant HS '64), formerly Provost, Brown University, and currently, President, University of Chicago, to insist that he initiate a course of action that will result in having you stripped of your 1988 Ph. D. degree in Mathematics for an ongoing series of actions - of which this is but the latest - which demonstrate that you lack the moral turpitude to retain possession of this degree.
You should also be aware that I have bcc'd copies of this e-mail to two reporters from prominent USA newspapers : The New York Times and The Washington Post. I have also bcc'd a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and a fourth journalist as well.
Respectfully yours,
John Kwok"
Draw your own conclusions, but I for one am overjoyed at seeing someone finally play hardball with the DI propaganda machine. They have gotten away with making asinine false statements for far too long without repercussion, other than further reduction of what little respect they still have in academia. Let's hope we see more of the victims of the DI respond in kind.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Don McLeroy's Letter to the Dallas Morning News
Apparently all the chatter about Intelligent Design, evolution, and his questionable comments on the subject caught the attention of Texas State Board of Education Chair Don McLeroy, prompting him to send the following letter to the Dallas Morning News. It is downright embarrassing in its obvious creationist doubletalk, and its demonstrably poor grasp of the basics of communication, coming from someone in a position of authority in our education system. Running through it is a misunderstanding of the difference between science as a working investigative enterprise, and science as a classroom subject. I will now dissect this propaganda with great vigor:
"Science education has to have an open mind"
No sir, it does not. Working scientists must have an open mind, in the sense of being ready to alter their theories based on new discoveries. Students in high school classrooms are not working scientists. They are there to learn how science works, not to be scientists themselves. Before one can hope to make great discoveries in exciting fields, one must first learn what others have discovered. This is what Sir Isaac Newton was referring to when he said "If I have seen farther than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants".
"What do you teach in science class? You teach science. What do you teach in Sunday school class? You teach your faith."
An encouraging generality, to which Mr. McLeroy clearly pays lip service, as his following comments attest.
"Thus, in your story it is important to remember that some of my quoted comments were made in a 2005 Sunday school class. The story does accurately represent that I am a Christian and that my faith in God is something that I take very seriously. My Christian convictions are shared by many people."
It also accurately represents that you support the promoters of intelligent design, and the basic goals of the rest of the creationists, to water down science education by attacking evolution with scientifically discredited arguments based on your literalist views of the Bible. You don't get to claim you are all about religion in your church and all about science when called on it.
"Given these religious convictions, I would like to clarify any impression one may make from the article about my motivation for questioning evolution. My focus is on the empirical evidence and the scientific interpretations of that evidence."
Bullshit. Your own words sir, "...we are all Biblical literalists, we all believe the Bible to be inerrant", make it quite clear what your focus is. It is also given away by your poor choice of language. Science is not about post-hoc interpretation. That is what religion does. Science is about a priori predictions, and the evidence of the falsifiable experiments done in testing them. As head of an educational organization, you should be more versed in the basics.
"In science class, there is no place for dogma and 'sacred cows;' no subject should be 'untouchable' as to its scientific merits or shortcomings. My motivation is good science and a well-trained, scientifically literate student."
Nonsense. Again, Mr. McLeroy is confusing science with science class. In science there is no place for dogma. But in education, science and otherwise, there is every place for it. In math class, there are often theorems presented to the students whose proofs are beyond the scope of the course, and the texts will say so unapologetically. Likewise, in science class, practically everything presented to the students will, at some level, have explanations the students are not equipped to grasp. That is what they are in science class for in the first place!
A student who does not want to accept Einstein's theories of relativistic motion should not be allowed to bog down the entire class debating what is established science. He should be told it is so, and to research the subject on his own time if he wishes. Likewise, a student disputing evolution should not be allowed to bog down the class in similar fashion. Students are in school to learn from those with greater understanding than themselves, not to debate issues and decide amongst themselves what is true.
"What can stop science is an irrefutable preconception."
How in the world did we get a head of an education department with so poor a grasp of the English language? Would Mr. McLeroy have us believe that having refuted preconceptions helps science progress? In his infamous 2005 speech he proudly proclaimed himself to be "united against the fact that that’s a true statement". A man who doesn't understand the difference between a fact and an assertion, or an irrefutable preconception and an unfalsifiable one, isn't qualified to judge science, and certainly isn't qualified to lead an education department.
"Anytime you attempt to limit possible explanations in science, it is then that you get your science stopper.
Gee Don, a limit stops something? Say it ain't so! So might we assume then that you oppose the position of the IDers that we cannot inquire as to the nature of the designer? Or might it only be those sciences that conflict with your literalist Biblical view of the world, and your agenda to get it accepted as science, that receive your scrutiny?
"In science class, it is important to remember that the consensus of a conviction does not determine whether it is true or false. In science class, you teach science."
Yes, and in science class the students should be taught what the scientific consensus is on the subjects, how that consensus is reached based on evidence, with the understanding that it is always subject to change as new evidence comes to light. They should be taught how the peer-review process in science works to separate the wheat from the chaffe, and how successful it has been. They should also be taught to be skeptical of anyone claiming to support science who eschews these processes in favor of writing popular books and pursuing political agendas, or supports those that do, like Don McLeroy.
"Science education has to have an open mind"
No sir, it does not. Working scientists must have an open mind, in the sense of being ready to alter their theories based on new discoveries. Students in high school classrooms are not working scientists. They are there to learn how science works, not to be scientists themselves. Before one can hope to make great discoveries in exciting fields, one must first learn what others have discovered. This is what Sir Isaac Newton was referring to when he said "If I have seen farther than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants".
"What do you teach in science class? You teach science. What do you teach in Sunday school class? You teach your faith."
An encouraging generality, to which Mr. McLeroy clearly pays lip service, as his following comments attest.
"Thus, in your story it is important to remember that some of my quoted comments were made in a 2005 Sunday school class. The story does accurately represent that I am a Christian and that my faith in God is something that I take very seriously. My Christian convictions are shared by many people."
It also accurately represents that you support the promoters of intelligent design, and the basic goals of the rest of the creationists, to water down science education by attacking evolution with scientifically discredited arguments based on your literalist views of the Bible. You don't get to claim you are all about religion in your church and all about science when called on it.
"Given these religious convictions, I would like to clarify any impression one may make from the article about my motivation for questioning evolution. My focus is on the empirical evidence and the scientific interpretations of that evidence."
Bullshit. Your own words sir, "...we are all Biblical literalists, we all believe the Bible to be inerrant", make it quite clear what your focus is. It is also given away by your poor choice of language. Science is not about post-hoc interpretation. That is what religion does. Science is about a priori predictions, and the evidence of the falsifiable experiments done in testing them. As head of an educational organization, you should be more versed in the basics.
"In science class, there is no place for dogma and 'sacred cows;' no subject should be 'untouchable' as to its scientific merits or shortcomings. My motivation is good science and a well-trained, scientifically literate student."
Nonsense. Again, Mr. McLeroy is confusing science with science class. In science there is no place for dogma. But in education, science and otherwise, there is every place for it. In math class, there are often theorems presented to the students whose proofs are beyond the scope of the course, and the texts will say so unapologetically. Likewise, in science class, practically everything presented to the students will, at some level, have explanations the students are not equipped to grasp. That is what they are in science class for in the first place!
A student who does not want to accept Einstein's theories of relativistic motion should not be allowed to bog down the entire class debating what is established science. He should be told it is so, and to research the subject on his own time if he wishes. Likewise, a student disputing evolution should not be allowed to bog down the class in similar fashion. Students are in school to learn from those with greater understanding than themselves, not to debate issues and decide amongst themselves what is true.
"What can stop science is an irrefutable preconception."
How in the world did we get a head of an education department with so poor a grasp of the English language? Would Mr. McLeroy have us believe that having refuted preconceptions helps science progress? In his infamous 2005 speech he proudly proclaimed himself to be "united against the fact that that’s a true statement". A man who doesn't understand the difference between a fact and an assertion, or an irrefutable preconception and an unfalsifiable one, isn't qualified to judge science, and certainly isn't qualified to lead an education department.
"Anytime you attempt to limit possible explanations in science, it is then that you get your science stopper.
Gee Don, a limit stops something? Say it ain't so! So might we assume then that you oppose the position of the IDers that we cannot inquire as to the nature of the designer? Or might it only be those sciences that conflict with your literalist Biblical view of the world, and your agenda to get it accepted as science, that receive your scrutiny?
"In science class, it is important to remember that the consensus of a conviction does not determine whether it is true or false. In science class, you teach science."
Yes, and in science class the students should be taught what the scientific consensus is on the subjects, how that consensus is reached based on evidence, with the understanding that it is always subject to change as new evidence comes to light. They should be taught how the peer-review process in science works to separate the wheat from the chaffe, and how successful it has been. They should also be taught to be skeptical of anyone claiming to support science who eschews these processes in favor of writing popular books and pursuing political agendas, or supports those that do, like Don McLeroy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
