Sunday, November 30, 2008
Ann Coulter Breaks Jaw, Quality of Political Discourse Skyrockets!
Apparently Ann Coulter's jaw was broken and had to be wired shut. It's so poetic it seems rigged, like a South Park episode writing itself. It's a festival of schadenfreude among thinking, honest people everywhere. To steal a phrase that was once all the rage, I've never seen people enjoying someone else's misfortune so much.
Joe Klein Gives A Nice, but Sad, Summary of Bush the Lesser
Joe Klein has a summary of Bush the Lesser's presidency that does a pretty good job noting the criticism, and yet sadness, many of us feel at the end of the 43rd presidency:
It is in the nature of mainstream journalism to attempt to be kind to Presidents when they are coming and going but to be fiercely skeptical in between. I've been feeling sorry for Bush lately, a feeling partly induced by recent fictional depictions of the President as an amiable lunkhead in Oliver Stone's W. and in Curtis Sittenfeld's terrific novel American Wife. There was a photo in the New York Times that seemed to sum up his current circumstance: Bush in Peru, dressed in an alpaca poncho, standing alone just after the photo op at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, with various Asian leaders departing the stage, none of them making eye contact with him. Bush has that forlorn what-the-hell-happened? expression on his face, the one that has marked his presidency at difficult times. You never want to see the President of the United States looking like that.
Indeed, we don't. Whatever we may think of our president, he is still our president, and we'd like him to portray confidence, vigor and intellect to the world, respected, and feared. Instead, we got this:
So I've been searching for valedictory encomiums. His position on immigration was admirable and courageous; he was right about the Dubai Ports deal and about free trade in general. He spoke well, in the abstract, about the importance of freedom. He is an impeccable classicist when it comes to baseball. And that just about does it for me. I'd add the bracing moment of Bush with the bullhorn in the ruins of the World Trade Center, but that was neutered in my memory by his ridiculous, preening appearance in a flight suit on the deck of the aircraft carrier beneath the "Mission Accomplished" sign. The flight-suit image is one of the two defining moments of the Bush failure. The other is the photo of Bush staring out the window of Air Force One, helplessly viewing the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. This is a presidency that has wobbled between those two poles - overweening arrogance and paralytic incompetence.
The latter has held sway these past few months as the economy has crumbled. It is too early to rate the performance of Bush's economic team, but we have more than enough evidence to say, definitively, that at a moment when there was a vast national need for reassurance, the President himself was a cipher. Yes, he's a lame duck with an Antarctic approval rating - but can you imagine Bill Clinton going so gently into the night? There are substantive gestures available to a President that do not involve the use of force or photo ops. For example, Bush could have boosted the public spirit - and the auto industry - by announcing that he was scrapping the entire federal automotive fleet, including the presidential limousine, and replacing it with hybrids made in Detroit. He could have jump-started - and he still could - the Obama plan by releasing funds for a green-jobs program to insulate public buildings. He could start funding the transit projects already approved by Congress.
In the end, though, it will not be the creative paralysis that defines Bush. It will be his intellectual laziness, at home and abroad. Bush never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and regulation that was necessary to make markets work. He never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and equity that was necessary to maintain the strong middle class required for both prosperity and democracy. He never considered the complexities of the cultures he was invading. He never understood that faith, unaccompanied by rigorous skepticism, is a recipe for myopia and foolishness. He is less than President now, and that is appropriate. He was never very much of one.
It is in the nature of mainstream journalism to attempt to be kind to Presidents when they are coming and going but to be fiercely skeptical in between. I've been feeling sorry for Bush lately, a feeling partly induced by recent fictional depictions of the President as an amiable lunkhead in Oliver Stone's W. and in Curtis Sittenfeld's terrific novel American Wife. There was a photo in the New York Times that seemed to sum up his current circumstance: Bush in Peru, dressed in an alpaca poncho, standing alone just after the photo op at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, with various Asian leaders departing the stage, none of them making eye contact with him. Bush has that forlorn what-the-hell-happened? expression on his face, the one that has marked his presidency at difficult times. You never want to see the President of the United States looking like that.
Indeed, we don't. Whatever we may think of our president, he is still our president, and we'd like him to portray confidence, vigor and intellect to the world, respected, and feared. Instead, we got this:
So I've been searching for valedictory encomiums. His position on immigration was admirable and courageous; he was right about the Dubai Ports deal and about free trade in general. He spoke well, in the abstract, about the importance of freedom. He is an impeccable classicist when it comes to baseball. And that just about does it for me. I'd add the bracing moment of Bush with the bullhorn in the ruins of the World Trade Center, but that was neutered in my memory by his ridiculous, preening appearance in a flight suit on the deck of the aircraft carrier beneath the "Mission Accomplished" sign. The flight-suit image is one of the two defining moments of the Bush failure. The other is the photo of Bush staring out the window of Air Force One, helplessly viewing the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. This is a presidency that has wobbled between those two poles - overweening arrogance and paralytic incompetence.
The latter has held sway these past few months as the economy has crumbled. It is too early to rate the performance of Bush's economic team, but we have more than enough evidence to say, definitively, that at a moment when there was a vast national need for reassurance, the President himself was a cipher. Yes, he's a lame duck with an Antarctic approval rating - but can you imagine Bill Clinton going so gently into the night? There are substantive gestures available to a President that do not involve the use of force or photo ops. For example, Bush could have boosted the public spirit - and the auto industry - by announcing that he was scrapping the entire federal automotive fleet, including the presidential limousine, and replacing it with hybrids made in Detroit. He could have jump-started - and he still could - the Obama plan by releasing funds for a green-jobs program to insulate public buildings. He could start funding the transit projects already approved by Congress.
In the end, though, it will not be the creative paralysis that defines Bush. It will be his intellectual laziness, at home and abroad. Bush never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and regulation that was necessary to make markets work. He never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and equity that was necessary to maintain the strong middle class required for both prosperity and democracy. He never considered the complexities of the cultures he was invading. He never understood that faith, unaccompanied by rigorous skepticism, is a recipe for myopia and foolishness. He is less than President now, and that is appropriate. He was never very much of one.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Another Transitional Form to Ignore: the Turtlelike Odontochelys
PZ Myers treats us to a nice writeup of yet another transitional fossil for the creationists to pretend doesn't exist. This one is called Odontochelys, a turtlelike creature that had teeth modern turtles lack, but no shell, and lived 220 million years ago.
I know, I know, it's still just a turtle. And people who say that are still ignoramuses.
I know, I know, it's still just a turtle. And people who say that are still ignoramuses.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Dawkins Blamed for Suicide - So Much for Personal Resonsibility
Richard Dawkins now blamed for a suicide. It is amazing the power some people put in this man's words.
Wasn't this the book that supposedly didn't deal sufficiently with theology? Yet it cracked this kids faith. Yeah, when you learn that all the people you trusted your whole life were lying, or just plain ignorant, one would think depression would set in. Never mind laying the blame on those that filled his head with nonsense though, no sirree bob. Shoot the messenger.
Wasn't this the book that supposedly didn't deal sufficiently with theology? Yet it cracked this kids faith. Yeah, when you learn that all the people you trusted your whole life were lying, or just plain ignorant, one would think depression would set in. Never mind laying the blame on those that filled his head with nonsense though, no sirree bob. Shoot the messenger.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Christian Aerobics
Yes, its serious, and yes, it's hilarious. And if you think he is funny, think about the people working out with him. Tammy Fay in tights?
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Mountain Range that Shouldn't be There
Here's an interesting article on a mountain range that current evidence suggests that it "shouldn't be there" at all.
An Antarctic mountain range that rivals the Alps in elevation will be probed this month by an expedition of scientists using airborne radar and other Information Age tools to virtually 'peel away' more than 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) of ice covering the peaks.
The researchers hope to find answers there to some basic questions about the nature of the southernmost continent, including the massive East Antarctic Ice Sheet. For instance, it is unclear how Antarctica came to be ice-covered in the first place and whether that process began millions of years ago in the enigmatic Gamburtsev Mountain range.
Working every day at extreme altitudes, in 24 hours of sunlight and at temperatures as low as minus 40 degrees Celsius, the researchers of the Antarctica's Gamburtsev Province (AGAP) team hope to learn whether the Gamburtsevs were born of tectonic activity in Antarctica or date from a period millions of years ago, when Antarctica was the center of an enormous supercontinent located at far lower latitudes.
Robin Bell of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, who shares the leadership of the U.S. science effort, said AGAP will help scientists understand one of Antarctica's last major mysteries.
"Because the heart of East Antarctica is so difficult to get to, we know very little about it," she said. "We think also that there's a strong possibility that the mountains are the birthplace of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.
One can note the stark contrast between what scientists do when confronted with a mystery - do research and gather evidence - versus what anti-science cranks like the IDers do - toss up their hands and proclaim the mystery beyond science.
An Antarctic mountain range that rivals the Alps in elevation will be probed this month by an expedition of scientists using airborne radar and other Information Age tools to virtually 'peel away' more than 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) of ice covering the peaks.
The researchers hope to find answers there to some basic questions about the nature of the southernmost continent, including the massive East Antarctic Ice Sheet. For instance, it is unclear how Antarctica came to be ice-covered in the first place and whether that process began millions of years ago in the enigmatic Gamburtsev Mountain range.
Working every day at extreme altitudes, in 24 hours of sunlight and at temperatures as low as minus 40 degrees Celsius, the researchers of the Antarctica's Gamburtsev Province (AGAP) team hope to learn whether the Gamburtsevs were born of tectonic activity in Antarctica or date from a period millions of years ago, when Antarctica was the center of an enormous supercontinent located at far lower latitudes.
Robin Bell of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, who shares the leadership of the U.S. science effort, said AGAP will help scientists understand one of Antarctica's last major mysteries.
"Because the heart of East Antarctica is so difficult to get to, we know very little about it," she said. "We think also that there's a strong possibility that the mountains are the birthplace of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.
One can note the stark contrast between what scientists do when confronted with a mystery - do research and gather evidence - versus what anti-science cranks like the IDers do - toss up their hands and proclaim the mystery beyond science.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
There's Hope: Kathleen Parker Nails It
More and more Republicans are getting it. Here's Kathleen Parker spelling it out clearly:
"As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.
Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.
I'm bathing in holy water as I type.
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh...
Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.
Here's the deal, 'pubbies: Howard Dean was right.
It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs.
Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.
Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting. "
The entire article is worth a good read. The Republican party is going to have to change to survive, and at a, ahem, fundamental level. Ironically, it was Obama that gave them the recipe for recovery here. It is not, as people like Mike Huckabee and Jonah Goldberg misrepresent, about kicking Christians out of the GOP. How ironic that they would respond to the charge of being intellectually dishonest to please stupid people with an intellectually dishonest argument that would persuade only stupid people.
The needed change is for evangelical Christians, and anyone else of any religious bent, to understand that they must have secular justification for their political positions in order to be persuasive to the ever-growing citizenry that is not so religiously inclined. They must refer to what we all see, not just private religious views that only they see. They must abandon the contradiction they have managed to balance over the last few decades: claiming their religious views were faith-based and therefore should not be subjected to scientific scrutiny, but then expecting those views to be given the force of science when arguing in the public square.
Evangelical politically active Christians have tried to have it both ways, and now that they are a shrinking minority, it simply won't do. Either your religious views are private, faith affairs, not to be exposed to or challenged by others, or they are external claims on reality with political and scientific implications, good enough for the public square, and open to challenge by all. Too many of you think criticism of your views violates your first amendment rights. Get over that.
If you are going to oppose abortion, stem cell research, evolution, and gay marriage, and promote abstinence only sex ed, Bible classes, and sectarian holiday displays, you are going to have to come up with arguments that are not based on your faith-based religion. There aren't enough of you any more to win like that, and the rest of us don't care what your religion says. You may have won some minor victories in 2008 (Prop 8 in Cal.), but there are no demographic trends in your favor for the future. Change, or become a minor, ignored, party.
"As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.
Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.
I'm bathing in holy water as I type.
To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh...
Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.
Here's the deal, 'pubbies: Howard Dean was right.
It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs.
Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.
Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting. "
The entire article is worth a good read. The Republican party is going to have to change to survive, and at a, ahem, fundamental level. Ironically, it was Obama that gave them the recipe for recovery here. It is not, as people like Mike Huckabee and Jonah Goldberg misrepresent, about kicking Christians out of the GOP. How ironic that they would respond to the charge of being intellectually dishonest to please stupid people with an intellectually dishonest argument that would persuade only stupid people.
The needed change is for evangelical Christians, and anyone else of any religious bent, to understand that they must have secular justification for their political positions in order to be persuasive to the ever-growing citizenry that is not so religiously inclined. They must refer to what we all see, not just private religious views that only they see. They must abandon the contradiction they have managed to balance over the last few decades: claiming their religious views were faith-based and therefore should not be subjected to scientific scrutiny, but then expecting those views to be given the force of science when arguing in the public square.
Evangelical politically active Christians have tried to have it both ways, and now that they are a shrinking minority, it simply won't do. Either your religious views are private, faith affairs, not to be exposed to or challenged by others, or they are external claims on reality with political and scientific implications, good enough for the public square, and open to challenge by all. Too many of you think criticism of your views violates your first amendment rights. Get over that.
If you are going to oppose abortion, stem cell research, evolution, and gay marriage, and promote abstinence only sex ed, Bible classes, and sectarian holiday displays, you are going to have to come up with arguments that are not based on your faith-based religion. There aren't enough of you any more to win like that, and the rest of us don't care what your religion says. You may have won some minor victories in 2008 (Prop 8 in Cal.), but there are no demographic trends in your favor for the future. Change, or become a minor, ignored, party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
