Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:01:01 GMT

The War on Evolution.

And the games continue without any sign of a future let-down:

In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers.The petition, they say, is proof that scientific doubt over evolution persists. But random interviews with 20 people who signed the petition and a review of the public statements of more than a dozen others suggest that many are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs. And even the petition’s sponsor, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, says that only a quarter of the signers are biologists, whose field is most directly concerned with evolution. The other signers include 76 chemists, 75 engineers, 63 physicists and 24 professors of medicine.

Ahhh. The good old Discovery Institute.

Scott R. Fulton, a professor of mathematics and computer science at Clarkson University in Potsdam, N.Y., who signed the petition, said that the argument for intelligent design was “very interesting and promising.”He said he thought his religious belief was “not particularly relevant” in how he judged intelligent design. “It probably influences in the sense in that it makes me very interested in the questions,” he said. “When I see scientific evidence that points to God, I find that encouraging.”

Roger J. Lien, a professor of poultry science at Auburn, said he received a copy of the petition from Christian friends.

“I stuck my name on it,” he said. “Basically, it states what I believe.”

Dr. Lien said that he grew up in California in a family that was not deeply religious and that he accepted evolution through much of his scientific career. He said he became a Christian about a decade ago, six years after he joined the Auburn faculty.

“The world is broken, and we humans and our science can’t fix it,” Dr. Lien said. “I was brought to Jesus Christ and God and creationism and believing in the Bible.”

He also said he thought that evolution was “inconsistent with what the Bible says.”

So there you have it. In the interest of science, if you will. And just for a taste of the type of consistency we get from these Discovery Institute frauds, check out these competing quotes:

“Early on, the critics said there was nobody who disbelieved Darwin’s theory except for rubes in the woods,” said Bruce Chapman, president of the institute. “How many does it take to be a noticeable minority — 10, 50, 100, 500?”Mr. Chapman said the petition showed “there is a minority of scientists who disagree with Darwin’s theory, and it is not just a handful.”

And this:

Opposing petitions have sprung up. The National Center for Science Education, which has battled efforts to dilute the teaching of evolution, has sponsored a pro-evolution petition signed by 700 scientists named Steve, in honor of Stephen Jay Gould, the Harvard paleontologist who died in 2002.The petition affirms that evolution is “a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences.”

Mr. Chapman of that institute said the opposing petitions were beside the point. “We never claimed we’re in a fight for numbers,” he said.

The only reason to take these liars seriously is because of the damage they can cause to society as a whole.

BTW- These folks sure are waging a lot of simultaneous battles in this culture war- the war on gay, the war on abortion, the war on sicence and evil ‘Darwinists.’ If they win these battles, maybe they can go fight some new ones- like putting out fatwahs on cartoonists who draw pictures of Jesus. Or stoning women who don’t respect their husband.

Here is to hoping they keep losing their chosen battles.

[Balloon Juice]

Not too many biologists disbelieve modern evolution theory because of the science. They disbeleive it because of their religion, just as do everyone else who does not like evolution. There are no scientific reasons to throw away evolution. But the always appears to be a group of people that will exploit the ignorance of some in order to gain power for themselves. I find those people despicable.

Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:43:17 GMT

55% in Gallup poll think Iraq war is a”mistake”. Via E&P:

More Americans than nearly ever before now say the war in Iraq is a “mistake” for the United States, according to a new Gallup poll. That figure now stands at 55%, up 4% point since late January. Only once before was the figure higher, at 59%, and that was during the period of overall pessimism right after Hurricane Katrina hit.Gallup noted that it had asked this question about other wars involving the United States, “and only the Vietnam War engendered more public opposition than the current Iraq War. ” The peak opposition to the Vietnam conflict was 61%. That figure for the generally unpopular Korean War was 51%.

If my calculations are correct, 55% is more than a majority. Yet, somehow, Bush denigrates anyone who questions his Iraq policy. He is dissing over half the country. No wonder his approval ratings are so low. By noemail@noemail.org (Joe in DC). [AMERICAblog]

Not as bad as Vietnam but worse than Korea.

Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:33:42 GMT

Rush Limbaugh Bombshell.

You folks are going to love this.�� I wonder how long it���ll be before he���s campaigning with Howard Dean.

[Calling All Wingnuts]

Wow. Rush, Kerry and Dean all agreeing about the Ira War.

Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:20:01 GMT

:BQ”Over The Edge.

I think that it’s likely that today will be remembered as the day that an extremely well-organized band of troublemakers blew up the Shiite Askariyah shrine in Samarra.

What happened? A well-trained demo squad broke into the shrine in the early morning, apparently with the help of the Iraqi police security detail, set their charges and left before the charges went. The famous golden dome was destroyed along with most of the building. Nobody was killed in the explosion.

Why? The shrine is among the most sacred in shiite Islam; Juan Cole (no relation) describes it thusly:

The shrine, sacred to Shiiites, honors 3 Imams or holy descendants of the Prophet. They are Ali al-Hadi, Hasan al-Askari, and his disappeared son Muhammad al-Mahdi. Thousands of Shiiites demonnstrated in Samarra and in East Baghdad, against this desecration.The Twelfh Imam or Mahdi is believed by Shiites to have disappeared into a supernatural realm (just as Christians believe in the ascension of Christ) from which he will someday return.

The only imaginable reason why somebody would want to do this is if they want a civil war. I say that because that’s what’s happening, and it’s inconceivable that a group of Iraqis wouldn’t forsee it. Juan Cole has a follow-up email from Iraq:

You know the Najaf boys are losing their heads over what happened….They told B. how the demolition was carried out. You see, it was nothing like
a hipshot sneaking up bombing by night. It was meticulous, skilful piece of work,
taking a lot of time, the guards knowing all about what was going on. At least that´s what they told him today.

So now they all gather downtown Nejef rallying, preparing a gruesome revenge.
Sistani tries hard to stop them, they told him, but the boys won´t listen. They´re heading for Samarra. ‘

Somebody in Iraq wants chaos and it looks like they have a fairly good idea how to get it (read more about the reaction within Iraq here). It doesn’t help that Iran is gleefully fanning rumors of American and Israeli involvement, not that you can expect anything different. If a meteor hit Baghdad you could count on Iran to blame Israel for throwing it.

This ties in well with the debate regarding to what degree the Iraqi police and army is penetrated by the insurgency. Apparently it runs pretty deep.

[Balloon Juice]

This is big news but the American attention is drawn to the Portgate event. One of the holiest shrines of the Shiites was destroyed, not by suicide bombers but sophisticated, well-trained people. This is not good at all.

The other interesting things about all this is that the Shiites believe in the ‘resurrection’ of the disappeared son, who will one day return. Many believe that day is now. So we have end-timers in a lot of relgions today.

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:41:37 GMT

A Brief Reminder. Bush does, of course, have inherent authority under Article II to make all decisions relating to national security. [Eschaton]

I guess the Unitary Executive means that he could let Saddam Hussein run our ports if the President wanted to. Congress can’t tell him otherwise. I think we are going to see some changes regarding this belief.

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:35:43 GMT

[link]

SO NOW BUSH IS THREATENING TO VETO any legislation that would block the Dubai ports deal? Either this deal is somehow a lot more important than it seems (a quid pro quo for, well, something . . . ) or Bush is an idiot. Your call.

[Instapundit.com]

This from one of the most popular right-leaning blogs. You know something is up when peoplel from both sides of the political spectrum agree.

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:14:56 GMT

Can the Republicans Defend America?–Part II. It’s bad enough that the administration has caused a manpower crisis in the United States armed forces. After it has created a completely incompetent bureaucracy unable to defend the country, it now has decided to outsource homeland security to the United Arab Emirates–a country not likely to see its interests as dovetailing with the United States. No matter, says DHS… [The Reality-Based Community]

And if you think it is easy for someone to get into the united States across our border, read about how open the UAE border is to other Arabs, including terrorists.

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:11:36 GMT

Student Finds Way to Thwart Anthrax. LiveScience.com Feb 21 2006 7:17PM GMT [Moreover Technologies - Science news]

Always nice to see a new use for an iron. Glad i’ve got a good one.

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 06:32:53 GMT

“After Neoconservatism – New York Times” [Daypop Top 40]

Sorry for the exclamation but when I saw who wrote this, I said ‘Holy Crap!’ Fukuyama’s writing had provided some of the academic underpinning for neoconservatism that brought us the current Administration. This was the belief that we could bring democracy to the Middle East by using force. That the US would provide a benevolent hegemony around the world. He now feels that neoconservatism deserves to be on the ash can of history.

He bringsback some great quotes. Remember when conservative pundits said, ‘It is precisely because American foreign policy is infused with an unusually high degree of morality that other nations find they have less to fear from its otherwise daunting power.’ How does that morality look today after Abu Ghraib?

He makes some really important points. ‘…benevolent hegemony presumed that the hegemon was not only well intentioned but competent as well.’ The Neoconservative position ‘was, by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States.”although most Americans want to do what is necessary to make the project of rebuilding Iraq succeed, the aftermath of the invasion did not increase the public appetite for further costly interventions. Americans are not, at heart, an imperial people. Even benevolent hegemons sometimes have to act ruthlessly, and they need a staying power that does not come easily to people who are reasonably content with their own lives and society.’

So, what does he suggest to fix this? ‘In the first instance, we need to demilitarize what we have been calling the global war on terrorism and shift to other types of policy instruments.’ Not a war but a battle for the hearts and minds. We also need to create new organizations that can work across national lines to find solutions. This is the opposite of the vertical sios we have today of states acting independently. I think he is right on here, because the problems of terrorism, pollution, global warming transcend the idea of states and their solutions will require organizations that can work that way.

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:21:33 GMT

Jon Stewart Runs on CNN International.

OK, all you expatriates probably already knew this, but Truthdig didn’t: “The Daily Show” runs on CNN International outside the U.S.

Think about that: Millions (perhaps billions) of foreigners get Jon Stewart’s version of America on a relatively straight-news-oriented channel. Depending on how you feel about Stewart’s sensibility, that’s either wonderful or troubling. (This snippet of news comes near the end of a hilarious article about Stewart’s upcoming gig at the Oscars.)

READ THE WHOLE ITEM

[Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines]

Looks like CNN International does a better job educating people about American politics than CNN does. Ironic.

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:01:13 GMT

Security Disconnect. by Larry C Johnson (bio below) Will someone please help the White House figure out which security playbook it should be using? In recent weeks the President’s men have stronged arm Republicans to look the other way and not investigate whether George Bush has violated the law by authorizing domestic spying that ignored legal requirements to seek court approval. Those who have dared to challenge the Administration on this point have been accused of letting Al Qaeda have free run inside the United States. Well, what about allowing a Middle… [Booman Tribune]

Yep. This Admininstration is approving the oversight of several of our ports by a company from a Middle Eastern country, one that has had several complications dealing with terrorists, transport of nuclear materials, etc. Why in the world are they allowing port security to be run by a foreign company? I guess someone will have to follow the money. I hope they do before our unsecured ports are harmed.

And as detailed at Think Progress they will not only control the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. They will also control military transports through the ports of Corpus Christi and Beaumont. Forty percent of all the Army cargo deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom came through those 2 ports. And they will all be under the control of a foreign company. Nice.

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 05:48:22 GMT

See if this sounds familiar….. Last month I blogged about the Newsweek story on the rebellion of politically-appointed Justice Department lawyers against the Dick Cheney/David Addington approach of how to run the war on terror and the executive branch. I got a powerful whiff of… [Daniel W. Drezner]

It appears that almost every government lawyer with a conscience was vocal in their disapproval of the techniques espoused by Cheney and Ashcroft. And this Admininstration ignored every one.

Not a killer ape?

Did mutual aid in a hostile environment drive human evolution?.

BBC reports on research that mutual protection against predators may have driven the evolution of human cooperation. When our primate ancestors came down from the trees and started roaming the savannah — probably because climate changes triggered habitat changes — they were scrawny and not very fast, lacked wings, claws, fangs, or venom. What DID they have in a predator rich environment?

A brain that was optimized for the kinds of tasks that make complex social cooperation possible?

The popular view of our ancient ancestors as hunters who conquered all in their way is wrong, researchers have told a major US science conference.

Instead, they argue, early humans were on the menu for predatory beasts.

This may have driven humans to evolve increased levels of co-operation, according to their theory.

Despite humankind’s considerable capacity for war and violence, we are highly sociable animals, according to anthropologists.

James Rilling, at Emory University in Atlanta, US, has been using brain imaging techniques to investigate the biological mechanisms behind co-operation.

He has imaged the brains of people playing a game under experimental conditions that involved choosing between co-operation and non-co-operation.

From the parts of the brain that were activated during the game, he found that mutual co-operation is rewarding; people reacted negatively when partners did not co-operate.

[Smart Mobs]

This fits right in with some primate data that indicates that primates get very upset when there is a ‘cheater’ in the group, who gets rewarded as much for doing nothing as those that do something. This is why ‘morals’ are largely independent of religion. Cooperation worked better than simply doing whatever one wanted. Those that were not cooperative or who took advantage would not be very successful in such a social setting. These days, we are living through a time when cheats are pretending to be cooperative, and frame their stories in that light, but who actually hurt the social group, taking from it and not giving back. While possibly successful in the short term, a group that bases itself on such a viewpoint will eventually be shunned by most others and will fail. I expect the social networking tools we have today to more rapidly bring this about.

There was a nice bit of game theory work a few years ago that looked at cheats. The game was set up to look at philanthropy and altruism. Essentially, the more individuals in a team that donated money, the greater return to everyone in the group. But someone would figure out that the greatest return would come from being in a generous group, but not to donate any money oneself. So, they would benefit from the group but be better off individually, since they not only got their share of the group’s return, but kept more of their own. In every case, the group eventually broke apart because the rest of the group did not want to be associated with the cheater. Everyone would cheat then. The researchers restored a balance by allowing people to opt out a round if they wanted to. What would happen it that all the ‘good’ people would opt out, leaving the cheats by themselves, effectively shunning them. Since none gave any money, their returns dropped substantially. They would then change their behavior, donating more. Then the ‘good’ people would opt back in and everyone’s return would go up. Sometimes, the cheaters tried to game the system and the others would opt out. You got to a dynamic equilibrium where the overall good to the group was maintained, even if a small amount cheated at any one time.

But when the level of cheating gets too high, the group will do what it can to expel the cheaters. This new research seems to indicate this is because of our biology, not our morals. For whatever reason, the cheaters will eventually be expelled, or our social fabric will be broken. I think this is a greater immediate danger than global warming. We will not solve that problem until we expel the cheaters.

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 05:28:49 GMT

Byrd, Feingold, and Jeffords Stand Strong.

Only three Senators had the courage to stand against a “cosmetically” changed Patriot Act. Senator Feingold, who has been fighting against the intrusive law since its inception, was joined by Senators Byrd and Jeffords in calling for more time to consider the bill. The extra time they were voted for would have allowed the Senate to consider amendments proposed by Senator Feingold. “We still have not addressed some of the most significant problems with the Patriot Act,” Feingold said.

One of the amendments Feingold proposed would have set a four-year expiration date on the use of National Security Letters�demands for records issued by administrators�under the Patriot Act. Another would have required the government to notify the subject of a secret search within seven days or obtain court permission to maintain the secrecy for a longer period, rather than the 30-day requirement in the legislation being considered. Senator Feingold argued that without these changes the Patriot Act “will still allow government fishing expeditions.”

On the Senate floor Wednesday, while calling for a thorough investigation into possible violations of intelligence law and the Constitution by the Bush Administration, Senator Byrd asked:

“Is this where we are heading in the land of the free? Are secret government programs that spy on American citizens proliferating? The question is not, ‘Is Big Brother watching?’ It is ‘How many Big Brothers have we?’”

Senator Byrd went on to denounce the “culture of secrecy” that has emerged in the United States since September 11th:

“The culture of secrecy which has deepened since the attacks on September 11 has presented this nation with an awful dilemma. In order to protect this open society are we to believe that measures must be taken that in insidious and unconstitutional ways close it down? I believe that the answer must be an emphatic ‘no.’”

Senator Jeffords also had strong words against the new and “improved” Patriot Act. Jeffords said in a statement that this version of the act would “fail to move us closer to the provisions that the Senate forwarded to the House last year.”

Republicans have already moved quickly to attack these Senators, when in reality they should be praised. Senator Byrd faces a tough campaign this fall and needs all the help he can get. Republicans will take this truly courageous vote and spin it into a form of cowardice � we cannot allow that to happen. Senator Jeffords’ seat will also be open this cycle due to his retirement. DFA has already endorsed his successor, Congressman Bernie Sanders, but continued commitment is essential. We need more elected officials, like these three Senators, who will stand up for what is right without fear of political repercussions.

�Chris Broadfoot

[Blog for America]

Perhaps some of the items in the Patriot Act would be fine if properly administered. Unfortunately for us, I have a hard time really thiking of anything that this Administration has properly administered. Iraq? FEMA? Taxes? Medicare? Treatment of prisoners? Domestic spying? So why should this be any different? Glad at least 2 Dems and an Independent see the danger.

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 05:23:20 GMT

The edjumacation preznit

President Bush at Kansas State University
:

Q Hi, I just want to get your comments about education. Recently, $12.7 billion was cut from education, and I was just wondering how that’s supposed to help our futures? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Education budget was cut — say it again. What was cut?

Q Twelve point seven billion dollars was cut from education, and I was just wondering how is that supposed to help our –

THE PRESIDENT: At the federal level?

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think that — I don’t think we’ve actually — for higher education? Student loans?

Q Yes, student loans.

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I think what we did was reform the student loan program. We’re not cutting money out of it. In other words, people aren’t going to be cut off the program. We’re just making sure it works better. Part of the reconciliation package, I think she’s talking about. Yes, it’s a reform of the program to make sure it functions better. It is — in other words, we’re not taking people off student loans, we’re saving money in the student loan program because it’s inefficient. And so I think the thing to look at is whether or not there will be fewer people getting student loans. I don’t think so. And, secondly, on Pell grants, we’re actually expanding the number of Pell grants through our budget.

But, great question. I think that the key on education is to make sure that we stay focused on how do we stay competitive into the 21st century. And I plan on doing some talking about math and science and engineering programs, so that people who graduate out of college will have the skills necessary to compete in this competitive world.

But I’m — I think I’m right on this. I’ll check when I get back to Washington. But thank you for your question. (Applause.)

He did check, and once again
he froze the Pell Grants
. Why is that a problem? Let’s ask candidate Bush, from
his 2000 campaign page
. First objective:

1. Close the Achievement Gap between Disadvantaged Students and their Peers:

�

Fully fund the Pell grant program for first-year students by increasing the maximum grant amount by more than 50 percent, to $5,100.

Offer enhanced Pell grants (an additional $1,000) to low-income students who take rigorous math and science courses in high school.

Establish a $1 billion Math and Science Partnership for states, colleges and universities to strengthen K-12 math and science education.

Establish a $3 billion Education Technology Fund to ensure technology boosts achievement.

Top Pell Grants have remained at $4,050 for three years. Tax cuts for the wealthy were more important than “Clos[ing] the Achievement Gap between Disadvantaged Students and their Peers.”

Either we have a serious problem with math education (Mr. President, are you aware that $4,050 is less than $5,100?) or we have a mismatch between the values he ran on and the values he’s governed on. Bear in mind that the cost of education has
risen more rapidly than inflation over the last 15 years
, so holding a grant constant is a cut in real dollars.

Call your Congresscritter and tell it you voted for a president who would raise Pell Grants, and that he may not be up for re-election again, but Congress is about to be up for election again.

- Josh Rosenau [Thoughts from Kansas]

WHat happens when Bush gets a real question. He dissembles and is misleading. he does not know that his budget obliterates the things he claimed needed to be done when we was a candidate running for office. Let’s see. What do we call someone who says whatever he needs to say just to get elected than goes back on that? I guess fully funding Pell Grants and education is just pre-9-11 thinking.