Via Instapundit, audio recordings of the 911 calls on September 11th.
Awful.
by John Cole| 50 Comments
This post is in: War on Terror aka GSAVE®
Via Instapundit, audio recordings of the 911 calls on September 11th.
Awful.
by John Cole| 48 Comments
This post is in: Politics, Science & Technology
Professor Gerald Coyne has an excellent six page story on Creationism/ID in the TNR, some of which I will excerpt:
Why all the fuss about a seemingly inoffensive statement? Who could possibly object to students “keep[ing] an open mind” and examining a respectable-sounding alternative to evolution? Isn’t science about testing theories against each other? The furor makes sense only in light of the tortuous history of creationism in America. Since it arose after World War I, Christianfundamentalist creationism has undergone its own evolution, taking on newer forms after absorbing repeated blows from the courts. “Intelligent design,” as I will show, is merely the latest incarnation of the biblical creationism espoused by William Jennings Bryan in Dayton. Far from a respectable scientific alternative to evolution, it is a clever attempt to sneak religion, cloaked in the guise of science, into the public schools…
Given the copious evidence for evolution, it seems unlikely that it will be replaced by an alternative theory. But that is exactly what intelligent-design creationists are demanding. Is there some dramatic new evidence, then, or some insufficiency of neo-Darwinism, that warrants overturning the theory of evolution?
The question is worth asking, but the answer is no. Intelligent design is simply the third attempt of creationists to proselytize our children at the expense of good science and clear thinking. Having failed to ban evolution from schools, and later to get equal classroom time for scientific creationism, they have made a few adjustments designed to sneak Christian cosmogony past the First Amendment. And these adjustments have given ID a popularity never enjoyed by earlier forms of creationism. Even the president of the United States has lent a sympathetic ear: George W. Bush recently told reporters in Texas that intelligent design should be taught in public schools alongside evolution because “part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought.” Articles by IDers, or about their “theory,” regularly appear in mainstream publications such as The New York Times…
It is clear, then, that intelligent design did not arise because of some long-standing problems with evolutionary theory, or because new facts have called neoDarwinism into question. ID is here for only one reason–to act as a Trojan horse poised before the public schools: a seemingly secular vessel ready to inject its religious message into the science curriculum.
Read the whole thing– it is a fascinating description of the chronology of events and the flaws in ID/Creationism.
None of his story, however, gets to why ID/Creationism is being pushed by certain segments of society. On Nightline Wednesday, Ted Koppel had George Will and Cal Thomas on, and they provided the best description for the “Whys?”
Why did President Bush make his ID remarks?
TED KOPPEL: All right. Let me – let me bring George into the same question. Why do you believe that the President has taken a stance on this?
GEORGE WILL: Well, let me apply Occam’s razor to that question and give the simplest answer that comes forward. I think he believes it. I would be amazed if the President did not believe in intelligent design because this President believes in a providential view of history. That is, he believes that events, wars and other developments are infused with God’s purposefulness. This is not an eccentric belief. If you read the 16th President, Abraham’s second inaugural, it’s full of the idea of providential history. Once you subscribe to that, infusing purposefulness and benevolence, if you will, into the evolution of species is a piece of cake. The critics of the teaching of evolution, the adherence to -intelligent design do not, as I understand it, question that the species do evolve. It is the postulated mechanism that they object to. They say that it is purposeful and benevolent, as God is, and not cruel and random. It’s not nature, red in tooth and claw.
And why is there a renewed attempt to infuse science with faith:
TED KOPPEL: Why can this not, even from a political point of view, Cal, simply be set aside in the context of saying, whether or not we want to say that evolution is God’s doing or random design, however you want to describe it, nevertheless, we have an obligation to try and figure out how it happened?
CAL THOMAS: Well, Ted, I think it could be if it was seen as a stand-alone issue. But taken together with school prayer, same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, the Terry Schiavo case, it is a general feeling that everything that a lot of God-fearing, tax-paying, flag-waving, patriotic Americans care about is taken away. It’s being taken away by the courts and by the wider culture. So, standing alone, this might not have had the resonance that it does. But taken together with all of these other things, I think that’s where the problem lies.
TED KOPPEL: So, part of this, George, is about science but most of it, really in the final analysis, is about politics?
GEORGE WILL: It’s about cultural anxiety. It’s about a sense of being marginalized and disrespected by certain groups. It’s a worry about the coarsening of the culture. All of these may be, to varying degrees, legitimate worries. They have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific puzzle of explaining the mechanism that produced us.
I regret I can not provide the entire transcript for you, as it is available only via Lexis-Nexis, but I think Will and Thomas are absolutely right- were the religious right not fighting pitched battles on every front, and, perhaps, losing many of these skirmishes in the Culture Wars, this would not be an issue. The world is changing, many feel alienated and marginalized, and thus, we have these Quixotic rear-guard actions in battles that in all likelihood have already been lost.
by John Cole| 7 Comments
This post is in: Foreign Affairs
President Bush earns some praise in the WaPo:
Some remain skeptical of President Bush’s concern for Africa, and there’s no doubt that the United States could and should do more. But the latest report on Sudan from the United Nations offers a snapshot of an issue on which Mr. Bush has been a leader. So far this year the United States has given $468 million in foreign assistance to Sudan, mostly for humanitarian relief in the western region of Darfur. The U.S. contribution comes to 53 percent of all outside donations — a proportion about twice the size of the nation’s weight in the global economy.
A few other countries have been even more generous relative to the size of their economies, notably Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Britain. But the contribution from many others has been embarrassing. How can France, which prides itself on its leadership in Africa, give only $2 million to this year’s U.N. appeal for Sudan — an amount that, when rounded, comes to zero percent of total contributions to the country? Even if one generously ascribed, say, a fifth of the European Union’s donation of $90 million to French taxpayers, France’s share of the total contribution to Sudan comes to a paltry 2 percent.
Mon Dieu! Read the whole thing, including the lackluster performance from the Muslim world.
by John Cole| 15 Comments
This post is in: Foreign Affairs, War
Via Memeorandum, we see this story that Saddam may be executed after his first trial:
Saddam Hussein could be executed after his first trial if he is convicted and sentenced to death for his alleged role in a 1982 Shiite massacre, even though he faces other charges, an official close to the proceedings said Thursday.
The first trial, which involves the deposed Iraqi ruler’s alleged role in the 1982 massacre of an estimated 150 Shiites in Dujail, north of Baghdad, is expected to begin by the fall, said the official. He briefed reporters on condition that his name would not be used for reasons of security and the sensitivity of the case.
Saddam’s daughter, meanwhile, has threatened that the ousted leader’s defense lawyer could boycott the trial — and preliminary questioning — unless the defense gets better access to Saddam. The defense has complained in the past that it has only been allowed to meet Sadddam with U.S. or Iraqi military officials watching.
Iraqi authorities also are building about a dozen other cases against Saddam that they intend to try separately. Those cases include the killing of rival politicians over 30 years, the 1987-88 Anfal campaign that left tens of thousands of Kurds dead or displaced and the crushing of a 1991 uprising by Shiites following the Gulf War.
If Saddam is sentenced to death in the Dujail case, authorities could “theoretically” carry out the sentence without waiting for the other trials to begin, the official said.
“If the sentence were to be the death penalty, I think that the court will have to make a decision based on international principles, Iraqi law, whether or not there is need for him in another case for the prosecution or another defendant,” the official said.
While the salutary effects of immediately executing this thug are hard to ignore, and I am similarly thrilled by anything that will upset moral piker Ramsey Clark, I am not sure how I feel about this.
Seems to me the best approach would be to have a full hearing, sans controversy. This will be a test case for the new Iraqi government, and it is best they start correctly.
by John Cole| 22 Comments
This post is in: Domestic Politics
A generous reader emails an update to the ‘Diversity Bags’ story, summarizing a Lexington Minuteman article:
1) Much of the original dispute centered around the contents of a "Diversity Book Bag." The Diversity Book Bag is an optional program created by the "anti-bias committee" (the article doesn't explain exactly what that is, but it sounds like a PTA committee or something similar), whereby a set of books and other materials are sent home with one student each week, with the goal of providing material to discuss the diversity of families and cultures with parents and children. Parents are told about the program at several occasions (although it isn't clear from the article if they can examine the contents of the diversity book bags before there children bring them home), and are given the opportunity to opt out of the program. This material is NOT a mandatory part of classroom teaching, as many news reports have implied. The depiction of homosexual families in the book in question consists, according to the Minuteman story, of one picture of two dads setting the table, and another picture of two moms outside washing the dog, both with their children. The book also contains other "non-traditional" families, which I assume to mean single parent families, families with grandparents as the main caregivers, perhaps families of different cultures and races as well -- the article does not describe exactly. Given the strongly pro-gay atmosphere of Lexington, and given the fact that lesbians and gays can in fact legally marry in Massachusetts, it is pretty hard to imagine that a reasonable parent couldn't suppose that a diversity book bag would contain depictions of gay
and lesbian families.2) The man in question, David Parker, clearly wanted to be arrested. An Estabrook teacher called the police sometime after school to say she was having problems with a parent. The police came, discussed the situation with the teacher, and left without making any arrests. Later, when the
school had to be locked up for the night, the teacher called again. The police came again, and told Parker that the school had to be locked, and he could either leave peacefully or be forcibly removed. Parker refused to leave, saying (according to the Minuteman story), "If I'm not under arrest, I'm not leaving." At that point, he was arrested for criminal trespass. He was offered to be released on personal recognizance, but chose to spend the night in jail instead.3) The law in Massachusetts requires that parents be notified prior to any discussion of sex in the classroom, but makes no mention of homosexuality. Whatever you think about the morality of same-sex marriage, the fact is that it is legal in Massachusetts, and to equate the depiction of a legal, married couple (who happen to be of the same sex) with "the discussion of sex" more generally seems far-fetched at best. Again according to the Lexington Minuteman article, the school officials that David Parker met with understood his objections to be to any representation of non-traditional (by this I think the article means gay and lesbian headed) families, in any way or in any context.
Not in the news article, but my take on the whole issue: if you live in Massachusetts, and want you prevent your kid from being exposed to the existence of same sex couples, it seems to me that you have two options: move to another state, where at least those couples are not legally
sanctioned, or home school your kid. Expecting the public schools to attempt to shield children from a fact of life in Massachusetts is ridiculous.
Also, this letter to the editor shines some light on Parker’s intent and demands:
I would like to thank Neil Tassel for clarifying several issues surrounding the David Parker/Estabrook School incident (“Refuting accusations against David Parker,” July 28 Minuteman). I would also like to respond to a few points.
Mr. Tassel said that the Parkers wanted the school to “…notify them in advance if there is a planned discussion about same-sex issues, and, if an adult becomes involved in a discussion spontaneously begun by a child, then remove their child from the discussion. Their concern is that impressionable children will hear for the first time from a respected adult that a homosexual-headed family is a normal family structure, and an equally ‘good’ one at that.”
But do Mr. Tassel and the Parkers not understand that if their demands were met, these same impressionable children would be getting the message from a “respected adult” that these families are not normal, and not equally “good?”
This is the view of the Parkers, and they are demanding that the school present their view to all of the children, no matter how damaging this view is to the children of the affected families. Put yourself back into kindergarten and imagine if any time you wanted to talk about your family to the teacher and the class, the classroom ground to a halt so that certain kids could leave.
How would that make you feel? How often would you bring up your family in classroom discussion after that? How would you feel when other kids freely talked about their families? How would you feel when the other kids teased you about it?
The guy is just a bigot, it seems.
More on David Parker and Diversity BookbagsPost + Comments (22)
by John Cole| 77 Comments
This post is in: Science & Technology, General Stupidity
And our favorite state politican is back in the headlines today. Utah State Senator Chris Buttars (R-West Jordan), who has spent the entire summer auditioning for the role of village idiot, is once again leading the charge to introduce ‘divine design’ into Utah biology classes:
If human evolution is taught in biology class, then the idea of an intelligent force creating the universe ought to be taught in philosophy or another required class, a Utah senator told state school officials Wednesday.
But State Office of Education leaders, who met with Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, on the matter, don’t want to add that instruction, curriculum director Brett Moulding said.
If the two sides can’t compromise, Buttars says he’ll carry a legislative bill to make sure that they do.
“Legislation is a last resort,” Buttars said. “I’m still working on it, but I’m really not highly hopeful we’ll come to a consensus.”
Considering his first resort was to publicly make an ass out of himself repeatedly, and then, just for good measure, go to the editorial page of USA Today and give the whole nation a dose of his foolishness, you can imagine how eager I am to see what the ‘last resort’ will look like.
Although I have to admit- watching Sen. Buttars and the Utah BOE argue over the educational merits of Nietzche v. C.S. Lewis might be entertaining enough to galvanize my support for any legislation he might propose.
*** Update ***
The cunning souls who propound intelligent design are playing with fire, because they have introduced intelligence into the discussion. It is a standard to which they, too, must be held. The theory of intelligent design must itself be intelligently designed. I cannot judge the soundness of their science, but that is not the only standpoint from which they must be judged. Their science, after all, is pledged to a philosophy. Philosophically speaking, I do not see that they have demonstrated what they congratulate themselves for demonstrating. The “argument from design,” the view that the evidence for the existence of God may be found in the organization of the natural world, is an ancient argument, but philosophers have grasped, at least since the sixth section of the third chapter of the second book of the Critique of Pure Reason, that it may establish only the wisdom of a creator, and not the existence of one. It is impossible, of course, not to marvel at the complexity and the beauty of the natural order; but marveling is not thinking. The mind may recoil from the possibility that all this sublimity came into being by accident, but it cannot, on those grounds alone, rule the possibility out, unless it is concerned only to cure its own pain. (Cosmic accident is also an occasion for awe.) Intelligent design is an expression of sentiment, not an exercise of reason. It is a psalm, not a proof…
I had thought, in my Judaic innocence, that Aquinas had gloriously secured natural causality for the Church once and for all. Now I must suppose that the Church’s unsophisticated new construction of God’s will is a manifestation of God’s wisdom. For His agents on Earth have cultural uses for anti-Darwinism. They think it will make us good, because Darwin makes us bad. No doubt this is why President Bush wants “to expose people to different schools of thought,” and have intelligent design taught alongside evolution: to retard our corruption. But isn’t the idea that morality is founded in nature itself a sin of materialism? And are we to teach other false ideas alongside other true ones? I do not want my son to waste his time on phlogiston. I mean, what is truth? The question is begged yet again, this time by the pomo of Crawford.
Amen.
by John Cole| 11 Comments
This post is in: Politics, Previous Site Maintenance
I had to read every newspaper from east to west to find something new for you, so, all the way from San Diego, today’s installment in the Daily Plame Flame War:
Among the many questions surrounding the investigation into who in the Bush administration leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer is whether President Bush’s top political adviser told his boss the truth about his connection to the case.
Two years ago, the White House denied that Karl Rove played any role, but revelations in the past month have shown that Rove spoke with two journalists about the operative, Valerie Plame. Whether Bush knew the truth while the White House was issuing its denials is not publicly known.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan was so adamant in his denials in September 2003 that he told reporters the president knew that Rove wasn’t involved in the leak.
“How does he know that?” a reporter asked, referring to the president.
“I’m not going to get into conversations that the president has with advisers or staff,” McClellan replied.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald questioned Bush a year ago and the prosecutor’s office has questioned Rove repeatedly, so presumably investigators know the answer to what, if anything, Rove told Bush.
Whether Rove shaded the truth with Bush two years ago is a potential political problem. The president so far has stood by Rove’s side, even raising the bar for dismissing subordinates. Two years ago, Bush pledged to fire any leakers, but now he says he would fire anyone who committed a crime.
There ya go. Have at it. And if you don’t like my editing of this post, or you don’t think I have included the ‘right parts’ of the story, or if you think I have selectively edited it, you can just kiss my ass. Or drop ten bucks in the tip jar every time you want to accuse me of something.
I have insomnia, I am exhausted, I am cranky, and this is the flame war thread, after all.