Thursday, May 29, 2008

For the record: liberals can be idiots, too

In light of my recent ID post, and for the sake of fairness, I had to point out that claims of providential happenings in nature are just as idiotic coming from the likes of Sharon Stone.

Stone is reported saying the recent earthquakes in China's Sichuan Province are the result of "bad karma," presumably connected to the government's treatment of Tibet. Makes one wonder, what does it mean when major earthquakes hit Tibet itself, as they sometimes do? Does karma have a really lousy sense of humor? And why did karma decide to bypass the Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party and go after many hundreds of innocent babies? This karma is starting to sound a lot like the God of Genesis.

Maybe the religious right can get together with this karma thing after all.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Intelligent design redux

Here's a great resource for why intelligent design is dangerous to science, education -- even religion: 

This is the issues in evolution page at the American Association for the Advancement of Science website. It contains articles and video responses to "No Intelligence Allowed" and creationist crusaders everywhere. 

To read a creationist's argument for why ID should be taught in science class, and a refutation from the AAAS, go to:

Monday, April 28, 2008

Movie murmurings: No Intelligence Allowed

In 2004, two separate polls found that nearly the same percentage of Americans (around 40 percent) believe (a) Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and (b) the earth was formed less than 10,000 years ago. This sagely cohort will no doubt thrill to the subtle charms of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” a schlockumentary starring Ben Stein (...Bueller…Bueller...) that claims “Big Science” is unfairly shutting out those who advocate the notion of intelligent design.
 
Sooner or later, social conservatives are just going to have to give this one up. It’s amazing that so many pin their worldview on something as shaky as trumped-up Creationism, but there it is. To see an excellent refutation of the whole ID concept, watch Nova’s “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.” The companion Web site is here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ 
 
One of the most idiotic claims of ID proponents is that refusal to credit their position is tantamount to an Atheist bias. By these standards, all science, from germ theory to geology, is atheistic for refusing to take into account the supernatural. Should a meteorology professor at Penn State be dismissed for teaching that the sun is pulled across the sky by a chariot? I hope so. People can say whatever they want, but if it’s not testable, it’s not a theory – and it’s not science.
 
The weather example is not as goofy as it sounds. Religious conservatives are fond of asserting that weather events could be steered by a divine hand. Is Kansas being punished for its sins by an excessive number of tornadoes? Should my intelligent design theory of tornado occurrence be taught at Penn State, and should I raise claims of bias if it is not?
 
Apparently, Ben Stein thinks so. 

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Hillary’s victory


Well, Hills pulled it off, with a little help from me. Ultimately, she is stronger on the issues that will matter most in November and beyond: economy, foreign policy, health care, crime. Obama has a great vision – his presence on the national stage is one of the best things to happen to this country in a while – but we need clear-cut strategies as much as inspirational rhetoric to beat McCain.
None of which is to say Obama’s talents can’t carry him into the White House. He shows a lithe intelligence able to adapt to and neutralize the boorish tactics of the Right. He could teach Hillary a few things on that score.   

Friday, April 18, 2008

What a jackass

Re. today's article : "NRA, fighting gun laws, calls for Nutter's arrest"

C. Scott Shields, the NRA's lawyer who successfully got a judge to temporarily block enforcement of the city's new suite of gun laws, is grabbing headlines by calling for the arrest of Mayor Nutter and City Council on the grounds of "official oppression." My favorite part is where he implores Philadelphians to "go out and buy their guns now" before, presumably, the hammer of authoritarianism smashes down on the bucolic boulevards of the City of Brotherly Love.

Looking closely at the actual ordinances, signed into law by Nutter April 10, it appears Shields' "git yer guns!!" rallying cry is aimed at the following people: those determined by a judge to be a risk to themselves or to others; those subject to a protection-from-abuse order; those seeking assault weapons or illegal weapons; those who wish to buy more than one gun a month.

I'm certainly glad the NRA is going to bat for mentally disturbed, violent individuals desirous of assault weapons who feel they need more than 12 new firearms a year. Truth is, all of the laws passed last week should be in force nationwide. None of them prevent law abiding citizens from owning a gun to hunt or protect themselves. When will the NRA slink away to its bunker somewhere (still stocked with Y2K goodies) and leave mainstream America alone?

Saturday, April 12, 2008

A Pennsylvania Democrat's quandary


Two front page stories today pretty well sum up the difficulty in deciding who to vote for April 22.

First, we have Hillary in West Philly, taking a substantive anti-crime proposal to the streets. Eliminate the idiotic mandatory-minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders -- check. Fund anti-recidivism measures -- check. Get more police on the beat and reduce urban crime to Bill Clinton-era levels or lower -- check. All three of these strike close to the heart of how government can and should deal with crime, and also to some of George W.'s many miserable failings.

Consider this report, from the Inquirer back in December:
As the homicide rate soared in the early to mid-1990s, Philadelphia's police force declined from nearly 6,400 to about 6,000.But then the force began to grow, in part with funding from the 1994 National Crime Bill. By the middle of 1998, when the homicide rate began its five-year decline, the police force had grown to 6,900 officers.
The size of the force began declining in 2003 - coinciding with the rise in homicides. By 2006, the force was back down to 6,433, and homicides were back up over 400.
And this ...
A study by the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority showed that in 1999, the city got $14.4 million from the feds to put cops on the street. By 2002, Washington had stopped giving any money.
So, we have from Clinton a policy proposal that really speaks to what is needed in our nation's cities and towns.

Meanwhile, the news on Obama today was his "bitter" comment about rural Pennsylvanians. I don't wish to add anything to this already overdone topic, except to say that, while he is not wrong, his comments are indeed a distraction, and represent more a strong understanding of cultural and economic motivators than a strong vision of how to govern. Simply on the strength of policy, Hillary often seems to come out ahead.

But then there is the irrational dislike so many seem to feel for her, and the worry that many moderates considering Obama might slide back to McCain if she is nominated. Obama could also potentially do great things on the world stage, undoing (we hope) some of the damage done by Big George and his oil-garchy.

What to do, what to do....

Friday, March 28, 2008

Let the hype, not Abu-Jamal, die

Regarding today's top story, "Abu Jamal: New hearing or life term," what seems to be poorly understood by most players (especially Philadelphia's fiery district attorney, Lynne M. Abraham) is that commuting Abu-Jamal's sentence to life in prison would take away his soapbox, end the controversy and allow Daniel Faulkner's widow to finally have closure. 

I know death penalty advocates will balk at this, believing as they do that closure for the families of murder victims can only come through further killing, but this whole saga only reveals the stupidity of capital punishment -- and not for the reasons Abu-Jamal, who is certainly guilty, would want to put forward. How has the international attention paid to Abu-Jamal, his being held up as a symbol of a flawed legal system, been helpful to Maureen Faulkner? Why has the state of Pennsylvania persisted in enabling the Cult of Mumia by pushing death in the face of charges of racial bias, etc.? 

Abu-Jamal has found his audience only because the stakes are so high, and having death hanging over his head has muddled the issue. All parties involved should assent to the clear-eyed decision of the federal appeals court, which would, after all, keep this convicted killer behind bars, even if the (perfectly legitimate, from a legal standpoint) racial bias changes were to be taken into consideration. "To move past the prime facie case is not to throw open the jailhouse doors and overturn Abu-Jamal's conviction," judge Thomas T. Ambro is quoted as saying. "No matter how guilty one may be, he or she is entitled to a fair and impartial trial by a jury..."    

As an aside, I've never understood the "victim's rights" justification for capital punishment. Life in prison punishes the offender -- it takes away an individual's freedom for their entire time on this earth, forces them to consider their reasons for being locked up and, perhaps, allows for something good come of the situation (such as their convincing others not to go down this same path). It does not glorify killers the way capital punishment does, by allowing them to seize the martyr's crown. It also allows for justice to be done should the conviction ever be overturned (think of the way DNA evidence has rocked the legal system -- how many innocent people had been sent to death before then? Even one would be too many.)  

A death sentence, on the other hand, punishes a criminal's family. It forces those who love this individual to go through the same sort of suffering that the offender inflicted on the family of the murder victim. Why would any family rocked by murder want to do this? How is this a fitting legacy for the one they have lost -- to use that death to justify further killing? 

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Obama's speech

I'd be remiss not to say something about Barack Obama's speech on race in Philadelphia last week. Most of the criticism I've seen has come from people who either obviously did not watch the speech or are only interested in harping on whatever garden-variety demagoguery comes down the pike (whether from conservative political operatives or inner-city preachers), so long as it buttresses their point of view.

What the Rev. Wright controversy reveals about Obama as a public figure is that he, unlike John Kerry, has the ability to deal directly and forcefully with political nastiness and, even more importantly, redefine it on his terms. This was one case where the medium was indeed the message: the speech was transformative because Obama himself transformed a focus on a few select statements from his pastor, and base insinuation about his own views, into something honest, direct and inspiring. The speech was its own example; it demonstrated how political rhetoric can deal forthrightly with actual issues, rather than myth, bigotry and resentment. 

I watched the speech in North Carolina, where a Republican candidate for governor is currently campaigning on a platform of "crime, gangs and illegal immigrants": rural southern code for "blacks, blacks and Mexicans." Held up against Obama, this guy looks no better than George Wallace (because, in fact he isn't -- the formula his ilk uses never changes, even if the language does). 

Unlike the Wallaces of the world, Obama challenged his audience to manifest what they profess to believe this country to be. His words about our society not being static echo what I once told my kids on a trip to Williamsburg, Va.: American democracy is a process, one that began, but does not end, with white males whose genius was to envision a system that could accommodate the evolving claims of all citizens.
         

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Philly-style conundrum: world-class building or parking lot?

Inga Saffron's article in today's paper on the proposed 1,500-foot skyscraper at 18th and Arch streets suggests such projects are good for the city and appropriate as we move into a new era of urban significance. I wholeheartedly agree.

The need for this front page treatment was made clear by some of the comments posted on philly.com after the Daily News ran an article last week on the same subject. There's nothing more poisonous to this city than ignorance mixed with pessimism, and the postings were sadly predictable: it's a waste of money, it's environmentally unsound (one called it "a traffic and environmental nightmare"), we don't need it, we'll never fill it with tenants, it's a terrorist magnet. All wrong.

As Saffron points out, the tower would be energy-efficient and connected to public transit. Such projects are far preferable to sprawling suburban office parks, replace parking lot dead zones with vibrant retail and office space and take advantage of Philly's emerging position as a convenient, low-cost alternative to Manhattan. The timing is perfect.

As to the terrorist threat, people have this notion that Al Qaeda went after the World Trade Center because it was tall. The WTC was attacked as a symbol of American financial might, just as the Pentagon was attacked as a symbol of military power. The mere fact of a building's height (or lack thereof) does not put it in any particular danger.

Philadelphia deserves this iconic structure.

Friday, March 14, 2008

Movie murmurings: "Horton Hears A Who"

So in today's Philadelphia Inquirer we have a review of "Horton Hears a Who," featuring the following observation from movie critic Carrie Rickey: "As any 55-year old can tell you, Horton's story is quite cosmic. For the pachyderm (voiced by an unusually serene Jim Carrey) takes it on faith that there exists a parallel universe that he can only hear. And he remains firm in convincing doubters, including Sour Kangaroo..."

So he's taking something "on faith" that he can hear? That's called evidence, Carrie. This is not a parable of the long-suffering believer hounded by nasty skeptics, though I can easily see the religious right using the movie's release to seize on that interpretation and run with it ad nauseam.

Let's put this nonsense to rest before it really gets going. Our friend Horton is more like a long-suffering scientist trying to convince the willfully ignorant rabble that what he's discovered empirically is the truth. After all, there are some Sour Kangaroos out there who still refuse to accept germ theory (you can't see the little buggers!). 

A modern update of the story might go like this: the Wickersham Brothers are up in arms at the economic implications of Horton's claim, since Who-rights activists might block their pink clover harvesting efforts. They convince the kangaroo to write a column for World Net Daily poking holes in the Who theory without actually taking a serious look at the evidence. Meanwhile, a nasty vulture steals the draft of Horton's master's thesis and drops it where it will never be found --  a university library.