Thursday, May 29, 2008
For the record: liberals can be idiots, too
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Intelligent design redux
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
Friday, April 18, 2008
What a jackass
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.And this ...
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.
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....