The Only Worthwhile Debate On Intelligent Design

Ken AshfordEducation, GodstuffLeave a Comment

Too busy to blog, but I’ll blogwhore a great post from The Abstract Factory entitled "The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its  subject":

Moderator: We’re here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des—

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate’s kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn’t mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible — it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can’t rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn’t prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let’s not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That’s a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we’ll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it’s so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

“I’ll Never Fall For Bush Aga-ai-ai-ain”

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

You know we live in strange times when anti-war songs are being penned by . . . Burt Bacharach.  On his new album, in which he writes lyrics (as opposed to just music) for the first time:

the most stridently political number, "Who Are These People?" [is] sung by Elvis Costello.

That song, expressing disillusionment with the war in Iraq, forcefully asks, "Who are these people that keep telling us lies and how did these people get control of our lives and who’ll stop the violence ’cause it’s out of control? Make ’em stop."

"Stuff just kept going more wrong and more wrong here as I was writing," explained Bacharach, still looking youthful in a blue sweat suit accentuating his bright blue eyes.

Brown Dined While People Died

Ken AshfordDisastersLeave a Comment

I thought Katrina-related Michael Brown stories were soooo September 2005, but I was wrong.  The amount of indifference and incompetence is scary:

Later, on Aug. 31, [FEMA regional director] Bahamonde frantically e-mailed Brown to tell him that thousands are evacuees were gathering in the streets with no food or water and that "estimates are many will die within hours."

"Sir, I know that you know the situation is past critical," Bahamonde wrote.

Less than three hours later, however, Brown’s press secretary wrote colleagues to complain that the FEMA director needed more time to eat dinner at a Baton Rouge restaurant that evening. "He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes," wrote Brown aide Sharon Worthy.

"We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you."

Oh my God.

Congress Hearts Guns, Cheeseburgers

Ken AshfordCongress2 Comments

Why do free market conservatives hate the free market?

Look, I understand that consumers have responsibilities.  If you smoke, and get cancer, you really have nobody to blame but yourself.  You knew the risks, and you took them.

The same is true for fast foods.

I think Americans of all political stripes understand that.  So if you want to sue McDonald’s for "making you fat", your case will get thrown out of court, because you are an idiot trying to make money off of your stupidity about basic health care. 

In other words, the legal system will work.

So why does the Republican Congress have to step in and pass laws which shield the fast food industry and the gun manufacturers from lawsuits?  Why not let the free market play itself out?

The answer, of course, is that the lobbyists for those industries donate heavily in political campaigns, whereas there are no deep pockets in fat people and people with bullets in them.  It’s shameful.  Congress is elected by people and is supposed to protect the interests of people.  Not legal fictions like multi-billion dollar corporations.

It’s 1973 All Over Again

Ken AshfordBush & Co., HistoryLeave a Comment

"[I]t is true that, as far as capacity to govern in concerned, that to be under a constant barrage 12 to 15 minutes a night on each of the three major networks for four months tends to raise some questions in the people’s mind with regard to the President and it may raise some questions with regard to the capacity to govern. The point that I make now is that we are proceeding as best we know how to get all those guilty brought to justice in Watergate. But now, we must move on from Watergate to the business of the people. And the business of the people is continuing with the initiatives we began in the first Administration."

– Richard Nixon during press conference, Summer 1973, in response to a question about his ability to govern in the midst of controversy about his administration

"There is some background noise here, a lot of chatter, a lot of speculation and opining, but the American people expect me to do my job and I’m going to."

– George Bush during press conference, today, in response to a question about his ability to govern in the midst of controversy about his administration

Miers Doesn’t Know Shit About Con Law

Ken AshfordConstitution, Supreme CourtLeave a Comment

I browsed through the Harriet Miers questionnaire submitted to Congress yesterday evening, pausing only to read matters that were interesting.

I spotted this question:

17. Constitutional Issues: Please describe in detail any cases or matters you addressed as an attorney or public official which involved constitutional questions. For each case or matter, please describe in detail the constitutional issue you dealt with, the context in which you dealt with it, and the substance of any positions you took related to that issue.

And here was part of her answer:

While I was an at-large member of the Dallas City Council, I dealt with issues that involved constitutional questions. For instance, when addressing a lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause.

Now, many of you are going to have to trust me on this: there is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause!  Furthermore, no court has ever required a proportional representation requirement pursuant to the EP Clause.

"Proportional representation" is a concept that says that elected officials must be comprised of the same features as their constituents.  For example, a 10-member city council with proportional representation — in a city which is 20% Hispanic — would have 2 Hispanic seats.   Virtuous as that my or may not be, the Constitution simply does not require this.

So what the hell was Miers talking about?

UPDATE:  This explains it, I guess:

Meanwhile, several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers’s response to the committee’s request for information on cases she has handled dealing with constitutional issues. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to "the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause" as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.

"There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause," said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation — which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies — with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations.

Still, confusing these two concepts is the type of mistake that a law student might make, and not a very good law student at that.  It speaks volumes about Miers’ lack of qualifications.

UPDATE: Conservative top-tier groupblogger Leon H of RedState enters the fray with an "Aaaaaaarrrrrgh!":

I know that I’ve promised to stay out of this fray, but this is really a bit much. Leaving aside the question of whether mandatory representation by ethnicity (read: quotas) is a good idea, or a conservative idea, or the hallmark of a conservative judge – to claim in a written response that it is mandated by the Equal Protection Clause is just… just… well, as [constitutional law professor] Patterico says, it’s stunningly wrong.

Manipulated Intelligence

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

Color me unsurprised:

The lengthy account by New York Times reporter Judy Miller about her grand jury testimony in the CIA  leak case inadvertently provides a revealing window into how the Bush administration manipulated  journalists about intelligence on Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

Whatever the implications for special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s probe, Miller describes a conversation with Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff,  Lewis (Scooter) Libby, on July 8, 2003, where he appears to significantly misrepresent the contents of still-classified material from a crucial prewar intelligence-community document about Iraq. 

With no weapons of mass destruction having been found in Iraq and new questions being raised about the case for war, Libby assured Miller that day that the still-classified document, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), contained even stronger evidence that would support the White House’s conclusions about Iraq’s weapons programs, according to Miller’s account. 

In fact, a declassified version of the NIE was publicly released just 10 days later, and it showed almost precisely the opposite. The NIE, it turned out, contained caveats and qualifiers that had never been publicly acknowledged by the administration prior to the invasion of Iraq.  It also included key dissents by State Department intelligence analysts, Energy Department scientists and Air Force technical experts about some important aspects of the administration’s case. 

RELATED:  A speech by ex-Powell aide Larry Wilkinson is the talk of the leftosphere.  He spoke at the New America Foundation, delivering a speech excoriating the WH’s pre-war decision-making: "What I saw was a cabal between" Cheney and Defense Sec. Don Rumsfeld, "on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made." As the Financial Times reports, Wilkerson "said his decision to go public had led to a personal falling out" with Powell, though Wilkerson still said: "I admire this in him, he is the world’s most loyal soldier."   Tim Dunlop, at The Road to Surfdom says:

"As much as I’m happy to see these high-level people coming out and calling a spade a spade in regard to the Bush administration, it would’ve been nice if they’d had the decency to spill the beans a couple of years back, back when it really mattered."

How true.

Democratic Ideas – No. 10 (Last in a Series)

Ken AshfordDemocratsLeave a Comment

Putting Prevention First.  Democrats are committed to reducing unintended pregnancies by increasing access to family planning services and improving contraceptive coverage.  We will increase funding for family planning and empower states to enable more women to take responsibility for their health.  We will also improve contraceptive coverage by assuring equity in prescription drug insurance.

Previous:

Democratic Idea No. 1: Standing With Our Troops

Democratic Idea No. 2: Targeting The Terrorists More Effectively

Democratic Idea No. 3: Fulfilling Our Duty to America’s Veterans

Democratic Idea No. 4: Expanding Economic Opportunity

Democratic Idea No. 5: Quality Education For All

Democratic Idea No. 6: Making Health Care More Affordable

Democratic Idea No. 7: Democracy Begins At Home

Democratic Idea No. 8: Meeting Our Responsibility To Medicare Beneficiaries

Democratic Idea No. 9: Fiscal Responsibility For A Sound Future

Connecting The Dots

Ken AshfordBush & Co., PlamegateLeave a Comment

Let’s take two pieces of information, as reported by different people at different times.  Even if you haven’t followed the Plamegate story closely, you can follow this logic:

(1)  Murray Waas in his October 7 article: "In his own interview with prosecutors on June 24, 2004, Bush testified that Rove assured him he had not disclosed Plame as a CIA employee and had said nothing to the press to discredit Wilson, according to sources familiar with the president’s interview."

(2)  Today’s New York Daily News story:  "Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak."

Now, either or both assertions (in bold above) could be true . . . or false. 

But here’s the thing.  If they are BOTH TRUE  — that is:

(1) if Rove told Bush "I did it"

AND

(2) if Bush testified that Rove denied doing it…

…then Bush deceived the prosecutors and Grand Jury. 

And that’s what we call "obstruction of justice", my friends.

Granted, there is a lot of wiggle room in both these admittedly threadbare accounts, and both are based on unnamed "inside" sources.  But, nevertheless, it should give the White House pause. 

So if I were Bush — even if I believed I was innocent — I would be talking to my personal lawyer right about now.

Too bad she’s busy cramming for her confirmation hearings.  Heh.

Ingenious Solution Is Pretty Stupid

Ken AshfordRandom MusingsLeave a Comment

As you all know, one of the difficulties in traveling to the moon is cargo weight.  There is only so much a spacecraft can handle.  You have to pack fuel, oxygen, and so on.

And if you are planning to explore the moon in a vehicle, like the Apollo Moon Rover, that’s even more weight to consider.

What if we were able to combine resources?  What do you get?

Yup, an edible moon vehicle:

"Overall, going to the moon is a daunting project because of the amount of fuel it takes to send a payload from Earth," said Walter Smith, a Ball State biology professor overseeing the class project.

"If you build a vehicle made of food, you can cut down on the amount of materials and fuel needed to go to the moon. We are telling the students to consider the viability of having a vehicle that can be eaten as you travel across the moon.

"The working model will probably be made from fruit or a breakfast cereal, while the wheels will be made from lollipops," he said.

Mmmmm.  Lollipops covered with moon dust argararaagah!