One Small Step

Chalk one up for the good guys! A decision came down today in Pennsylvania in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover School Board case, and the court ruled that "Intelligent Design" really IS nothing but old-time creationism in a white lab coat. Kudos to Judge John Jones for getting it right.

Moreover, his opinion on the case is really worth the read. It provides not only a fine summary of the arguments presented, but also clearly lays out how science differs from religion, and why ID is in fact a religious philosophy rather than a scientific theory. Even better, the judge addresses the duplicity of the ID proponents and the extents to which they go to cover up their religious affiliations and motivations.

Conservative talk radio is misrepresenting this verdict, and most news outlets are oversimplifying it beyond belief. Yet this remains an issue that should be of great importance to anyone who values learning and education. Science and faith can be compatible for some people, but they are not interchangeable.

Most importantly, science allows the evidence to determine the conclusions reached - with peer-reviewed critical review and the need to replicate a result on multiple occasions. ID, and all other forms of creationism, begin with their conclusions (i.e. God exists, the Bible is fact, etc.) - then construct convoluted arguments to make these conclusions seem "scientific". ID would be an interesting thing to cover in a theology class, or a social studies class, or a political science class. But it is not science, and to teach kids that it is only contributes further to the woeful scientific ignorance that pervades this nation.

Too Good To Be True?

Ah the wonders of the World Wide Web. Instant communication, instant information and instant punditry insure lots of fun stuff to read, not to mention giving one that feeling of being on the cutting edge of what's going on in the world. But how much of the web is basically cow cookies? Moreover, do we have the mental discipline to a.) be suspicious of stories that we really want to believe and b.) not be instantly dismissive of stories we want to utterly reject?

This struck me today when a friend with decidedly leftist tendencies sent me this article. It's really pretty believable. In a nutshell, our current resident president allegedly responded to someone's concern that parts of the "Patriot" Act were unconstitutional by responding: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face ... it's just a goddamned piece of paper."

I find this wholly believable, insofar as I've often noticed that NO currently serving member of the federal government (with the exception of Congressman Ron Paul) gives a tinker's damn about the Constitution when it gets in the way of whatever they want to do. Moreover, I really want to believe it, as it confirms my belief that demopublicans and republicrats are just two sides of the same big-government, welfare/warfare coin. But does that make it true?? Honestly, I don't know.

Now you'd think that if there was any real evidence to support this, it would be splashed all over the mainstream media. It's no secret that many members of that august establishment are less than positively inclined toward old Shrub, and no doubt they'd be able to generate a lot of throwable mud if they could make this stick.

That makes me suspicious, despite the fact that I want it to be true. Oh, how I want it to be true! It's always satisfying when the bad guy actually admits to his nefarious scheme (which I think is why James Bond movies are fun .... there's the big confession scene, and then we know the bad guy's gonna get it). Yet, in an age where people will tell you with a straight face that the levees in New Orleans were deliberately blown up, or that we never really landed on the moon, or that Intelligent Design really isn't about religion, it pays to be a bit skeptical. Actually, it pays to be a lot skeptical.

I'm also skeptical of how sincere the majority of people are when they claim to worry about health of the Constitution. Regardless of how much you may hate Shrub, NO demopublican or republicrat supporter has ANY moral high ground to stand on when it comes to ignoring the Constitution or regarding it as nothing but a "goddamned piece of paper." Our current form of government is so unconstitutional I could fill several pages just listing the recent violations (such as the "Patriot" Act, the Income Tax, federal control of education, the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" legislation Shrub signed off on, the mountain of so-called "gun control" legislation that's been passed over the years, etc., etc., etc.) -- and both sides of the demopublican / republicrat monolith have joyfully done it.

The real threat to the Constitution is our collective gullibility. Americans like easy answers to complicated questions, instant gratification, and lots of black and white, good and evil explanations of the world we inhabit. Since the majority of the population (including our elected representatives) haven't even bothered to read the Constitution, can we really expect anyone to understand it? Plus, even if they did read it, would they have the courage and discipline to follow it? I'm skeptical of that too. But until someone starts reading it, what I am sure of is that we'll continue to get the government we deserve.

A Bum By Any Other Name ...

I saw this story from the AP today, and it reminded me of why the welfare state is such a colossal waste of money (and for those of you on the left, I agree with you that the warfare state is also a colossal waste of money, so don't get all morally superior on me). Anyhow, the bottom line is that the feds are still ponying up money to house and take care of refugees from hurricane Katrina.

Now if the refugees in question are physically unable to work, I suppose I can see supporting them. Ideally, I'd say that private charities should be doing it (since they don't force me to contribute like the government does), but I suppose if we're going to have the government in the charity business, we can take care of those who are unable to support themselves. Let's be damned specific about what "unable" means, however.

And that's what burns me about this story. If I'm displaced by a natural disaster and the feds are paying for my lodging, I've got a great opportunity to get back on my feet much faster. All I have to do is find a job (and from what I see in the want ads, there is no real shortage of employment opportunities), and since I'm not paying rent or other living expenses I can pull a tidy little nest egg together PDQ. Granted, it may not be a great job, or a job I plan to keep for a long time, but when you're down and out you have to start somewhere.

Unless, of course, the government insures that you don't. You can be a bum, or a baby machine, or a lifelong screwup on the dole in one city, and if a natural disaster hits, you just move on down the road and the pattern of government-subsidized dependence continues. As in so many other cases, when "the government" pays for it, everyone conveniently forgets that the people paying for it are the people who are actually working for a living and being looted by our good friends at the IRS.

This is why I respect (and contribute to) private charities. When they help people who are down on their luck, the goal is to get them back on their feet. The Salvation Army will take you in and give you food and clothing, but you'd damned well better try to make something of yourself and stand on your own two feet. If you just want to hang out, get drunk, smoke rock, or pass yourself off as the next great but-as-yet-undiscovered hip-hop artist, they throw you out. They understand that "charity" is, by definition, receiving the unearned. In the old days, everyone understood that too -- so being on the dole was looked down upon (as was irresponsibly pumping out kids).

But once politicians understood that votes could be bought at taxpayer expense, the notion of the "entitlement" was created. Irresponsibility, poor family planning, and addiction became not only acceptable, but also tickets to official sympathy and a totally subsidized lifestyle. Then, the anti-capitalistic leftists trotted out these pathetic excuses for humans as damning indictments of the free market, and demanded more socialism to remedy the problem their dependency-creating policies created in the first place!

If you think I'm being hard-hearted, I invite you to take the following challenge. I hear so many trendy leftists opine about their heartfelt interest in the fate of the "poor" .... so I say put up or shut up. Pick the down-and-outer of your choice, and try to help them. Help them find a job and see if they take it (or keep it). Offer them food for work and see if they take you up on it. If all these people need is a chance, give them one.

However, if you discover that you've wound up adopting a Katrina-refugee-like dependent of your very own, don't be too surprised.

Just The Facts....

I'm really getting sick of this whole debate over whether to say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays", as well as all the whining by Christians about how they're so persecuted. Personally, I'm perfectly happy to let individuals (and that includes businesses, etc.) decide how they wish to express themselves without making a federal case out of it. Just to be different, I like to respond to the greeting "Merry Christmas" with a response appropriate to the early history of the winter holidays .... something like "And may Odin spare you tonight". Most people don't get it, but it confuses them enough to let me make my escape before the fur flies.

However, just for the record, the holiday that we currently celebrate as "Christmas" is far older than Christianity. Granted the Christians borrowed it (at swordpoint, if necessary) and reconfigured it to fit their needs, but it is most definitely NOT their exclusive holiday. Don't believe me? Then take a few moments to visit The History Channel website for a nice overview of the holiday's history.

So enjoy your holidays, however you wish to celebrate them. I'm still celebrating the fact that I'm no longer in Wisconsin, and therefore am no longer snowed in and shivering from sub-zero cold.

The Sky Is Falling!!

I tend to spend a lot of time here ragging on socialism, collectivism, and other forms of ant-colony-like thought from leftists. But not today. Today's recipient of the "Somebody Needs To Relax" award is Rebecca Hagelin, a columnist for the online rightist website Townhall.com. Her beef? Apple has now released an iPod that plays video, which means that individuals can now put pornography on their iPods.

Of course, social conservatives seldom admit that what really bothers them the most about pornography is that deep down they'd really enjoy it if they hadn't been brainwashed into an unnatural hatred of themselves via their religious programming. And in their hung-up, sexually repressed world, anything that they'd like to do but can't (due to the whole "I am a jealous 'god' who'll roast your ass for eternity if you even think about it " thing) becomes the target of their perpetually indignant rage. So they trot out "the children" as their one-size-fits-all excuse to censor, ban and persecute.

But what I really love is how they're now trying to back up their superstition-driven arguments by dressing them up to look objective (kinda like putting a white coat on Creationism and calling it "Intelligent Design"). Citing a study by the Heritage Foundation, Hagelin lists all of the damage that exposure to erotica allegedly causes. Naturally, children are especially threatened by these things. The list is so good, I just have to comment on it:

• Developing tolerance toward sexually explicit material, thereby requiring more novel or bizarre material to achieve the same level of arousal or interest.

Really? I ask y'all .... how many of you who started off enjoying plain old regular porn suddenly developed a taste for explicit pictures of two hookers, a moose, and a food processor?? Sounds like a retread of the old "Marijuana leads to heroin" argument.

• Overestimating the prevalence of less common sexual practices (e.g., group sex,
bestiality and sadomasochistic activity).

I swear this betrays what many of these folks secretly dream of. And notice how they lump group sex -- which can just be a normal extension of regular sex -- in with stuff that the overwhelming majority of erotic consumers avoid.

• Abandoning the goal of sexual exclusivity with a partner.

Ah ... now we're getting somewhere. Are they concerned about children per se, or about indoctrinating children with their own belief system?? What, outside of their religious dogma, establishes "sexual exclusivity with a partner" as the end-all and be-all??

• Perceiving promiscuity as a normal state of interaction.

Gee ... in many other species it is a "normal state of interaction". For a huge number of people on this planet it's a pretty normal state of interaction too. Perhaps the real point here is that promiscuity IS in fact the normal state of interaction, and certain religions have opted to ban it for reasons of economic and social control. Just maybe??

• Developing cynical attitudes about love.

I don't follow the reasoning here at all. Anyone who has fallen in love more than once or twice has probably become a bit cynical. Anyone who's fallen in love more than once or twice and not gotten any sex out of it should be especially cynical.

• Believing marriage is sexually confining.

Isn't it?? This isn't necessarily a bad thing (especially if you lived a bit before you got married), but for many who marry young and haven't lived much, marriage does become sexually confining (which might help explain the high divorce rates in the country).

• Believing that raising children and having a family is as an unattractive prospect.

Religion to the forefront again. Pre-ordained sex roles, perhaps?? For many of us, raising children and having a family IS an unattractive prospect. It has nothing to do with pornography. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that having children is expensive, it limits your personal freedom, it entails life-long obligations that everyone is not equally willing/able to assume, and it absolutely changes your life. Now if you want to go ahead and pump out a few .... be my guest (at your own expense, please). But there are perfectly logical reasons not to reproduce .... assuming that logic is controlling your thinking.

• Developing a negative body image, especially for women.

Maybe these folks really haven't been watching much pornography. A negative body image for women?? As comedian Robert Schimmel pointed out, virtually any woman can do what women in erotic films can do. They may be a little larger or smaller or narrower or wider .... but they can do it. If anyone should develop a negative body image from pornography it's men. Did you ever see the units on those guys? Moreover, they continue to "function" for 15-30 minutes without any "accidental emissions". That not only gives us guys a negative body image, but it's also really, really depressing.

I can't help but think this is just another example of the American Taliban trying to chase us back into the 13th century. Talk about a group of people who need to get laid more ....