February 2009

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28

The thing to remember about freedom is that it is not given, it is taken

-Scott Adams

October 31, 2006

Fake Vodka

This is why people fear anarcho-capitalism. They want the government to protect them from this kind of situation:

Fourteen towns in the Irkutsk region of Siberia have declared a state of emergency, amid a dramatic upsurge in mass poisonings caused by fake vodka.

Almost 900 people in the region are in hospital with liver failure, apparently after drinking industrial solvent.

Corporations, of course, would be even more likely to perpetrate such horrors.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

October 30, 2006

Copyright Issues

Perhaps the technology industry will tire of the constant whinging that comes from the music and movie and publishing industries and decide instead to build fully functional systems that do not accept the arbitrary limitations put on them by a content industry that fears for its own future.

Commentator Bill Thompson on the inevitable changes in store for the music, movie and publishing industries.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 29, 2006

Waterboarding

What does waterboarding actually look like? If you don't know, take a look:

In order to say you are for it or against it, or someplace in between, you really ought to know what it is.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1)

October 28, 2006

The Silent, Ignored, Divided Twenty Percent

Earlier this year, the Burlington Free Press printed a letter to the editor that stated, in part,

The Gallup Poll's annual survey on government found that 20 percent of the population is libertarian. Many libertarians can be found in the Democratic and Republican parties trying unsuccessfully to change these behemoths. Trying to hold the Republicans to their small-government rhetoric, and the Democrats to their promises of social tolerance and opposition to the war.

Libertarians make up the sensible center. We are socially tolerant and fiscally frugal. Libertarians are building a third party to put freedom of choice and responsibility back into your hands.

The letter was written by Hardy Machia, the chairman of the Vermont Libertarian Party.

It may not be immediately obvious, but Mr. Machia is in the minority of politically active libertarians in that he eschews the two major parties. Most people who seek policies of greater freedom do so from within the two big parties. And they generally lose that fight to those who seek to regulate, regulate, regulate. This is true with the Democrats (regulate business, regulate firearms, regulate hate-speech, etc) and Republicans (regulate relationships, regulate substances, and secretly monitor that which cannot be regulated). Libertarians who fight from within either of these two parties are on a fool’s errand.

Our plight was recently highlighted by an article in The Economist:

America may be the land of the free, but Americans who favour both economic and social freedom have no political home. The Republican Party espouses economic freedom—ie, low taxes and minimal regulation—but is less keen on sexual liberation. The Democratic Party champions the right of homosexuals to do their thing without government interference, but not businesspeople. Libertarian voters have an unhappy choice. Assuming they opt for one of the two main parties, they can vote to kick the state out of the bedroom, or the boardroom, but not both.

But the situation is even worse than this, as the two main parties repeatedly fail to deliver what they are advertising.

Democrats actually oppose gay marriage and even civil unions. Remember the way Bill Clinton burned the gay community with “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”? Why do Democrats have the support of the gay community?

Democrats are the self-styled party of inclusiveness and diversity, but they have no problem violating those principles for partisan mud-slinging based on race, creed, etc. And it’s not hard to make the argument that they have long taken the black vote for granted.

Meanwhile, Republicans are not giving us smaller government. They are fat on pork, and are so different from the 1994 GOP that even Dick Armey says they have compromised their agenda and will lose their majority in the House.

Again, why would any lover of freedom vote for either of these two parties? The only answer is pragmatism, though we know that is a formula for failure in the long run.

The Economist article concluded with an ironic, painful note that the situation is, of all things, market-driven:

Libertarians are ignored partly because they are hard to find, not least because they just want to be left alone. (There is a Libertarian Party, but it gets hardly any votes.) Politicians can reach social conservatives through churches or union members through their unions, but where do libertarians gather? Parties will always court the votes that are cheapest to court because, for once, they are spending their own money.

Libertarians have been hoping that the internet will be the place to find and organize like-minded, anti-government Americans. According to polls, there is a large, silent minority of us in this country - enough to control the outcome of any election, if we could only be organized toward a common goal. But we instead concentrate on our differences - some fight primarily for social freedom, while others concentrate on economic liberties. So long as that is the case, we will only get lip service from the two parties of power and big government.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

October 26, 2006

George Allen and Porkbusters

We all know that Senator George Allen is in a tight race for re-election. The race has been receiving a lot of press - though not for substantive reasons, of course. And there is a place for that kind of thing - people do want to know the dirt on the candidates, after all. But as I have said before, the issues matter most to me.

That's why I am so glad to see Senator Allen's article at RedState: "Spending Is The Problem, Not Revenue". Allen credits the blogosphere - specifically Porkbusters - for forcing greater transparency in government spending. Says Allen:

Porkbusters represents citizens demanding accountability from their government. That is grassroots activism at its very best, and I share their goal. Congress doesn’t have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. Toward that end, I have supported a “Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights”...

I am also a sponsor of the “Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies Act”...

I also support passage of the “Stop Over Spending Act of 2006,” which I have sponsored...

Whether you agree or disagree with such efforts, it is nice to see them laid out like that. It would be helpful if more politicians would put together some articles like this, documenting their positions and the legislation they have/will sponsor. We could start with Jim Webb, frankly.

And after the election, I'll judge Allen's performance by this article. Considering that he is widely assumed to have presidential aspirations, it should be a great opportunity to demonstrate that he says what he means and he means what he says. Or that he doesn't.

Again, would that more politicians in both parties would author some articles with some specifics. At least, I would personally appreciate it.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Million Dollar Comma

"This agreement shall be effective from the date it is made and shall continue in force for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party."

That darned second comma costs between $1million and $2 million Canadian (depending on which news source you like).

Perhap's, folk's would use punctuation mark's more sparingly, if they weren't usually so damned inexpensive.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 25, 2006

Firefox 2.0 Released

Just wanted to get a plug in for the new and improved version of my favorite browser, Firefox, released yesterday.

I was a Netscape user from the time it was created until the time AOL bought Netscape and things went seriously downhill.

It took a while for Mozilla to shape up into Firefox, but now that it has, I very rarely have to fire up Internet Explorer.

I've been using Firefox 2 beta, and now Firefox 2, for quite a while now, and think it's the best browser around. (No, I haven't tried Safari. But I have tried Opera.)

My plug wouldn't be complete without a link, so if you're not already using Firefox 2, get it here.

(The photo shows the congratulatory chocolate rum cake sent to the Firefox team from the Internet Explorer development team. It was reportedly not only completely non-toxic, but quite tasty. One Firefox developer did report crashing on the way home, however. [Okay, so I made up that last bit.] )

Image credit: Firefox

Posted by Rick | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

October 23, 2006

He’ll use his weapon more effectively than you anyway.

Brussels Journal quotes the frontrunner for the 2007 French presidential race, Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy on RTL radio, 22 September 2006:

I would like to say one thing, in what is my conception of the Republic, security is the responsibility of the State, I am against militias, I am against the private ownership of firearms, and I’m trying to make you think about that. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he’ll use his weapon more effectively than you anyway so you’re risking your life. If the criminal is not armed and you are and you shoot, your life will be ruined, because killing someone over a theft is not in line with the republican values that are mine. The private ownership of firearms is dangerous. I understand your exasperation for having been burglarized two times, I understand the fear that your wife and daughter may have but the answer is in the efficiency of the police and the efficiency of the judiciary process, the answer is not in having guns at home.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 22, 2006

As Gay as a Seagull

The Oslo Natural History Museum opened an exhibition last week on homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom. I swear on all that I hold sacred that this link is work safe.

The article says that homosexuality has been observed among 1,500 species, and that it is “well documented” in 500 of those species. I am not quite sure what the cutoff is for whether it is well documented.

Also, I was disappointed that there was no mention of seagulls in particular. It’s not that I have some kind of unhealthy fascination with gay seagulls or anything… it’s just that when I learned of homosexual behavior among seagulls, it was the first time I even considered that sexual preference could be something other than a conscious choice.

Okay, I know that the whole story is being begged.

I was in high school biology class – so, 1987. A student asked Mr. O’Day why people would make a stupid assertion like ‘homosexuality is not a choice, it is inherited’. It went something like this:

Student 1: But Mr. O’day, gay couples can’t procreate, so the gay gene wouldn’t get passed on, so it’s a stupid argument to try to make.

O’Day: Gay men are physically capable of having sex with a woman and fathering children – passing on those genes.

Student 1: Well, okay… but… it just can’t be natural. I mean, gay men father these babies for generations and generations? It doesn’t make sense.

Wulf: Yeah. Why would it survive natural selection? What purpose would homosexuality have?

O’Day: Perhaps homosexual men possess characteristics that are more community oriented. That would make their gene likely to be passed on over generations. I can’t say for sure, but the fact is that - morality aside - homosexuality is observed in the animal kingdom.

[blank stares]

O’Day: For example, many seagulls are gay. And it isn’t because they hang out on the coast.

I have no idea why seagulls were his example, but I remember it pretty clearly – partly because seagulls used to congregate on the soccer field, and there was one kid in class who, for the rest of that school year, would walk into class, point out the window at the gulls, and say “look at those faggots on the soccer field!” I thought it was funny the first time.
So, um, back to Oslo. No mention of seagulls in the BBC article, but it still sounds like an interesting exhibit. But of course the question comes up: Is this a proper function of government? Well, Norwegians are a bunch of socialists, so for them I suppose it is. What I find most frustrating about the USA is that this sort of thing would be opposed here for all the wrong reasons. In case you doubt my assertion:

There has been some hostility to the exhibition. An American commentator said it was an example of "propaganda invading the scientific world".

Haha… no kidding. An American said that? I find that hard to believe. We all know how Americans like to keep their science separate from their social agendas.

Petter Bockman, a zoologist who helped put the show together, admitted that "there is a political motive".

Thanks for clearing that up, Petter. Incidentally, it wasn’t that long ago that gay rights activists were protesting plans to test the sexual orientation of penguins which had engaged in homosexual activity. BBC story here. That was rather ridiculous, imho. At the time, I refrained from making comparisons between zoos and prisons. It is a less natural environment, and therefore provides less insight. Besides, it would be in poor taste to note the similarities between this image and this one.

Adding some female penguins to that zoo was just fine. Let’s at least make an effort to keep our science separate from our social agendas after all.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 21, 2006

Marginalized Free-Market Supporters

Several days back, Greg Mankiw asked, Are all economists free-market purists? He highlighted a working paper by Daniel B. Klein and Charlotta Stern on the Policy Views of American Economic Association Members. It's an interesting read for many reasons.

People often suppose or imply that free-market economists constitute a significant portion of all economists. We surveyed American Economic Association members and asked their views on 18 specific forms of government activism. We find that about 8 percent of AEA members can be considered supporters of free-market principles, and that less than 3 percent may be called strong supporters. The data is broken down by voting behavior (Democratic or Republican). Even the average Republican AEA member is middle-of-the-road, not free-market. We offer several possible explanations of the apparent difference between actual and attributed views.

Only 8% of those in the AEA are supporters of the principles of free markets? Only 3% are strong supporters? 3%?? No wonder free markets get short shrift by non-economists - they aren't even supported by economists. I feel so abandoned.

Mankiw highlighted a particular passage that I found fascinating:

Probably one of the most significant explanations for the erroneous free-market attribution is that almost all scholarly free-market supporters are economists. The center columns of Table 5 [actually Table 6] show that free-market supporters are practically non-existent in anthropology, history, political science, and sociology. There is a familiar heuristic bias of confusing a statement with its inverse. That is, if people perceive that every free market professor is an economist, they may slip into thinking that a preponderance of economists are free-market.

(emphasis and correction of table number both courtesy of Professor Mankiw)

In other words, when the average academic is left-of-center, those in the center appear to him to be on the right. It's all relative to those humanities profs

As usual, Mankiw's comments section has some real gems. To be clear, I am not being facetious when I say that. One example:

Cyril Morong said...

Thanks for posting this. I have wanted to see a survey like this for some time. Sometimes liberals say that the liberals in the humanities and other social sciences are balanced off by the libertarians in the economics departments, so that overall higher education is not biased (this argument was made by someone in the Chronicle of Higher Education in the last couple of years). Maybe the economics departments are not balancing things off.

Now, I'm not one of those conspiracy theorists who believes that America's universities are run by a Marxist cabal who are bent on the ruin of our nation through moral decline and the destruction of meritocracy (pause for Rammage to take the bait), but this is an excellent point. Consider the past work by the authors of this paper. Daniel B. Klein Klein is Professor of Economics at George Mason University and Charlotta Stern is a Swedish professor of sociology. You may remember their past studies on how politically skewed academia is... or you may not, but you've probably heard that assertion. Well, how lefty is the academic left, and how right-wing is the academic right? Probably less than you think.

Maybe around 3%.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

A Sarbonian Education

NPR highlights ECON 201 at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, which is administered by economics professor Jeff Sarbaum, who says ;

So all of the reading material, all of the content, all of the examinations and homework, if you will, are built inside the engine of the game.

The video games that have the best examples of realistic physics are, unfortunately, off limits to me in the classroom (for a variety of reasons). It's a neat trick to find a game that the teachers, parents, and administrators would approve of, but would also hold the attention of students for more than a few minutes.

An example of one that is of marginal value and questionable content, but which the kids love for its simplicity, is Line Rider. When I catch them playing it, they tell me that they are using it to learn about friction and acceleration due to gravity. Of course.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 19, 2006

What Ails the GOP?

Former majority leader Dick Armey spoke with NPR a few days ago about why the GOP may be about to lose control of the House of Representatives here in a few weeks. The ideas should come as no surprise. The only surprise is that it's so clear, and they're doing it anyway.

Listen to the interview here, and below his photograph on that site there is another link to "hear Armey's advice for Republicans in November".

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 18, 2006

Webb Rebuked for Lies

The Washington Times weighs in on the Virginia Senate race:

Attack ads are one thing, but blatantly erroneous attack ads should be exposed for the political tricks they are. One such ad is Democrat James Webb's current "Steer" commercial alleging financial misdeeds by Sen. George Allen -- which Mr. Webb should promptly retract. The ad wrongly claims that Mr. Allen "tried to steer government contracts to a company that paid him in stock options," wrongly claims that Mr. Allen "hid those options for years" and wrongly claims that the options are worth $1.1 million. None of this is true.

Being a Virginian, I have been inundated with press coverage of this race. For months now, it's been "macaca" this and racism that, even in the national media. As I have stated before, this just isn't enough for me. I want to see the issues, and some substance. I pretty much know where George Allen stands, seeing that he's been my governor and my Senator. And while I don't agree with the Republican agenda, I at least feel that I know what it is.

The Democrat agenda is just to be anti-Bush. And Jim Webb's agenda seems to be that he's not George Allen. But that covers a lot of ground. If he can't be more specific than that, and he continues to approve ads that are not just misleading (we expect that of politicians) but bald-faced lies, I just don't see how I can be asked to vote for him.

Back to the Washington Times:

How could the Webb campaign think people wouldn't detect all this? They probably think voters are just too distracted by the flurry of charge-counterchange to understand and really care about the truth. Don't be fooled by such election-year tricksterism.

Exactly. I am an undecided, libertarian-independent voter who is going to be left with only one candidate I can take seriously - George Allen. Virginians simply aren't being offered any other choice. Whatever complaints I have about him, I can at least say that I know what he wants to do, and I can believe him.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 17, 2006

Movies and Race

I suppose I should be grateful, should consider the black male's cinematic promotion from corpse to eunuch to represent progress. In the long run, some say, the passage of time, and the cultural and genetic intermingling of the American melting pot are more likely to cure these ills than any amount of activism or finger-pointing.

Steven Barnes is an author/screenwriter. He's black, and he's watching for how black men are portrayed in movies. Hey, I just found it to be an interesting article.

So, what percentage of the movie-going population are white men? Enough that it would "bomb" a movie where a black man had a love scene? I just don't buy it. And I suspect that the thought process that brought Barnes to this commentary is at least part of the problem.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 16, 2006

Fortnight vs. Bi-Weekly

Why did we create the word "bi-weekly?"

As if it's not enough that we have to suffer through the same dialogue every time it's used (i.e. "Did you mean semi-weekly?" "No, I meant once every two (2) weeks" etc.), there was already a perfectly good - and more concise, might I add - word well-established in our English lexicon: 'fortnight.'

I encourage all of you to forego using 'bi-weekly' in favor of 'fortnight.'

Example: "Did anyone take minutes at our last fortnightly meeting?"

Thank you.

Next Week: Penultimate vs. Next-to-Last

Posted by Rammage | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

October 15, 2006

Richard Dawkins and the War Between Science and Religion

I have some thoughts to share regarding this interview of Richard Dawkins in Salon. Let’s start with the very first clause in the very first sentence:

In the roiling debate between science and religion, it would be hard to exaggerate the enormous influence of Richard Dawkins.

There ought not to be any debate between science and religion, as I have discussed before (see here). So, right off the bat this is striking me as unnecessary sensationalism – publicity for its own sake. And while I like Dawkins’ work (what I have read of it), he is a celebrity, and possibly susceptible to the same foibles as any other celebrity. All press is good press, no? I know better than to judge an entire article by the first clause, but I also remember the importance of an opening sentence (casual blog entries such as this one excepted, of course).

Still in the intro to the interview:

Dawkins' latest book turns to his more recent passions. In "The God Delusion," Dawkins fulminates against religious moderates as well as fundamentalists. He argues that the existence of God is itself a scientific conjecture, one that doesn't hold up to the evidence.

I think it is interesting to consider the existence of God to be a scientific conjecture, but in reality it is a belief that far precedes scientific thought. It certainly isn’t a hypothesis, as it cannot be falsified by experiment. It is extra-scientific. Besides, while it doesn’t hold up to the evidence, it would be horrendously wrong to imply that this makes it false. Atoms existed long before we could prove that they do. I won’t belabor the point with more examples.

Thankfully, Dawkins does make the point that most self-avowed atheists fail to make: He isn’t really an atheist.

Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further.

To be a vehement atheist is to have faith, ironically, and to assert more than one actually knows.

Of course, the comparison of the God of Abraham to the Flying Spaghetti Monster fails on account of the number of people who claim to have witnessed each. Even as a severe agnostic, I allow for a greater possibility of a god that vaguely resembles the one described in Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, since so many sincere and rational people claim to have a personal experience with this kind of entity. Maybe they know something that I don’t. Unlike Dawkins, I humbly hold that as an explanation of more than zero percent likelihood. I don’t arrogantly write it off as hallucinations and dreams – he does this without evidence, take note.

But the part of the interview that really rankles me is when he gets into atheists being more intelligent than theists. Putting aside the anecdotal evidence of this or that genius who believes or believed in God, Dawkins seems to make some statements that he has no business making. For example:

The one meta-analysis of this that I know of was published in Mensa Magazine. It looked at 43 studies on the relationship between educational level or IQ and religion. And in 39 out of 43 -- that's all but four -- there is a correlation between IQ/education and atheism. The more educated you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist. Or the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist.

Dawkins says that it’s a correlation, but then he speaks about it as a causation. Could it be that atheists are more likely to seek an education? I certainly wouldn’t find that hard to fathom. But more importantly, who exactly will be persuaded by this argument? Dawkins says that one of his goals is to persuade people to his point of view, but I just can’t imagine that if I were a religious man, I would want to read about how my religion indicates that I am probably a bit dim and ignorant. [shrug] Perhaps this simply means that I am not his target audience. But I don’t understand this pressing need of his to force a decision between science and religion. Plenty of people – of varying degrees of intelligence and education – are able to have both a scientific philosophy and a religious faith. Dawkins’ attack of the moderate just seems unnecessary and unhelpful. Late in the interview (bottom of page 3), Dawkins says:

Well, I don't relish confrontation for its own sake. I don't spoil for a fight. I'd much rather have an amicable discussion. But I am a professional academic, and professional academics are used to arguing about all sorts of things. And we argue in a robust way, bringing forth evidence where we can and using our skills of argument to use that evidence. So I may come across as passionate. But that doesn't mean I go out of my way to have confrontations in an aggressive way. I don't.

I have to ask; is the best way to start an amicable discussion… to title your book The God Delusion? Real non-confrontational, Richard.

Furthermore, when asked what is so bad about religion, he selectively speaks to what is bad about some of the organized, hierarchical religions, especially with regard to their political influence. It is here where he paints with the broadest brush. He says that religion is bad because:
- it encourages one to believe falsehoods,
- it encourages one to be satisfied with inadequate explanations which really aren't explanations at all,
- it actively discourages people from scientific explanations for the world and for life,
- some religions teach that blasphemers and apostates should be killed,

But it is the politics, not the faith itself that is the problem. Dawkins skims right over that distinction and blasts all religion as bad. The fact is that most religious beliefs are similar to most secular beliefs in that they only become dangerous when they are permitted to govern the lives of those who do not actively consent to such. For example, your religious faith is no more dangerous to me than is the commune where my cousin lives – until the government sanctions that religious faith or that communist philosophy as a system by which I must abide.

Of course, Dawkins has no problem imposing his beliefs on others. He calls it child abuse for parents to teach their religious faith as anything more than one choice among many. This completely neglects the reality that religious faiths all have exactly one thing in common: they do not view themselves as but one choice among many. They all consider their own doctrines to be correct, and others to be varying degrees of incorrect. Dawkins is no different, except that while my parents may have worried that I would burn in flames for all eternity for having the wrong beliefs, Dawkins only worries that I would contribute to the evils of the world through the duration of my short life. Oh, and my parents based their concerns on personal spiritual/religious experiences that they held, whereas Dawkins bases his concerns on personal spiritual/religious experiences that he does not hold – a null set.

It’s a ridiculous argument and expectation.

Now, having said all of that, I should note that I agree completely with this exchange:

Salon: But it seems to me the big "why" questions are, why are we here? And what is our purpose in life?

Dawkins: It's not a question that deserves an answer.

But that’s a personal preference. There are people who will choose to ponder this question, and it is not illegitimate for them to do so if it pleases them. It is simply illegitimate to expect scientists to attempt to make any answer. We cannot. That’s not a failing of science – it’s just not what science is for. And furthermore, for scientists who are agnostic on religion, we simply don’t care about the question.
Dawkins says that there are certain “core questions”, like;

how did the universe begin? Where do the laws of physics come from? Where does life come from? Why, after billions of years, did life originate on this planet and then start evolving?

But that’s also a personal preference. It is no more natural to ask these questions than, Why are we here? and What is our purpose in life? I know plenty of people of good intellect who simply don’t care about these questions.

Where I disagree with Dawkins is that I don’t see where he or anybody else gets off judging the absolute legitimacy of these questions or the people who ask them. The issue is whether science is a legitimate way to attempt an answer. And, for each of us of course, whether we have a personal interest in using our time and energy pursuing the questions.

Dawkins has a fanaticism that does not seem to have any rational, scientific basis. His hatred of religion is evident in his language.

The science lobby, which is very important in the United States, wants those sensible religious people -- the theologians, the bishops, the clergymen who believe in evolution -- on their side. And the way to get those sensible religious people on your side is to say there is no conflict between science and religion. We all believe in evolution, whether we're religious or not. Therefore, because we need to get the mainstream orthodox religious people on our side, we've got to concede to them their fundamental belief in God, thereby -- in my view -- losing the war in order to win the battle for evolution.

What war? What is the inherent conflict between science and religion? Dawkins asserts that there is one, but he hasn’t convinced me that it is necessary to have one. I don’t believe it exists. It can’t be measured and reproduced. Shall we write it off as hallucinations and dreams on his part?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 14, 2006

Guns in Schools

Some politicians have been getting a lot of press this week because of proposals to allow teachers and other school employees to become licensed to carry concealed firearms on school property. These proposals are a response to the recent spate of school shootings.

For example, in the SE Missourian:

In the wake of deadly school shootings around the country, Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt has suggested it would be worth considering proposals from lawmakers to allow teachers to carry firearms in schools.

Democratic legislative candidate Matt Hill, who is seeking to unseat Republican incumbent Nathan Cooper in the 158th District Missouri House race, has suggested that allowing teachers to carry guns could be a way to prevent school violence.

Hill said he has a license to carry a concealed weapon.

"Anyone qualified, competent to carry should be allowed to do that anywhere, including a school," Hill said at a recent candidates forum.

But local educators strongly disagree.

How about a courthouse? Schools and courthouses are among the places you can’t carry in Virginia, even with a permit to carry concealed. I’m curious to know how far Mr. Hill would be willing to take this. How about the Missouri House? I’d really like to know if he really means it when he says “anywhere”.

From the Qatar Gulf Times (wha?):

[Lassee] said teachers, principals and all other school employees would not be permitted to carry a concealed weapon on school grounds until they had passed a criminal background check and undergone rigorous training.

Well, teachers already have to pass criminal background checks, so that should be pretty easy. But the rigorous training part is the catch. It seems like a pretty reasonable requirement, but you know that many people won’t agree.

An editorial in the Toledo Blade uses the following language to describe the proposal: “wild-eyed” and “beyond absurd”. As is often the case, there is no point in trying to actually discuss the issue, because minds are already made up. As an aside, I've noticed that when the term "wild-eyed" is used in conversation, the speaker often has a wilder look in their eyes than anyone else in the room. I'm just saying.

Anyway, the editorial then says,

[Students] need secure learning environments and reasonable safeguards they can live with.

Hey, way to take a stand. The question is why these people think the learning environment in my classroom would be adversely affected by some heat under my suit coat. The answer, of course, is that they think that some deranged student will disarm me and use the weapon on other children. Of course, these same people generally hold this same concern about weaponry in parks, stores, restaurants, and private homes. The argument is no different, at the foundation.

One last note… Clark Aposhian, of Fair Warnings Firearm Training in Salt Lake City, addresses the skeptics who say that we shouldn’t be making teachers into cops:

We are not turning teachers into cops any more than we're turning them into fireman because they have a fire extinguisher in the room and are expected to use it and to evacuate the building. We're not turning them into doctors because they know how to and are expected to perform CPR and basic first aid. (link)

That's how I feel.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Billions and Billions

I love this Day By Day strip for two reasons: A nod to Carl Sagan, and a poke at Johns Hopkins. You'll note where Johns Hopkins ranked on Wulf's Civic Ignorance posting.

As a reminder, Chris Muir's Day By Day is displayed every day at the bottom of Atlas Blogged.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

October 13, 2006

Civic Ignorance

Presented for our discussion... The findings of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute's National Civic Literacy Board:

A study of 14,000 college freshmen and seniors at 50 schools reveals:

* There is trivial difference between freshmen and seniors in their knowledge of America's heritage.
* 16 of 50 schools surveyed exhibited negative learning.
* Overall, seniors failed the civic literacy exam with an average score of 53%.

How do we forestall the coming crisis in citizenship?

Don't read the news. Read the full report. And here are the rankings of the 50 colleges and universities that were included in the report. Note Rhodes College and Colorado State University - they must be very proud of leading the list. Their students are able to score a full 10 points higher on the test as seniors than as freshmen. I don't think I will comment at this time on the schools whose students became more stupid after four years on campus, but I am sure others will.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

October 9, 2006

Flags of our Fathers / Letters from Iwo Jima

Have you ever seen one trailer for two movies?

I saw a commercial today for the movie Flags of our Fathers, which is due to be released on Oct 20. Seeing that it is directed by Clint Eastwood, I was intrigued and looked it up on line. According to Wikipedia,

Eastwood is also directing a complementary film on the battle from the Japanese viewpoint. Titled Letters from Iwo Jima, it is currently in post-production and is set to be released sometime in December, approximately two months after the release of Flags of Our Fathers.

Now this sounds excellent. Looking at the cast of Letters from Iwo Jima, I note Ken Watanabe is General Tadamichi Kuribayashi in both films. Several minor parts also appear in both films. Released only a couple months apart, eh?

Cleverly, there is a trailer that advertises for both movies simultaneously. Unfortunately, most of it is in Japanese. I’d like to see a version of it released in English, but until then, here is the Japanese version.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 8, 2006

Smokin’ in any Jacket

We at AtlasBlogged have discussed smoking bans before (see here, here, here, here, here, and here - cripes, it’s almost like we are smokers or something. For the record, I enjoy a nice cigar on occasion but have never had a cigarette).

Well, put another log on the fire. France is going to ban public smoking.

France is to ban smoking in all public places from next February, the prime minister has announced.

Cafes, nightclubs and restaurants are to be given until January 2008 to adapt, said Dominique de Villepin.

Smoking has always been popular in France. Putting aside all jokes about cheese and military misfortune, the French used to believe in personal liberties like smoking unfiltered fags anywhere, any time. Bans are getting more and more popular – I get 13 pages of BBC audio and video archives when doing a search for “smoking ban” (don’t take my word for it, look for yourself… Welsh, Germans, Scotland, Italy, etc, etc…). The videos offer conflicting reports on whether pub business is “booming” or taking a hit. But there is no denying that the times and the European image are changing.

Since I am not directly affected, I have the luxury of noting the special irony that it is the “Man” on the Left who is keeping smokers down. Let the college kids downtown with the bumper stickers equating Bush to Hitler stick that in their pipe and not be allowed to smoke it.

Of course, I understand why some non-smokers would support these bans. They think that they have the right to enter any place of employment, entertainment, commerce, etc, and not breathe secondhand smoke. The problem is that more and more people labor under this delusion, and individual rights have no real legal meaning in a truly democratic society.

I haven’t heard much lately from the entrepreneur who was making plans to launch the world’s first airline for smokers. But he was taking things in a direction I like:

Alexander Schoppmann, a former stockbroker, is seeking the start-up cash for Smintair - Smoker's International Airways…

The plan is to fly two leased Boeing 747s on the Duesseldorf-Tokyo route…

"Allergics against tobacco smoke or militant anti-smokers are asked to not apply," Smintair says on its jobs page.

(See the BBC News article on Smintair here, and some conversation about Smintair at The Age, here.)

Wouldn’t it be grand if we could someday open a bar (Jib: a “pub”) called “Atlas Drank”? And, you know, decide for ourselves whether or not to allow smoking on our property? Man, that’d be great. Allergics against tobacco smoke or militant anti-smokers are asked to not apply. If you have any complaints, contact our management - John Galt.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Popping the cork too soon?

Yesterday was an exciting day for professional baseball. Two teams won their divisional series to advance to the next round of the playoffs. The Mets swept the Dodgers in three games using a pitching staff that people doubted could get the job done. The Tigers came back from a game down to win their best of five series after winning their last three games against the mighty Yankees. It was a fun day for a fan too, as we got to see back-to-back clinchers. Good stuff.

We were also able to see a glimpse of the celebrations the teams were having. Champagne was being sprayed and poured on people as if they were kids having a water fight in mid-July. This is a standard practice in baseball though as you now see players prepared by wearing goggles or protective glasses in order to save their eyes from the burning. Not a bad idea to be honest. It still leads me to the thought of, “Is it too early for all of this?”

I’ll focus on the Detroit celebration only because we were shown more images of it since they won earlier in the day. It just seemed a little, I dunno, too much. Before you naysayers and Tiger fans call me a party pooper, hear me out.

The team should definitely be celebrating and be excited. The issue I have it was only the divisional series. They still have another series to win before going to the World Series. If you watched them you would think that they just won the World Series though. I understand that it has been a long time since the Tigers won a playoff series. 19 years to be exact. The way they were celebrating you would think that they would be satisfied stopping here. You saw players taking a victory lap around the stadium giving high fives to the fans and spraying them with champagne as well. We also saw Kenny Rogers pour a bottle of bubbly on top of a uniformed policeman on duty for crowd control, an image that will probably be replayed for the next 20 years. If this was the win that put them into the World Series, maybe. It just looked like this was a World Series type celebration, two series too soon.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

October 7, 2006

Brave Actors

AMY GOODMAN: How dangerous is it or popular is it to speak out in Hollywood?

MARK RUFFALO: I’m terrified, really, to be honest with you. I know that a lot of people in Hollywood feel the way I do. A lot of people who have come out, have been, you know, severely maligned in the media, this crazy liberal media that we keep hearing about. They come down like a hammer to people who speak out, especially from Hollywood.

From: Actor Mark Ruffalo on His Decision To Speak Out Against the Bush Administration

Yeah, talk about bravery. To be a Hollywood actor, bravely speaking out in favor of Democratic candidates. Wow. I'm so impressed by their risking standing out from the mainstream Hollywood. Kind of like those brave college students, who are all bucking The Man by proving they're different by all getting belly piercings, rallying around The Daily Show, and decrying Republicans. That sort of individuality is rare today.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 4, 2006

Intelligent Market Design

Allow me to draw your attention to a great point made at Coyote Blog:

...economics and evolution are very similar. Both are sciences that are trying to describe the operation of very complex, bottom-up, self-organizing systems. And, in both cases, there exist many people who refuse to believe such complex and beautiful systems can really operate without top-down control.

I love reading Coyote Blog. The only reason it is not on our blogroll is that I am incompetent and disorganized. (hint, Rammage) In the meantime, you should read the rest of that excellent article. Warren Meyer's comparison between Intelligent Design and the Market Manipulation conspiracies is classic. Brad Warbiany at Unrepentant Individual has shared some good comments on this as well.

The analogy really is a wonderful follow-up to my oft-verbalized but rarely written view that conspiracy theories must provide a remarkable amount of emotional comfort to believers. Even if you hate Karl Rove, people must find it comforting to think that some person has the ability to control every GOP politician, their staffers, plus businessmen and foreign dictators. It can be very frightening to think that this (I'm waving my hands at evolution) and this (waving at politics) are just a confused mess with repeated mistakes and failures and dead-ends.

But I don't suppose I will ever known that comfort, nor disabuse the believers of their theories of magic and wizardry.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1)