What he said...

You should definitely watch this. Maybe a couple of times. And then have other people watch it too.



So nice to hear someone say what needs to be said. Keep it up Keith. We're with you.

Fun with the electoral college

Not enough time to snark on anyone today, so I'll send you all elsewhere for a serious-pants discussion. Scott Lemieux over at Lawyers, Guns and Money has an interesting post on the origins of the electoral college, and a electoral college-related bill that just passed the California Senate. The bill contributes to efforts to render the electoral college obsolete, without the need for a constitutional amendment. It does this by allowing the state to join a compact in which the state's electoral votes would go to the winner of the popular vote, as soon as the compact is joined by states totaling enough electoral votes to actually decide a presidential election (270).

Essentially, the goal of this effort force the candidates to pay attention to more states in national elections. Instead of the current system where a majority of the campaign efforts are focused in a few key swing states, a system where the popular vote would effectively decide the election would require a change in campaign strategy to include more states. After all, if every vote actually counts, you can't afford to ignore huge populations of people.

Anyway, it's an interesting post, you really should check it out.

Mark Noonan: The Energizer Bunny of Stoopid...

Mark Noonan's post about the "Death of Science" over at Blowhards for Bush appears to be the gift that keeps on giving. Some brilliant replies to the original post came from Jon Swift, Pharyngula, and Balloon Juice, but Noonan apparently isn't content to look ignorant and shut up about it. He's still in the trenches of his comments section, battling it out with the forces of Evolutionary Evil™. I've seen people expend a lot of time and energy defending some pretty indefensible positions, but Mr. Noonan takes this to the level of the ridiculous. Let's take a look at some of what he has to say, shall we?

Think of it in terms of Occam's razor - what is more likely:

That a Creator willed Nature in to existence and guides its development

or...

That Nature just "is" and by a vastly long and incredibly complex set of happy accidents, eventually produced a rational being?

Posted by: Mark Noonan at August 24, 2006 03:03 AM

Yes, that's right, he just invoked Occam's Razor to claim that the existence of God is more likely than evolution. No really, he did! That's pretty brazen (and/or pretty idiotic). Surely it can't get any worse, can it? Well...

In all of our collective experience, we've never seen something come from nothing...all of our experience indicates and [sic] uncreated Creator because that is the only way to explain why you're sitting there reading what I wrote.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at August 24, 2006 08:16 PM

So, since we've never seen something come from nothing, then logically that means that everything was created by a creator that... came from nothing. Riiiight.

You'd think that at some point he'd get worn out and give up, but no! This goes on for days! And really, it all goes downhill from there. He spends a fair amount of time being extremely condescending:

You, too, need to go back and read the actual post, and the comments - and once you've worked up the wit to understand what we are talking about, you may return to the discussion.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at August 25, 2006 02:01 PM

Which is a pretty remarkable thing to say, given the content of his contributions to the comments. He then adds this:

The Creator of God would be God, right?

You can take it back and back and back, but ultimate [sic] there has to be something uncreated which is at the start of all things. There is no other way to explain the fact that anything exists at all...the non-existent cannot will itself in to existence, some one has to do it for it. To me, the concept of there being a God is a no-brainer...to say there isn't, one has to ignore common sense. [...]

Posted by: Mark Noonan at August 25, 2006 02:18 PM

Given the internal contradiction in his statement, that's really quite a stunning and novel definition of common sense, don't you think? He later goes back to being condescending about the whole common sense issue:

Well, if you won't believe the evidence of your own eyes and common sense, then there's not much I can do for you...to believe in evolution, you have to believe in millions of highly improbable events...to not believe in it, I only need believe one unprovable thing...but that thing is consistent with common sense.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at August 25, 2006 09:33 PM

I think what Mr. Noonan is suffering from here might best be described as a "failure of imagination". I guess that isn't that shocking, given his status as a Bush supporter. Still, he claims to have given evolution serious thought:

Truth be told, I wasn't buying it even when it was presented as fact in high school biology...perhaps it is just some influence of my statistician father, but I could easily see that the probability of Darwinist evolution producing anything - let alone a rational being who could think up Darwinism - was so small as to be as close to impossible as you can get without it ever happening.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at August 27, 2006 02:49 AM

I'll pause here to give you a second to parse that last sentence.

(...)

Any luck? I didn't think so. I think the point of that particular comment was to combine an appeal to authority ("My dad was a statistician, so I know all about these things!"), with some statement about what an advanced and scientific mind he has, even dating back to his youth. He had these things figured out by high school! Why can't all these thick-skulled so-called "scientists" get it through their heads?

Why? He'll tell you why:

They just aren't thinking things through...they are, in some ways, the genuine successors of Dark Age peasants who just believe because it is what they believe.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at August 27, 2006 05:09 PM

No really, this is Mark Noonan: Creationist, referring to people who believe in evolution.

Still, it gets better:

There have, indeed, been many creation myths...but only Judeo-Christianity says

In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth.

The myths of creation are mostly absurd stories of created gods doing this, that or the other thing - in the Judeo-Christian view, God - singular and all-powerful - wills the heavens and the earth in to existence. This is a very different concept.

There is nothing fantastic in this - you can take this literally and still believe in evolution...I doubt much that any non-Judeo-Christian creation stories are compatible with science.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at August 27, 2006 07:07 PM

So, all the other creation myths are silly, but his, well, it's just common sense. His common sense. Which you shouldn't question, lest you be subjected to the scorn of the mighty Noonan intellect.

This is almost too comical to be believed.

Last I checked, he was still going, although his latest comment has changed tack yet again:

We are as we are - in my view, as we were created, and fallen...and this means some rather harsh realities, not least of which is that human beings have a bent for being perverse, and thus need to be checked at every point in order to ensure a modicum of decency in society. Teaching kids, de-facto, that they are the result of a biological accident and that there is nothing trascendent...well, that is a recipe for kids who just don't care...and we see such kids every day, walking down our streets...surly, depressed...ready for wrong.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at August 29, 2006 12:29 PM

So, we've come a long way since last week. We started off with Science As God being dead, moved through the common sense of religion, the blind belief of the scientists, the goofy-assed nature of non-Judeo-Christian creation myths, and landed smack-dab in the middle of science being responsible for all the world's ills. Yes, Mr. Noonan, it's science that's responsible for surly and depressed children, and not, for example, hormones. That's a fine bit of thinking there. I find myself in awe of your, um... logic and common sense.

I can't wait to see what he comes up with next...

And now for something that does not suck...

It occurred to me that I've posted several times in a row about things that are horrible and/or annoying, so today I'm switching gears and posting a video of something really cool. Check out this clip about the lyrebird from Sir David Attenborough's The Life of Birds.



Many thanks to my wonderful and amazing boyfriend for clueing me in to the existence of that video.

What the Concerned Women for America are concerned about today...

Just for giggles, I wandered over to the Concerned Women for America’s website, to see what they’re umm… Concerned about these days. I knew they’d be inconsolable over the Plan B decision, but after taking a few stabs at a point-by-point refutation of their er… scientific claims about the drug (and their undoubtedly sincere [cough] concern for women’s health), I decided I didn’t have all day to pick it apart (believe me, I could go on for a while on that one), and moved on to other topics.

So, what else are they fretting about? Well, there’s this:

California's State Assembly on Monday passed a bill so sweeping that it would mandate "homosexual indoctrination" of schoolchildren as young as kindergarten, according to CWA's California leaders.

SB 1437, which requires editing textbooks and other materials to give only positive references to homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and transvestitism, was approved on a nearly party-line vote of 47-31 (46 Democrats and one Republican for; 30 Republicans and one Democrat against)...

Wow. That is terrifying, isn’t it?

Let’s take a look at some of the text of SB 1437, shall we? Brace yourselves – I’d hate for anyone to be indoctrinated:

No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion, as those terms are defined in Section 422.56 of the Penal Code.

Oh. My. God. Won’t somebody think of the children?!?

Hang on a minute... Isn’t this basically just saying that the teachers and school districts can’t do or say anything that trashes on someone just for being gay (or, y’know, a minority, or [gasp] a Christian)? Why is that such a big deal?

Surely there’s something much more dangerous in there!

Well, no. Check out the whole text of the most recent version of the bill here. It’s really quite short – there are basically two more sections that extend the section above to textbooks and instructional materials, and also forbids “Any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda contrary to law.”

I’m aware (I can read strikethrough as well as the next girl) that previous versions had requirements for including (in an age-appropriate manner) the “contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the total development of California and the United States”. (Newsflash to the CWA: I suspect these contributions are already included in many cases, whether or not sexual orientation is part of the discussion. There are a whole lot of gay people out there.) At least if this was still included I could see (though not agree with) what they’re hyperventilating about. But it isn’t.

All this bill does is prevent anyone from negatively portraying homosexuality in public schools. If someone can offer a rational explanation of why that qualifies as either "sweeping" or "indoctrination", I’d love to hear it. Really. Enlighten me.

If you're so inclined, you can read more about the passage of SB 1437 and the surrounding controversy in this article from the Sacramento Bee. (Free registration required.)

YouTube to the rescue!

Between listening to Bush's frighteningly on-edge (and dishonest) press conference, George Allen's half-assed apology for his use of a racial slur to abuse a rival campaign worker, and pretty much everything Joe Lieberman's campaign is saying these days, I'd love the opportunity to hear a politician tell the truth about something. Anything. No matter how ugly it is. Surely it's happened at some point...

Help me YouTube! You're my only hope!



Um...

Yeah...

I'm not sure that was exactly what I was looking for.

Still, it was honest. I'll give him that. Really kind of a shame that I had to look to Jerry Springer as an example, though. Doesn't really say much for the people in power, eh?

Also, just as an aside: There are hookers that take checks??!? Given their clientele, I'm not sure that's the most sound business practice. Interesting.

Write your own caption - Volume I

Over at Shrieking Harpy Central, where the zaniness never stops, Ms. Atlas is trumpeting her choice for the Republican party ticket in the next presidential election. Cheney/Bolton '08. I'm not kidding.

It's a really strange feeling to be agreeing with Ms. Atlas for once. Personally, I can't think of a Republican party ticket that would make me happier than Cheney/Bolton. Although, it's admittedly for entirely different reasons than hers.

Anyway, I've got to get back to real writing, so I'll let you kids do the work today. Welcome to my first You Write The Caption post. Let's see what you all can do with this one:



OK, I'll start:

Ms. Atlas answers the question: "Hey, has anyone seen John Bolton?"

Your turn!

UPDATE: Oh yeah, almost forgot to give credit where credit is due. Over at Outside the Tent, Clif put up a post last week entitled Atlas Shrieks, the first comment on which (from Uncle Mike) was "Christ, what a harpy". So that's likely where my brain linked the two together. While I kind of doubt it was the first time she's been referred to as a shrieking harpy, I didn't want to let Clif and Uncle Mike go uncredited.

Keep up the harpylinking, kids!

A public service announcement...

I'd hate for you all to be bored while I'm buzzing around the lab engaged in Restriction Enzyme Madness, so I thought I'd post a quick video for your edification. It's an important film about the perils of pornography, called Perversion for Profit. I hope you enjoy it.



I must admit to being a little disappointed with the film; when I initially saw the title I was hoping it was some sort of business opportunity.

Still, I learned a lot. Such as: "We know that once a person is perverted, it is practically impossible for that person to adjust to normal attitudes in regards to sex". I guess I can write off most of my friends. No way to help them now.

Also, useful to know that 75-90% of all pornography purchased ends up in the hands of "our" children. If you're missing any of your porn, now you know where to go to get it back.

All in all, a very informative piece. But I still have one question: Where the hell was Troy McClure?

Bush pardons moonshiner with his purty, purty mouth...

This is easily the best story in the news today. Our fearless leader has pardoned 17 criminals for minor crimes, including Randall Leece Deal, a Sheriff's Department employee from Raburn County, Georgia who had a bit part in the 1972 Georgia travelogue Deliverance. Apparently Mr. Deal had a slight run-in with the law in the early 1960s, with charges in connection to moonshining. The money quote from the CNN article:

Deal's "Deliverance" performance consisted of a single line: "It ain't nothing but the biggest [expletive] river in the state!" For the record, Deal did not play one of the surly locals involved in an infamous rape scene with actor Ned Beatty.

Well, of course he didn't. I mean, I can understand Bush being willing to forgive youthful indiscretions involving booze, but associating himself with forgiveness for the "squeal like a pig" guy might not sit so well with his base. (Yes, I'm aware that it was just a film - but are they?)

For more information about the severity of the crime, let's hear from Mr. Deal himself:

Moonshining was a common practice in the South in the 1960s, Deal said. He also pointed out that he was not in it for the money, but was more interested in the fun and comaraderie of the enterprise.

"I was just helping some friends back then," he said. "It was really just more like a game than anything, to be honest with you. It wasn't a big business deal, fiddling with moonshine. At least to me it wasn't."

I'm sure that will be a successful defense for your average inner-city drug dealer as well. "Hey! What's the big deal? Everyone's doing it! I was just helping out a buddy! It's just for laughs!"

Hmm... Why do I suspect that won't wash?

UPDATE: For those of you unfamiliar with Deliverance, an abbreviated musical version has been posted over at the Axis of the Really Annoying.

It would appear that the jihadis make use of Google bombs as well...

Oh, gee. My favorite lunatic blogger, Pam from Atlas Shrugs, has made a startling new discovery. In her glorious crusade to prove that Google is an instrument of the devil (or islamofascists, or something), she stumbled across a clever new liberal ploy. Apparently, if you Google the search term "failure", it leads to (brace yourselves) a biography of our glorious leader, George W. Bush.

I am speechless. This must have happened very recently. I bet Google thought they could sneak this by unnoticed. Fortunately for us all though, Pammy is on top of these things.

Clearly this is a result of a malicious conspiracy on the part of the proprietors of Google. Undoubtedly this is another one of their subtle attempts to discredit the president and encourage the terrorists.

Of course, I suppose that there's the outside chance that Pammy really has no idea how this whole search engine thing works. If this were actually the case, it might be possible to teach her. But how?

Hmm.... this is puzzling...

Oh wait! I have an idea! How about: shrieking harpy?

It's a valuable lesson, and I know how much everyone would like to help our dear Pammy - surely some of you would like to help me out with this?