The advertising above is just a source of revenue, and sometimes, I don't know what will appear there.
Unique grips and accessories for your 1911!
Relocating to Boise? Use my realtor, neighbor, and friend, Cindy Smith csmith@1realtyone.com.
Magazines for cheap!
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through.
Labels: intelligent design Labels: global warming Labels: global warming Labels: humor Labels: polygamy Labels: intelligent design
Never forget!
I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win
I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page).
Sorry, high pressure isn't included.
My nephew Shippy makes very pretty ceramic items. Click here to visit his online studio. Give someone one of these, and you can be sure that they don't already have one!
Click here to find out why the Amazon.com Honor System paybox is no longer here.
RSS feed
Other blogs you may enjoy:
My civilian gun defense use blog
My daughter's blog
Pete Drum's Web Page
Gun Laws Don't Work
instapundit.com
Dissecting Leftism -- By John Ray
A courageous Briton arguing for relaxing Britain's gun control laws
Right Thoughts
Final Protective Fire
Amitai Etzioni's Blog
Scrappleface -- Dangerously Clever Satire
Michael Williams -- Master of None
Another Conservative Blogger
A Group Blog By Iraqis
THE MESOPOTAMIAN: TO BRING ONE MORE IRAQI VOICE OF THE SILENT MAJORITY TO THE ATTENTION OF THE WORLD
Specializing in discussions of discrimination and affirmative action
An Iraqi dentist
Promoting children being raised by their own parents
A federal law clerk opines about the law
Michelle Malkin's blog
Impearls: a blog as electic and interesting as mine
Proving that the United States military does more than kill people and break things.
May not agree with this group on everything, but stopping the ACLU is high on my list
A conservative/moderate black blogger.
Another sensible American
Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party
Music, Politics, Motorcycles
Maggie's Farm: Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
A blog dedicated to "Documenting Saddam Hussein's support of Terrorism"
The blog of one of my fellow bloggers on the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
J. Norman Heath's Blog--a circus rigger and Second Amendment scholar (really!)
Buckeye Firearms Association, for you Ohio gun owners and activists
Click here for a FREE NEWSLETTER on Ohio Gun Rights from Buckeye Firearms Association!
Another conservative.
Neocon Blues
Conservative Oasis
Other Idaho Bloggers
Bubbleheads is a retired submariner
An Idaho State University student. A Democrat. Someday, she'll start paying income taxes and change.
A retired Las Vegas stagehand, of all things.
archives
Search only this site: Click here and enter your search string at the beginning of the search field.
I Am So Glad That I Don't Live In Massachusetts
Read the story below carefully--and notice who was arrested.
From the January 14, 2005 Allston-Brighton Tab: A would-be robber became a victim of his own crime last week after he was shot in the stomach by a Brighton man he was trying to rob, police said.
Police arrested Sean E. Roisten, 29, of 833 Jette Court, and charged him with unlawful possession of a firearm and assault and battery with a deadly weapon on a robber who was holding Roisten's wife at gunpoint.
...
Roisten told police he was upstairs in his apartment with his wife and 5-year-old daughter waiting for his friend to return from the store with food when he heard a someone at the front door. Roisten called out, but was met with silence, and his wife went downstairs to see who was at the door, police said. When Roisten's wife opened the door, she was greeted by two men in ski masks and one man forced her back up the stairs at gunpoint, police said.
"He's got a gun!" Roisten told police he heard his wife scream as she was pushed up the stairs. Roisten told police he ran up to the third floor, retrieved his silver Smith and Wesson .40 caliber handgun and took cover behind a kitchen wall. When Roisten peeked around the hallway corner, he saw the robber emerge from the stairs holding his wife in a choke hold and pointing a black handgun at her head, police said.
The armed robber demanded money. Roisten said he had no money, but told the robber he could take anything from the house if he freed his wife, according to police.
...
Police found that Roisten's license to carry a gun expired last August and arrested him. Police took custody of Roisten's gun and the black Colt .45 handgun that Roisten claimed he took from the suspect.
An Interesting Reader's Comment About Evolution
One of my readers who teaches in the biological sciences had this comment about the teaching of evolution. At his request, he is anonymous: I thought I would draw your attention to three items in the ongoing hoopla
I think if evolution were taught more consistently with this approach--one that recognizes the limitations of any theoretical model--there would be a bit less upset from Creationists of many stripes. Certainly, I would have less reason to sympathize with those who are upset.
about evolutionary theory (yes, it is a theory).
I send these as one having a PhD in a relevant field and having taught students in evolutionary theory.
1) Whether you are a logical positivist like Popper or a pragmatist like Laudan, you have to accept that all theories are ultimately flawed (think Newtonian versus Relativistic physics). However, many scientists who publicly advocate on behalf of Darwinian Selection do not behave in this way. Consider Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous advocate and author of The Selfish Gene. Dawkins' ideas are controversial and far from the consensus view in evolutionary biology, but his recent statements to the New York Times are over the top.
It seems that he cannot conceive of any evidence that would reduce his faith in natural selection. In my mind, this disqualifies him, and people like him, from participation in scientific discourse. It's possible that he was merely using NYT as a rhetorical platform, but if he accepts Darwin on faith, he's guilty of all the errors he levels at his opponents.
2) Most people, since the "neo-Darwinian synthesis" fused Mendelian genetics with natural selection, have viewed natural selection as the sine qua non of evolution. Those who accept drift, self-organization, and population bottlenecks as other factors often consider natural
selection as the dominant or most important force in evolution.
Unfortunately, natural selection starts with the assumption of a finite group of organisms with heritable variation in reproductive output. Thus, it cannot explain the origin of life. The theory begins and ends with a population of organisms. Where they came from is not a question Darwin can answer. It is possible that recent advances in self-organization, complexity theory, and thermodynamics might offer a way to explain the origins of life in chemistry, but this is still uncertain.
3) Finally, I should take some pains to defend evolutionary theory (but not natural selection in particular) as the best theory we currently have. Belief in natural selection over the alternatives (Biblical literalism, Intelligent Design) is warranted because each alternative makes testable predictions. Most predictions flowing from Biblical literalism are not supported by the available evidence.
It is possible that God made this evidence as a test of faith, but that is
a subject for theology class, not science class.
Scientist Leaving the IPCC Because of Politics Driving Science
One of the scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has written a letter explaining why he is withdrawing from it: After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
Fossil Fuel Curbs May Accelerate Global Warming
Excuse me while my brain explodes. Considerettes pointed me towards this, and as much as I think highly of Considerettes, I had to go read the Reuters article she linked to: LONDON, Jan 13 (Reuters) - Cutting down on fossil fuel pollution could accelerate global warming and help turn parts of Europe into desert by 2100, according to research to be aired on British television on Thursday. "Global Dimming", a BBC Horizon documentary, will describe research suggesting fossil fuel by-products like sulphur dioxide particles reflect the sun's rays, "dimming" temperatures and almost cancelling out the greenhouse effect.
There is so much uncertainty about global warming--and this is a reminder that "just do something, anything" may not be the right solution--even assuming that there is a real problem.
The researchers say cutting down on the burning of coal and oil, one of the main goals of international environmental agreements, will drastically heat rather than cool climate.
"When the cooling affect goes away -- and it must do because particles like sulphur dioxide are damaging to humans -- global warming will be much stronger," climate change scientist Dr Peter Cox told Reuters on Wednesday.
Temperatures could increase in the worst case by up to 10 degrees by the end of the century, the researchers said -- much more than current estimates.
Scientists differ as to whether global warming is caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases, by natural climate cycles or if it exists at all.
Progress On My Exercise Program
There was a time that my wife and I would go out to dinner, and I would enjoy my dinner--sometimes later saying, "You know, I didn't need to eat quite that much." For the last few months, my wife and I have been splitting a dinner (often more like a 60/40 split)--and finding that this was really quite sufficient.
Tonight, we went out to a Mexican restaurant, and splitting dinner was just way too much. Perhaps next time, I'll just enjoy the chips and salsa, and we'll take 1/3 of the meal home for the following day.
It is amazing what a regular exercise program does to suppress appetite.
My Mother's Cat Makes The Newspaper
I mentioned a few months back that my mother's cat Ditto has gotten lost during a move. From the Redding, California Record Searchlight (free registration required) (probably the only time that this newspaper's web site will ever be linked from here): t was just an overnight stop. At least that's the way Edna Cramer envisioned it when she checked into the Bechelli Lane Motel 6 on a blistering August night last year.
The 88-year-old Cramer and her son Ron rolled into Redding at 10 p.m., after a 14-hour drive from their former home in Redlands.
The Cramers and their Siamese cat, Ditto, were on their way to Bandon, Ore., where they had purchased a home.
Cramer couldn't have known the rest stop would become a major intersection on the road of her cat's life. Ditto, named as a ditto for Q.T., her previous Siamese cat of 19 years, pulled a Houdini that night. While Cramer wasn't looking, Ditto ran away.
...
Meanwhile, six weeks after Ditto vanished, Leslee Zastrow had a visitor. Zastrow was used to feral and stray cats appearing around her Lakehead home, which is about 20 miles north of the Motel 6. But none of the cats looked as mangled as Ditto.
"You could count every rib," Zastrow said.
You could count bald spots, too. Her hind legs and tail were missing patches of fur. Blood matted the remaining coat and her teeth were broken.
"I thought 'Oh my God, I wonder what this cat has gone through,'" Zastrow said.
A trip to a veterinarian found all bones intact. But the age report, 14, made Zastrow figure the cat chewed through more than nine lives.
Zastrow nursed and cleaned the cat, who she named Sagwa. Weeks later, she happened upon a copy of the Record Searchlight and the ad for Ditto. She looked at the photo, glanced at her recovering cat and doubted they were the same.
Meanwhile, friends tried persuading Cramer to abandon her search. Ditto was probably in a new, loving home, she remembered them saying. She wasn't buying it.
"I figured I'd probably see her again," said Cramer, who had Q.T., her previous cat, freeze dried and stores it in her living room curio cabinet.
Zastrow called and spoke with Cramer. Photos were exchanged. And on Dec. 14, six weeks after Zastrow discovered the stray, Cramer and her son drove to Redding to investigate three possible Ditto matches. Zastrow's home was the third and final stop.
The Great Outdoors! Wilderness! Man Getting Back In Touch With His Roots!
Or at least, checking his stock market trades: You can check your e-mail while sipping lattes at Starbucks or munching burgers at McDonald's, so why not while scarfing s'mores around a campfire?
That will be possible within the next six months as SBC Communications and the California Department of Parks and Recreation roll out wireless Internet access at 85 state parks throughout the state.
The wire-free connections at the parks indicate the explosive growth of Wi-Fi and Americans' desire to remain in touch, experts say.
Willcox, Arizona
From AP, January 21, 2005: TYLER, Texas (AP) - A woman who was abducted from a parking lot while leaving work at a Wal-Mart was found shot to death Friday, police said. A suspect was in custody in Arizona.
It is unfortunate that the young woman wasn't armed. She was too young for a carry permit, and even if she hadn't been, she almost certainly wouldn't have had one. At least the second victim of this spree was able to send him to the hospital--or he might still be out there, looking for victims.
...
Capas said Williams is believed to have been shot during an attempted robbery at an RV park northeast of Willcox. A man at the RV park told authorities he had shot a man who had pulled a gun on him and demanded money.
Williams was treated at Northern Cochise Community Hospital for a gunshot wound to the shoulder, Capas said.
When the wounded man was found at the hospital, authorities determined that the pickup truck he had been driving was linked to the Texas kidnapping case.
Slave Prices
For some odd reason, Michael Williams was musing about the price of slaves, if slavery still existed in America today. Slave prices in the late antebellum period varied substantially depending on age, skills, sex, and health (at least, for externally apparent indicators). A prime field hand--a man in his late teens or 20s--could fetch $600 to $800, with a female typically 2/3 of that price. If a slave had significant skills, such as carpenter or mechanic, he might fetch even more, and unlike the field hand, he probably wouldn't depreciate as rapidly, because you were buying a skilled laborer.
Slaves who were very old were often unsellable, at any price, because the legal obligation to care and feed them exceeded the labor you would get out of them. Slave owners had a nasty habit of taking old, mentally ill, or disabled slaves into adjoining free states, declaring them free, and running fast. (The slave states starting about 1820 prohibit owners from freeing slaves who were unable to care for themselves, so that the county poorhouse wouldn't be overrun with them; later prohibitions on manumission usually had darker motivations.) You can see big disparities in blind and mentally ill percentages of slaves in adjacent free and slaves states in the 1840 and 1850 censuses for this reason.
Pretty and young girls, of course, could fetch a very high price indeed for the "fancy trade," and places like New Orleans and Nashville had big slave brothel industries. There was nothing glamorous about this, and from what I have read, various STDs made their lives short and miserable--even aside from being enslaved prostitutes.
To convert antebellum prices to the current state of affairs, use gold prices then and now as a rough approximation. Gold cost about $16/ounce in 1850, so a prime field hand was about 50 ounces of gold. At today's spot price, that would be about $21,400. This is why insurance companies wrote policies insuring the lives of slaves, and part of why slave owners were so vigorous in defense of the institution (along with the opportunity to exercise nearly unlimited power over others). A really prime slave cost roughly what a new car costs today--and the bigger owners had hundreds of slaves.
Humor
I'm sure that many of you have already seen this item that my daughter forwarded to me. For the rest, have a laugh--it does feel like we are living in the world of The Jetsons, doesn't it? You know You're Living In 2005 When. . . . .
1. You accidentally enter your password on the microwave.
2. You haven't played solitaire with real cards in years.
3. You have a list of 15 phone numbers to reach your family of 3.
4. You e-mail the person who works at the desk next to you.
5. Your reason for not staying in touch with friends and family is that they don't have e-mail addresses.
6. You go home after a long day at work you still answer the phone in business manner.
7. You make phone calls from home, you accidentally dial "9" to get an outside line.
8. You've sat at the same desk for four years and worked for three
different companies.
10. You learn about your redundancy on the 11 o'clock news.
11. Your boss doesn't have the ability to do your job.
12. You pull up in your own driveway and use your cell phone to see if anyone is home.
13. Every commercial on television has a website at the bottom of the screen.
14. Leaving the house without your cell phone, which you didn't have the first 20 or 30 (or 60) years of your life, is now a cause for panic and you turn around to go and get it.
15. You get up in the morning and go online before getting your
coffee.
16. You start tilting your head sideways to smile. :-)
17. You're reading this and nodding and laughing.
18. Even worse, you know exactly to whom you are going to forward this message to.
19. You are too busy to notice there was no #9 on this list.
20. You actually scrolled back up to check that there wasn't a #9 on this list; and now you're laughing at yourself.
My Life Isn't Busy Enough
I'm headed to Boston for a seminar about gun ownership in colonial New England February 3. I'll be there through February 6. I intend to do some research while I'm there (although my manuscript is just about ready to ship to the publisher, so I won't be adding much with what I find there), but if any of my loyal readers have any suggestions for fun things to do in the Boston area, let me know.
I Don't Need One Of These
But wouldn't it be cool? Wicked EXTREME Phoenix - 70-80 mW
As they point out elsewhere on their website, these are not toys, and you can get yourself in a pile of trouble misusing one.
The most powerful laser ever created by Wicked Lasers. With the harnessed energy of a 500mW diode, this laser pointer outputs more power than a Wicked EXTREME and Wicked Ultra combined. The distance this intense beam will travel is well over 30 miles. Perfect for many scientific applications. The beam is extremely visible in all lighting and atmospheric conditions except daytime sunlight. Perfect for movie props and OEM applications. Please have extreme caution when using this tool, this is not a toy. Professional use only.
Thanks to Michael Williams for the pointer.
The Evils of Food
You recall a while back the discussion of Hardee's Monster Thickburger as "food porn." Here's someone who proposes replacing the "food group pyramid" with the "food pentagram."
His headline, "I wish to die a fatty death" should not be taken too seriously, I think. It is certainly true that it is better to die of a heart attack (painful, but generally quick) than to die of a stroke (often months of being disabled) or Alzheimer's (months to years of deterioriation, and a real burden to family and friends). But it is also the case that many people have heart attacks, and end up with many months of being disabled, incapable, and miserable, as well.
Over here, on a related note, is reporting about how candy makers in Britain have agreed to stop production of their king-sized chocolate bars. Are these a bad thing? Sure. But there are legitimate uses for a king-sized chocolate bar (especially if you are a teenager). Hands off.
Is It The Village Voice? Or The Onion?
I really can't tell, sometimes. Warning: the quoted material is vulgar and offensive. And the Blue States wonder why the Red States want to scream, "Unclean, unclean" at them?: When I tell a new acquaintance about my experience masturbating for HBO's Real Sex, he asks, "So, you jerked off on TV and got paid for it—doesn't that make you a prostitute?" No, but there are plenty of happy whores working the city.
And then it gets really weird.
[Too gross and vulgar to quote section]
I run into another friend on the subway, and she lets slip that she's been doing sex work on the side; she's flush from the $100 she's just made for a 10-minute hand job in some guy's car. My first instinct is to worry—is it safe? She doesn't seem so concerned, though she's not as organized as the other two. Just starting out, she's stumbled into the trade to pay the rent. Ray feels safer in her sex work because of the precautions she takes: "I'm way more conscientious about my personal safety, surroundings, and knowledge of who I'm with than I am when I meet someone and have recreational sex. Before I see a new client, I know his full name, address, where he works, and different ways to get in touch with him. Recreationally, I've had sex with people whose names I didn't know. So which is more dangerous?"
Whoring, as these women refer to it, seems to be on the upswing among young, politically active, feminist, and largely queer women. A glut of recent books have probed both the darker and lighter sides of sex work, from Michelle Tea's illustrated autobiographical memoir Rent Girl to 29-year-old Nelly Arcan's sobering novel Whore, chronicling the misadventures of a young Montreal woman. According to Greta Christina, a former peep show dancer and editor of Paying for It: Sex Workers Talk About Their Clients (Greenery Press, 2004), whore pride isn't completely new. "If you're getting into sex work now, you've got over a decade's worth of sex workers before you who've been openly defined by their line of work, and you don't need to reinvent that wheel—you can just roll with it."
Vincent's most interesting comment comes during casual conversation. When I confess that in college I was rabidly anti-porn, she tells me, "I'm being so public about my sex work now, in case in 10 years I'm some conservative Republican housewife. I want to be able to prove that this is what I did and what I stand for."
Will Gay Marriage Lead To Polygamy?
The ACLU certainly intends for it to do so: In response to a student's question about gay marriage, bigamy and polygamy in certain communities, Strossen said the ACLU is actively fighting to defend freedom of choice in marriage and partnerships.
I'm actually less irritated by polygamy than I am by same-sex marriage. Unlike same-sex marriage, polygamy is at least not a startling innovation. But as I have previously pointed out, there is a pretty persuasive argument that polygamy leads to a rather difficult situation: large numbers of men who can't get married, and are therefore easily swayed to whatever idiotic scheme some manipulative leader can come up with to make them throw their lives away. While homosexuals might hope that having large numbers of permanently single young men would assist them in having more sexual partners, I don't think that is very likely.
"We have defended the right for individuals to engage in polygamy," Strossen said. "We defend the freedom of choice for mature, consenting individuals."
Dumber Than Videotaping Yourself Committing A Felony
And that's winning a million dollars on a nationally televised show, and then "forgetting" to declare it on your taxes. How do you suppose that slipped his mind? If I made an extra million dollars, I think I would remember it at tax time: BOSTON (Reuters) - Richard Hatch evaded getting kicked off the island to win $1 million on the reality-television show "Survivor," only to be accused of dodging the tax man on his earnings.
I didn't watch the show, but I understand that he didn't win many friends with his behavior:
Hatch will plead guilty to tax evasion after federal prosecutors charged him with failing to report the $1 million winnings in 2000 and more than $300,000 he earned the following year from radio appearances. Hatch, who wandered around naked on the show and who was once described by a fellow contestant as a "snake," was not immediately available for comment.
Do Scientists Consider Evolution a Fact?
I guess I'm important, after all. I discovered that there is a full-time blog that ridicules me! Among this guy's recent criticisms: I'd like to know who these scientists are who think of evolution as "fact." In my Evolutionary Biology class, evolution was never presented as "fact," but as "theory." As Cramer says elsewhere, "theory" is indeed a well-supported idea with some components that are provable as fact. Theory is widely used in all sciences and I am under the impression that theories are in a continual state of revision.
Those of my readers who have been arguing with me for several days by email that evolution is a fact, not a theory, are obviously in on my "deliberate lie." Also these people:
In short, there ARE NO SCIENTISTS who treat evolution as fact. This is a deliberate lie (check those Commandments!) designed to make evolutionary scientists look like closed-minded loonies.Evolution is a Fact and a Theory...
And this crowd:
Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION: IS IT MERELY A "THEORY"?
And here:
...
No. The theory of evolution is more than just a "theory." The word "theory" in normal usage means a guess or a hunch. But in science, a "theory" is a belief that has been verified by actual experimentation and/or observation.
Most biological and earth scientists believe that evolution is more than a theory; it is an established fact; the earth's structures have changed and its life forms have evolved over billions of years. Species of animals have been recently observed as continuing to evolve, both in the lab and field. Evolution: Fact and Theory
Now, I'm glad that the guy who finds me so dangerous that he needs to devote an entire blog to discrediting me had biology teachers who understood the purpose of science. But I am not lying. I am describing what many biologists claim about evolution--that it is a fact, not a theory.
By Richard E. Lenski
Evolution theory explains how organisms have changed over time.
Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.
UPDATE: Alan K. Henderson points to another example of scientists claiming that evolution is fact, not theory.
I'm So Glad That I Don't Work For This Company
Visit their web site. 2005 Perspire Program Details Announced to Management
Looking over the web site, it strikes me that someone at PH Corp. must have had their job outsourced. This sort of creativity sounds like it could have been useful to the firm, perhaps in Marketing.
Perspire, PH's industry leading bonus program is rolling out to more employees as part of the Total Rewards and Punishment package. The following is the calendar for Perspire in 2005:
January, 2005 - employees notified of their participation in the plan.
March, 2005 - Group Vice Presidents receive their Perspire Goals and set Perspire Goals for their direct reports.
October, 2005 - Perspire goals set across the organization for all employees.
November, 2005 - Perspire Goals Communicated to Employees; 2005 Perspire Bonus Announced and Distributed.
This is a significant change from 2004, when Perspire Goals were created earlier in the year, but were kept secret. In her weekly message to business group presidents, PH CEO Karla Fidora said that the objective of the Perspire Program in 2005 is to "make everyone work harder".
Name The Right-Wing Extremist
I've edited out the identifying characteristics: In a speech at a fund-raising dinner for a Boston-based organization that promotes faith-based solutions to social problems, [name] said there has been a "false division" between faith-based approaches to social problems and respect for the separation of church of state.
Which Red State Republican extremist said this, do you think? Yes, Senator Hilary Clinton.
"There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles," said [name], ... who often is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008.
Addressing a crowd of more than 500, including many religious leaders, at Boston's Fairmont Copley Plaza, [name] invoked God more than half a dozen times, at one point declaring, "I've always been a praying person."
... [T]here must be room for religious people to "live out their faith in the public square."
My cynicism says that she doesn't believe any of this, but it is heartening to see that the Democratic Party has finally figured out that 90% of Americans believe in God, and that a strong majority (including a fair number who unaccountably vote Democratic anyway) find the ACLU's secular vision for American absurd.
America's Culture of Fear
Well, that was Michael Moore's claim in Bowling for Columbine, with a strong dose of claiming that racism drives our fears. So guess whose bodyguard was arrested for a gun violation? NEW YORK — Filmmaker Michael Moore's (search) bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night.
Hmmm. The bodyguard for Rosie O'Donnell, fierce antigunner, applies for a carry permit. A few years back, one of Senator Boxer's staffers was arrested carrying a gun without a permit at San Francisco International. It makes all of their obssession about guns sound rather like a projection problem.
Police took Patrick Burke, who says Moore employs him, into custody after he declared he was carrying a firearm at a ticket counter. Burke is licensed to carry a firearm in Florida and California, but not in New York. Burke was taken to Queens central booking and could potentially be charged with a felony for the incident.
Moore's 2003 Oscar-winning film "Bowling for Columbine" criticizes what Moore calls America's "culture of fear" and its obsession with guns.
UPDATE: Moorewatch.com--who aren't watching Michael Moore out of admiration--report that the story was seriously defective on several counts. You can read the details here. It does appear that the guy in question has been a bodyguard for Michael Moore in the past, which still makes Moore a hypocrite.
The National Academy of Sciences Report on Gun Control
There was quite a splash when the National Academy of Science report came out a few weeks ago. It essentially said that no studies have demonstrated that gun control laws did anything measureable to crime rates. It also said that the studies done Dr. John Lott (among others) that showed that shall issue carry laws reduced violent crime rates were flawed.
Dr. Lott provided a lengthy response, which Professor Volokh, to his credit, has posted over here. As usual Dr. Lott raises some important points. If you care about this issue (and I know for many of my readers, this is the important issue), you should read what Dr. Lott had to say in full. For the rest of you: The panel has left us with two choices: Either academia and the government have wasted tens of millions of dollars and countless man-hours on useless research (and the panel would like us to spend more in the same worthless pursuit), or the National Academy is so completely unable to separate politics from its analyses that it simply can't accept the results for what they are.
Dr. Lott has a lot of discussion of a number of technical points. I will confess that I tend to suffer eye glazeover problems reading about the technical minutiae of multivariate correlation analysis.
Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.
From the assault weapons ban to the Brady Act to one-gun-a-month restrictions to gun locks, nothing worked. (Something that I have been the first person to investigate empirically for many of these laws, and I also had been unable to find evidence that they reduced violent crime.)
...
While the panel dealt with a broad range of gun control issues, only one issue has received attention on different blogs: right-to-carry laws. In fact, the panel apparently originated with the desire from some to respond to the debate on that issue and to respond specifically to my research that concludes that allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons reduces crime. I originally overheard Phil Cook and Dan Nagin discussing the need for a panel to "deal with" me in the same way that an earlier panel had "dealt with Isaac" Ehrlich's work showing that the death penalty deterred murder. They agreed and Nagin said that he would talk to Al Blumstein about setting up such a panel. Needless to say, that is what ended up happening.
1) James Q. Wilson's very unusual dissent is very interesting (only two out of the last 236 reports over the last 10 years have carried a dissent). Wilson states that all the research provided "confirmation of the findings that shall-issue laws drive down the murder rate . . . " Wilson has been on four of these panels and never previously thought that it was necessary to write a dissent, including the previous panel that attacked Isaac Ehrlich's work showing that the death penalty represented a deterrent.
Wilson said that that panel's conclusion raises concerns given that "virtually every reanalysis done by the committee" confirmed right-to-carry laws reduced crime. He found the committee's only results that didn't confirm the drop in crime "quite puzzling." They accounted for "no control variables" - nothing on any of the social, demographic, and public policies that might affect crime. Furthermore, he didn't understand how evidence that was not publishabled in a peer-reviewed journal would be given such weight.
...
8) Process. While the NAS is in name an academic organization, the process was hardly an academic one. Members of the panel were forbidden to talk to me about the issues being examined by the panel. Despite promises to get my input on the panels' review as it went forward, that never occurred. In particular, Charles Wellford promised me that I would be able to look at the tables and figures in the report. If I had been involved, I could have helped catch some of their mistakes. When the report was finally released to the public, I was promised that I would get a copy at the beginning of the presentation and that I would be allowed to ask questions. I was told that they preferred that I not attend the presentation, but there would be no problem with me asking questions. Instead even though the presentation ended a half hour earlier than scheduled because there were supposedly no more questions, my questions were never asked. (I had one main question: Professor Wellford mentions all the research that has been done on right-to-carry laws, but if he is correct that right-to-carry laws are just as likely to increase as decrease crime, can he point to one refereed journal article that claims to find a bad effect from the law?) Despite promises to the contrary, I did not receive a copy of the study until well into the afternoon and then only after a reporter from USA Today sent me a copy.
What I do know is that Dr. Lott has been the target of an extraordinarily vigorous campaign of attack for having presented statistical evidence that confirms what would seem to me to be common sense: if you allow decent people to carry a gun, it is likely to deter that small fraction of criminals who are capable of rational analysis of risks and benefits. On the downside, it is at least plausible that making permits easier to get might increase the number of minor disputes that turn into gunfights. Which takes precedence?
To hear Dr. Lott's critics tell the story, either the costs and benefits are roughly equivalent, or the costs are actually higher--that there are more permit holders who are losing their tempers and taking a shot at someone than there are criminals being deterred from criminal attacks. Which of the three possibilities (crime rates go up, down, or sideways) you think will happen says a lot about your perception of human nature, I think.
Here's why I am inclined to think that Dr. Lott's analysis (and that of other economists who have studied the problem, and come to similar conclusions) is right: there are a vanishingly small number of concealed weapon permit holders in the "shall issue" states who have been convicted of crimes like murder, rape, aggravated assault, or robbery--and those who have used guns in those crimes have been even more rare. In spite of the Violence Policy Center's efforts, they have found a handful of such incidents out of a population now numbering in the millions of permit holders, over a couple of decades now. By comparison, there are many dozens of permit holders who have used guns in self-defense in the shall issue states--and these are just cases that have received news coverage.
This weighing of news coverage of both categories is a seat of the pants sort of thing, I would be the first to agree. It does make me inclined to think that Dr. Lott got it right. Certainly, if the problems that the nervous nellies of gun control insisted were going to happen actually did happen with any regularity, we would have seen some of the "shall issue" states reconsider the decision. Yet even public officials who had been strong opponents of the new laws, such as Harris County, Texas District Attorney John Holmes have generally admitted that the expected crisis did not happen.
Dr. Lott did an ethical shortcut that was not part of his research. Use of pseudonyms isn't a problem for me (although I've never done so). Using a pseudonym to defend a position (as "Mary Rosh" did on occasion) is in the style of the Framers, who often wrote under pseudonyms. Using a pseudonym to puff a book strikes me as tacky. Using a pseudonym and then claiming to be someone else is lying, and unfortunately, once Dr. Lott did that, the gun control attack hounds were on him.
Unfortunately, if you deceive someone about the little things, it is very easy to start wondering about a person's integrity on big things. I don't see any reason to assume that Dr. Lott's lost civilian self-defense survey work was a lie. I don't see any reason to assume that Dr. Lott's research is manipulated or dishonest. The fact of the matter is that the complex statistical analyses that are at the heart of much sociological work are easy areas for honest mistakes, honest disagreements, and honest questioning of assumptions. What I do know is that Dr. Lott was made a target for the simple reason that he challenged quite aggressively and successfully the academic community's enthusiasm for gun control--and he has paid a price for it.
Professor James Lindgren, for whom I have the highest respect, tells a couple of sad stories here and here about what happens when an academic goes off the reservation. In the 1960s, just AFTER Ronald Coase had done his Nobel Prize winning work in law & economics and AFTER James Buchanan had done his Nobel Prize winning work in public choice, a concerted effort was made by members of their department and the administration at the University of Virginia to drive them out of Virginia. The story has been often told and some reports say that some of the letters and memos showing that this was a conscious effort on Virginia's part survived to be seen by more open-minded members of the department in later years. A run-in with the Ford Foundation helped to crystallize university opposition to the best scholars that the department ever had and among the best ever to teach in any department at Virginia. One view was that they were on the wrong side of history.
The second sad story:
Here is a comment that Coase made in an interview in Reason:
They thought the work we were doing was disreputable. They thought of us as right- wing extremists. My wife was at a cocktail party and heard me described as someone to the right of the John Birch Society. There was a great antagonism in the '50s and '60s to anyone who saw any advantage in a market system or in a nonregulated or relatively economically free system.
The Case of James Coleman. As part of my Ph.D. work at the University of Chicago, I was fortunate enough to be among James Coleman's last students. At one time or another in his long career, Coleman had been the leading practitioner of several subfields in Sociology: educational sociology, mathematical sociology, and rational choice sociology. In the 1960s Coleman did some of the first large-scale, well designed educational studies. When his early results seemed to find positive effects for school integration, he was lionized by the profession. But just a few years later, when his data started showing problems with the educational effects of busing, he was vilified. Although I never heard exactly what was done to him, Chicago faculty members told me that he was "basically thrown out" of the American Sociological Association (ASA), perhaps analogous to what Ms. Samuel has proposed for Condoleeza Rice. I don't take the claims that Coleman was thrown out literally; probably nothing more was done than open insults, shunning, and expressions that he was not welcome anymore.
There are days that I get very, very angry that circumstances in my life made it impossible for me to go into academia. I wasn't born rich; chaos surrounding my brother's descent into insanity played a part in why I had to drop out of school at the end of my freshman year at USC. I'm 48 years old now; a bit too old, especially since I would have to give up a good job to pursue a Ph.D., at the end of which, I might make about what I now pay in income taxes.
When eventually Coleman's work was mostly validated by other researchers, the leaders of the profession were ashamed of their prior actions. I was told by faculty members at Chicago and elsewhere (I have no personal knowledge of these events) that an effort was made to make amends for their shoddy treatment. Twenty years after being excluded, the ASA made him President of the organization. (I apologize in advance to those readers who have personal knowledge of these events; my knowledge is secondhand and thus likely to be in error on some details. Coleman never spoke to me about any of this.)
Then I look at examples like the ones that Lindgren gives. I look at the crap that Dr. Lott has gone through (and there are some stories he has told me on the phone that just infuriate me). I look at the political nonsense that even liberal academics have to go through because they aren't hard enough left to satisfy the prevailing orthodoxy. The only thing that I can think of, "I would love to devote my life to teaching and research, but why would any sane person throw themselves into that shark tank?"
UPDATE: Dr. Lott tells me that he didn't write the review of his book under the Mary Rosh pseudonym, but his son did it, with some help from Dr. Lott's wife. He tells me he found out about it after the fact.
In Case You Thought Barbara Boxer Was Being Courageous Yesterday...
She claimed that WMDs were the only reason that the Senate voted for war. This web page points out that the text of the measure shows otherwise: Joint Resolution
The link on that web page has expired, but I was able to verify the text by hunting around; here it is.
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
...
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
News That You Are Not Going To See Tonight
This is an article by Lieutenant Colonel Tim Ryan, "Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq. He led troops into battle in Fallujah late last year and is now involved in security operations for the upcoming elections." His criticisms of the way in which Iraq news is being covered deserves to be read in full, and widely distributed. A few excerpts: I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.
The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.
...
As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country.
...
As elements from all four services complete the absolute annihilation of the insurgent forces remaining in Fallujah, the area around the former insurgent stronghold is more peaceful than it has been for more than a year.
The number of attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at least 70-80 percent from late October — before Operation Al Fajar began. The enemy in this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone. Final eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as it always does, but the fact remains that the central geographic stronghold of the insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds a lot like success to me. Given all of this, why don't the papers lead with "Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy Forces Resort to Suicide Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far more accurate picture of the enemy's predicament over here. Instead, headlines focus almost exclusively on our hardships.
What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their actions? What did the the media show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled on a street in Fallujah? Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib? Did anyone show the world how this enemy had huge stockpiles of weapons in schools and mosques, or how he used these protected places as sanctuaries for planning and fighting in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq?
...
What noticeably was missing were accounts of the atrocities committed by the Mehdi Militia — Muqtada Al Sadr's band of henchmen. While the media was busy bashing the Coalition, Muqtada's boys were kidnapping policemen, city council members and anyone else accused of supporting the Coalition or the new government, trying them in a kangaroo court based on Islamic Shari'a law, then brutally torturing and executing them for their "crimes." What the media didn't show or write about were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked. Nor did they show the world the hundreds of thousands of mortar, artillery and small arms rounds found within the "sacred" walls of the mosque. Also missing from the coverage was the huge cache of weapons found in Muqtada's "political" headquarters nearby. No, none of this made it to the screen or to print. All anyone showed were the few chipped tiles on the dome of the mosque and discussion centered on how we, the Coalition, had somehow done wrong. Score another one for the enemy's propaganda machine.
...
I believe one of the reasons for this shallow and subjective reporting is that many reporters never actually cover the events they report on. This is a point of growing concern within the Coalition. It appears many members of the media are hesitant to venture beyond the relative safety of the so-called "International Zone" in downtown Baghdad, or similar "safe havens" in other large cities. Because terrorists and other thugs wisely target western media members and others for kidnappings or attacks, the westerners stay close to their quarters. This has the effect of holding the media captive in cities and keeps them away from the broader truth that lies outside their view. With the press thus cornered, the terrorists easily feed their unwitting captives a thin gruel of anarchy, one spoonful each day. A car bomb at the entry point to the International Zone one day, a few mortars the next, maybe a kidnapping or two thrown in. All delivered to the doorsteps of those who will gladly accept it without having to leave their hotel rooms — how convenient.
Liberal Sensitivity
This column in the Idaho Statesman is among the more offensive personal attacks that I think that I have ever seen in a daily newspaper. Brandi Swindell, the subject of the sexual innuendo, is a local political activist who has been working on preventing the City of Boise from removing a Ten Commandments monument from a city park. So what does this jerk have to say? Personally I say just stick the monument back where it stood in relative obscurity for all those years, and quit wasting Boise's money on policing, arresting and going to court. But this letter ain't about that. It's about Brandi Swindell.
Yup. He gets the message across very clearly: woman aren't supposed to be engaged in political activism; they are sexual objects. For all the screeching liberals do about conservatives wanting to keep women barefoot and pregnant--I can't ever recall seeing anything conservatives have ever written about a liberal woman activist that reaches this level of nastiness and male chauvinism.
While you may view the Keep the Commandments Coalition leader as a pesky thorn in your big Basque ass, I see her as what most men do — a smokin' piece of virginal goodness in tight faded jeans, silky smooth pulled-up hair and big hoop earrings straight out of a Madonna video from 1989 (her only imperfection if I do say so myself). I think I have a crush on her.
What does this have to do with you? Simple. I want you to drop the city's fight against my Brandi, and let her return to life as a normal 20-something woman. I don't like how you take up all her free time by forcing her to go to protests, getting arrested, appealing the civil disobedience charges and then driving all the way to Nampa to be interviewed by KIVI... although Channel 6's own Brandi (that would be Smith, the stammering part-time weather guesser) and my Brandi do make for the best looking on-screen duo since Romi and Michelle's Reunion.
That's it. Can you help me out? I've included my own list of commandments I'll adopt if you help hook me and Brandi up.
...
Dan's Ten Commandments of Being Brandi's Man
#10: I promise to abolish the first date rule of expecting her to put out if I spend more than $14.
...
#7 I promise to never force Brandi down on her knees for extended periods like she does at protests. Did you see how long she prayed at the monument before being hauled off in cuffs? Impressive!
#6: I know she's a virgin, and I accept that. Besides, having a girl shout the Lord's name in vain on Level 3 of the Eastman parking garage on the first date always made me feel so dirty the next day. I will respect her on all levels (not just #3).
...
#4: I'll honor Brandi's mother cuz if she looks even half as good.....
#3: Of course I'm not gonna covet thy neighbor's ass. His doesn't hold a candle to Brandi's.
#2: But should the day come when Brandi decides to give herself fully to me... thou shalt not kill the big stiffster just cuz she launches into a 20 minute prayer before slipping 'twixt the sheets (this was Will Spearman's so please send the prayers his way).
Of course, there are examples of emails sent to Michelle Malkin by people who disapproved of her not being as liberal as they were. I won't quote the emails; they are so offensive, no repulsive, that I will just have to tell you that a fair number of liberals seem to think that the only real job title that a Philipino woman can have is "prostitute." Oh, and here's a liberal who thinks that she deserves to be receiving this sort of trash.
It's A Bit Early To Get Too Certain About Who Did This
But I must confess that the description of the method of death would make you wonder: JERSEY CITY, N.J. — A funeral procession for two parents and their two daughters found brutally slain in their home last week drew hundreds of mourners Monday and some in the crowd blamed the deaths on simmering religious tensions in the family's native Egypt.
Services for 47-year-old Hossam Armanious (search), his 37-year-old wife, Amal Garas, and their two daughters were being held at the St. George & St. Shenouda Coptic Orthodox Church, a Christian congregation where the family was active.
...
Police have said that there were no signs of forced entry at the home, where the four bodies were found bound and gagged early Friday. Authorities said robbery remained a possible motive because no cash or jewelry were found in the home. Guy Gregory, first assistant Hudson County prosecutor, said the wallet of Hossam Armanious was found empty.
Officials and relatives have said that the family reported a burglary last year during which jewelry was stolen.
Autopsies showed the victims bled to death from puncture wounds to their heads, necks and bodies.
Happy Customers
I received the first confirmation from a customer for the GM-8 caster assemblies today: I received the casters today and they work very well. They should help keep my back in good working order.
That's what I like to hear!
Evidence For Speciation & Intermediate Forms
Back when I was in high school, and even in college, biology textbooks tended to make excuses for the inability to prove speciation in the current time, and of course, as I have previously mentioned, Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory was an attempt to deal with the problem of missing intermediate forms. A couple of readers have pointed me to claims that speciation is happening now and that the missing intermediate forms aren't really missing. I notice that much of the cited work on the intermediate missing forms is pretty recent--perhaps the need to deal with these criticisms is having a positive effect--or perhaps the people writing these defenses are just using recent work.
I haven't had time to look carefully over the claims (it has been a busy weekend), but I have found the conversations very stimulating. I do find it interesting that defenders of evolutionary theory insist that it as well proven as Newtonian mechanics. Sorry, but until the claims of evolution are verifiable experimentally in the same way that x=1/2at^2 is, or PV=nRT, or "penicillin kills bacteria X," then there is a bit of a gap between evolutionary theory and Newtonian mechanics. In that respect (and only that respect), evolutionary theory has a bit more in common with religion than it has with physics. Both evolutionary theory and religion rely on evidence that is less than conclusive (except to those who already believe).
You know, what's really funny about all this is that there are people who don't entirely believe that I'm a Christian because I find the 6000 year old Earth unbelievable, and because I find many pieces of evidence for macroevolution persuasive (although not conclusive) such as the vestigal rear leg bones of whales.
The Evolution Fight As Proxy
A reader emails me: Pardon me if I've mentioned this before.
My impression, also, is that this is partly a proxy for the whole issue of the ACLU's rather bizarre definition of the First Amendment, and partly a real argument about evolution itself. There are more than two factions fighting this out. There are, at a minimum:
I see the ruckus over evolution as partly a proxy for something else.
Some years ago, Buckley convened a panel discussion between evolutionists and scientific creationists. I don't know what the latter is, but they seemed prepared. I gathered they could have taught a course in evolution if they'd felt like it, which of course they didn't.
On the evolutionists' side of the table sat, as well, Barry Lynn of Americans United for The Separation of Church and State, and the then-head of the national ACLU. As scientists, these guys are probably pretty good golfers. For them to think they had a dog in this fight is illuminating.
1. Scientists who believe that evolution is a proven fact, right up there with Newtonian mechanics. I think that these people believe this, and they can't imagine why ANYONE would disagree with this. They genuinely don't see that teaching evolution as established fact presents philosophical problems (how do we distinguish a well-grounded theory from an experimentally provable fact?), political problems (a lot of Americans, not all of them Christians, are offended at having their kids encouraged to hold their parents' beliefs in contempt), and free speech problems
(why does only one faction--evolutionists--get to use public schools to promote their agenda?)
2. There is the ACLU, which sees this as an opportunity to continue imposing its anti-religious, but specifically anti-Christian viewpoint on kids in the public schools. My wife had a high school biology teacher for whom the teaching of evolution was part of her campaign of denigrating Christianity. (The teacher had planned to be a missionary at one time, before a crisis of faith overcame her.)
3. There are Intelligent Design advocates, some of whom are respected scientists, such as Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University. They are raising legitimate questions about the mechanisms of evolution--and suggesting that the evidence suggests that we should at least consider other explanations.
4. There are "theistic evolutionists," who believe that while God could have certainly created every creature in its current form, that He did not, but instead manipulated the environment to evolve life into its current set of forms. I lean this direction.
5. There are Creationists who believe in an old Earth, and that the major structural divisions of life represent God's creation of the different phlya--with evolution (directed by God) taking place thereafter.
6. There are Creationists who believe in an old Earth, but deny evolution.
7. There are Creationists who believe in a young Earth, deny evolution, and insist that the apparent age of the Earth is an illusion. This crowd gets a lot of attention, to the point where #4 through #6 almost don't exist.
I have received an enormous number of emails (mostly polite and friendly) who seem not to understand that being belligerent about how evolution is taught in the public schools is likely to be a Pyrrhic victory--much like Tennessee's decision to prohibit the teaching of evolution back in the 1920s turned out to be. A little humility goes a long ways, and I get the distinct impression that for some Americans, they are about as willing to allow discussion of alternative claims today as Tennessee was willing to allow evolution to be taught in the 1920s.
This is still a democracy, and one where a very sizeable fraction of the population has serious misgivings about evolution. Imagine what the reaction would be if government classes taught that free markets are destructive, and that government exists to suppress them. There was a time, not that many years ago, when the textbooks used in much of the U.S. taught exactly that, and enjoyed overwhelming support from academic economists for that reason.
Try to persuade the population about evolution; this constant need to use force to suppress dissent is making you no friends.
Oh, for those who insist that Newtonian mechanics is just as much a "theory" as evolution, sorry, this isn't going to fly. In physics class, we did repeatable experiments to verify that a lot of the basic equations actually worked as claimed. In freshman physics at USC, we verified that momentum really is conserved by measuring motion in x and y of an air puck, and then the motion of the air puck it ran into. The very small deviation from the prediction (fractions of a percent) were within the range we expected for conversion of kinetic energy into heat, as well as measurement error. In high school, we did experiments with springs, tension, weights, etc., and received plausible results. Freshman chemistry at USC had us doing experiments with measuring pH as we added acids to buffered solution, and the results matched the equations. The exact mechanisms by which some of these events take place are certainly in the realm of theory, but we could experimentally verify them all.
