Shots Across The Bow

The Sartorial (non)Sense of a Yankee

The Sartorial (non)Sense of a Yankee

Now, before you get all offended, hear me out. I know that we here in the South have a few questionable fashion trends ourselves. Wife-beater t-shirts with cut off shorts and a baseball cap. Bowling shirts as formal wear. Speaking of formal wear, how about those electric blue tuxes trimmed in fire engine red? They fly off the shelves during prom season. Let’s not forget our redneck contribution to the world of hairstyles: the mullet.

But beyond these stylish embarrassments, we do have a strong sense of propriety, and dignity. Hawaiian shirts are reserved for bowling alleys, golf courses, and drunken frat boys who don’t know better. A southern woman will spend an hour and a half getting dressed and made up to run to the corner store for a gallon of milk. Sadly this custom is slowly disappearing as the Northern invasion continues. It won’t be long till the dreaded muumuu and hair rollers is as common in a Birmingham, Alabama Walmart as it is in Columbus, Ohio, another outrage perpetrated on the South that Yankees will surely pay for.

Southern fashion is basically conservative, with a preference for comfort, but not at the expense of appearance. We prefer jeans and a t-shirt with a ball cap to Bermuda shorts and a button down pink shirt. Sportier elements among us will replace the ball cap with a visor, but that can be dangerous around here, at least until the memories of Spurrier fade a bit. Occasionally, one of our more daring souls will try a fashion innovation, (“Hey Virgil, check this out! I’m wearing my socks on the outside of my shoes! Pretty cool, huh?”) but at considerable risk. Should he fail to carry off the new look with the appropriate southern panache, he will be heaped with such scorn and opprobrium that he will often slink off in the night, abandoning his wife and family to live in a shack in western Montana and write long rambling letters to newspapers nobody reads. A little known fact about the Unabomber is that he was a normal individual until the fateful day he attended a Lion’s club luncheon wearing khakis, a pink oxford, penny loafers, and a plaid sweater draped casually over his shoulders. Let that be a warning to the trendsetters.

But the rewards can be considerable. Fame attaches itself to anyone who adds a new word to our fashion vocabulary. The first woman to wear a hoop skirt in the south had an entire age named after her. I know this because I am descended from her. She was my great, great, great aunt three times removed on my sister’s husband’s uncle’s side of the family, and her name was Belle. Yes, Auntie Belle certainly set the Southern world on fire. The skirts rose to popularity quickly, since they made even the clumsiest woman look graceful, not to mention that they provided a nearly impenetrable barrier to amorous suitors. Later, during the war, they provided an invaluable hiding place for contraband goods, and in a pinch could serve as a hideout for a small platoon of Rebel soldiers. Junior Samples made overalls his trademark, as did Minnie Pearl with her hat, and who could forget the most famous piece of Southern apparel, now named after the character that made them famous, the Daisy Duke short shorts?

The reason for this little diatribe?

I was driving home from Knoxville last weekend, and I saw a guy from Michigan driving home from the Honda Hoot. At least, I assume he had attended the Hoot, because he had two beautiful Gold Wings on a trailer.

This was my first clue that all was not right with this gentleman. A gold Wing is built for one purpose: To pamper its rider with all the amenities of a luxury automobile while still enjoying the feel of a motorcycle. To trailer such a bike is to deny its very essence. If you are a short distance rider, get a cruiser!

Anyway, I was looking at the bikes when I noticed a dark blob near his side view mirror. I thought I was hallucinating, but as I drew even with his car, I found to my horror that he was dangling his foot out of the window, and worse yet, he was wearing black socks!

Now southerners have a long and proud tradition of sticking body parts out of moving vehicles, but there are rules for this sort of thing. Every child knows that if you stick your hand out of the window, you run the risk of having it fall off, at least, our mothers told us this every time we got caught, but the sensation of flight was always too powerful to resist. As we got older, and being cool became more important, the hand was replaced with the jaunty crooked elbow, sticking out the window at the perfect angle to show that the driver was not suffering from the lack of AC in his car, but that he wanted the window open. At this age, the hand rarely comes out of the window, except to signal the driver’s reaction the idiot in front of him who just cut across three lanes of traffic and slammed on the breaks, using the familiar single digit salute. The fact that the idiot in question almost always has license plates from north of the Mason-Dixon line cannot be a coincidence.

The only other body part that is approved for extravehicular extrusion is the bared buttock, and that only under certain formally recognized conditions set down in the Treaty of Appalachia back in 1851. But that’s it! No bellies, no kneecaps, no left shoulder blades, and certainly not feet. I do have to note in passing that these rules apply only to the driver; passenger rules are more relaxed. Dogs riding shotgun are required to stick their heads out of the window. A female riding shotgun is allowed to stick whatever she wants out of the window, and is encouraged to do so by passing truckers, especially if she is comely.

But black sock clad feet out of the driver’s side window? Absolutely not! To make matters even worse, he was wearing shorts! I didn’t see his footwear, but I’m morally certain that a pair of sandals would be found right next to the brake pedal.

Oh the horror!

In the interests of fostering amity between our regions, I did not ridicule this victim of sartorial stupidity, but just passed as quickly as possible, and tried to purge the site from my eyes. But I wanted to pass this on to all of you dear readers, in the sincere hopes that you can pass the word along and prevent a future tragedy.

Xerox still can't come up with anything original!

Xerox still can't come up with anything original! Bad joke, I know, but you have to laugh at something. This is just too outrageous.

Xerox Corp. on Friday said it would restate five years of results to reclassify more than $6 billion in revenues, an expected move in yet another scandal to batter confidence in Corporate America's accounting.
The announced rattled investors, who were shaken by the revelation earlier this week by U.S. telecoms carrier ( news - external web site) WorldCom that it hid nearly $4 billion in expenses, and after several years of nagging questions about Xerox's accounting practices

Later in the article, we find out that the actual monetary difference is "only" 1.4 billion.

That's a relief...

It doesn't take much

It doesn't take much I was having a crappy day today. I got home this morning, and found the dogs had busted the barrier into the garage. (They ate a hole in the last door, and I've taken it down to rebuild. I installed a temporary door to keep them out.) They had eaten, scattered, or destroyed most of my tools and supplies for turning pens, so I wasn't too happy. I found everything I could, put it all in a safe location, then went to bed. I woke up this afternoon to find out that the power went out, and my clock was slow. After my shower, I went into the kitchen to make dinner, only to find out that the kitchen sink was clogged up. Then the garage flooded. Worms invaded the peppers in my garden, but left the weeds intact (How do bugs know what is a weed and what is a plant?)

Like I said, a crappy day.

But, there was a brief break in the clouds, and I saw a rainbow this afternoon. A double in fact, with both arcs complete. The secondary wasn't nearly as bright as the primary, but it was still impressive. I stood outside in the sprinkling rain, and just looked at them for 5 minutes. The garage is still flooded, the sink still clogged, the garage door still broken, and I'm missing a couple of tools, but any day you see a double rainbow can't be all bad.




Images from Claudine Vanbauce

The possum

The possum on home renovation:

I found it in the bottom of the toolbox and started waling on the top of the column for all I was worth. WHANG-BOUNCE WHANG-BOUNCE WHANG-BOUNCE Each time, the hammer would rebound at a slightly different angle, just as one would expect a hard rubber thing to react after contacting a cylindrical surface. WHANG-BOUNCE WHANG-BOUNCE WHANG-THUD It bounced just right that last blow, and the wedge-shaped peen caught me right square above my eyebrows.

You know the stars that twirl around Wile E. Coyote after he catches an anvil with his head? Those are real. I saw them. You ever wonder why Wile E. Coyote never decided to stay away from anvils? Because he was a genius. Said so on his business card. Just like on mine.

Why fly?

Why fly? Lileks has a new bleat on air travel. It seems he was going to fly to the big blogger meeting in DC (My invite must have gotten lost in the mail), but his flight was cancelled.

The woman behind me in line started to talking to the uniformed fellow behind her - a navigator, I’m guessing. “Where are the storms?” she said. “Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, New York, all over,” he said, his voice indicating that he was in no mood to talk shop with the civilians.

Hmm, I thought. Bumpy weather. Turbulence. Wonderful. We are now operating at 87% hoorah factor.

Back to the gate; I checked to see if the flight was on time, or if it had moved.

WASHINGTON DC NATIONAL AIRPORT 103 4:54 CANCELED

Huh?

Excuse me? That’s my plane -

Canceled?

I went to the gate, where the airline had posted a fellow carefully selected for his ability to make his irritation with customers quite plain. This had never happened to me before, so I was unclear on the next step. What me do? I said, in essence.

I have a training seminar coming up in Chicago in September. It's a ten hour drive from here, which I figure will save me two hours over flying, and at least 50 points on my blood pressure. I usually fly Delta, and if you fly out of Knoxville, it doesn't matter where you are going, you fly through Atlanta. I used to fly to Hawaii when I worked on Jahnston Atoll, and I had to go through Atlanta. When I flew to Cleveland, I went through Atlanta. When I flew to Dallas, I avoided Atlanta by flying through Cincinnatti, but my connecting flight was cancelled, and I got re-routed.

Through Atlanta.

The only time I didn't fly through Atlanta was when I flew from Norfolk Virginia to Knoxville. I flew through Pittsburg instead.

Last post on the pledge

Last post on the pledge I posted a condensed version of the following as a comment over at The Spoons Experience

The pledge is not a law. Congress passes many actions which are included in the US code which are not laws. They issue proclamations, resolutions, and so on, none of which have the force of law.

The Pledge is located in Title 4, Chapter 1, section 4 of the current US code. You can look it up here

Sec. 4. - Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, ''I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute

Note that throughout the citation, the word 'should' is used, rather than shall. This may seem minor, but that is the key difference between a requirement with the force of law, and a recommendation. When the word 'shall' is used, the citation has the force of law. When the word 'should' is used, then the citation is given as guidance only.

Compare it with section 3:

Sec. 3. - Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag

Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner, for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America; or shall expose or cause to be exposed to public view any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign upon which shall have been printed, painted, or otherwise placed, or to which shall be attached, appended, affixed, or annexed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, or drawing, or any advertisement of any nature; or who, within the District of Columbia, shall manufacture, sell, expose for sale, or to public view, or give away or have in possession for sale, or to be given away or for use for any purpose, any article or substance being an article of merchandise, or a receptacle for merchandise or article or thing for carrying or transporting merchandise, upon which shall have been printed, painted, attached, or otherwise placed a representation of any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign, to advertise, call attention to, decorate, mark, or distinguish the article or substance on which so placed shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court. The words ''flag, standard, colors, or ensign'', as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America

Note the word 'shall' is used and a specific penalty is attached to violation of this section.

To further explain the difference, we can look at the origin of Title 4, section 4. Title 4 section 4 was originally contained in Title 36, Chapter 10, Section 172, which was entitled "Patriotic Customs." Other items in Title 36 include:

• Gold Star Mother's Day
  
• Leif Erickson Day
  
• National Forest Products Week
  
• National Poison Prevention Week
  
• National School Lunch Week
  
• Save Your Vision Week

among others. If I refuse to recognize these 'special days', am I in violation of federal law?
Of course not.
Title 36 also contains the National Anthem, and rules of conduct when it is played. Again, the word 'should' is used throughout. It is not a violation of federal law to sing the wrong words, or to refuse to stand and face the flag during the playing of the national anthem, even though those rules are contained in section 301.

So, since there has been no law issued declaring what must be said in the Pledge, much less that anybody must recite the pledge, the first amendment is intact.

For a short history of the pledge, read here

Still more on the pledge

Still more on the pledge I'm a pack rat. When I find interesting nuggets of info, I keep 'em, and now that is going to pay off. A while back, I found a discussion of the Establishment clause, including an explanation of the origin of the phrase, "separation of church and state." It seems that it is relavent now, and so, without further ado:
First, a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association

Oct. 7, 1801.
Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.
Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association.
Nehh Dodge
Ephram Robbins The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson

In essence, the Danbury Baptists were asking for protection of their religious freedoms, as they were a decided minority in their state.

Jefferson's response:

January 1, 1802
Gentlemen:
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Thomas Jefferson

Sources: Robert S. Alley, Professor of Humanites, Emeritus, University of Richmond, from his article, "Public Education and the Public Good," published in William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 4, Issue 1, Summer 1995.
And Lipscomb, Andrew and Bergh, Albert, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 16, pp. 281-282.

In short, Jefferson told the Danbury Baptists three things. First, that he believed as they did that religion is a matter left between a man and his god, and second, that the government was only empowered to act on actions, not opinions. If the Danbury Baptists could show actual damage done by the Congregationalist majority, then there would be grounds for corrective action. Third, the wall of separation was to prevent one religion from being favored by the government to the exclusion of others.

Nowhere in this letter does Jefferson suggest that all religious thought and expression must be removed from government. In fact, he closes his letter with a religious reference. Now, if this was just private correspondence, then that would be a minor matter. But he was writing as the President of the United States, and if his characterization of the Establishment clause as a 'wall of separation' is to be considered as an official government position, then his closing blessing must also be considered as the same.

More on the pledge

More on the pledge Bill Sulik has an excellent discussion on the Establishment clause, and how it has been twisted into it's present interpretation.

To refresh everyone's recollection, the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." A review of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence of the past 20 years or so shows that it has built an edifice of case law that is so far askew of the plumb line of the establishment clause that it was bound to collapse, and this could bring it down. A review of the 9th Circuit decision shows that it has been built on those great errors.

He makes a strong case.

My oversight

My oversight The Spoons Experience is a primo blog that I peruse regularly, especially with his new Sekimori site design. How I've neglected adding it to my permalinks is beyond me. That has been corrected.

Maybe I should get a site redesign....

Naah....that be the old silk purse/sow's ear thing.

More evidence to dispute the "moderate Palestinian Majority"

More evidence to dispute the "moderate Palestinian Majority" From The Age, comes this report:

Polls also raise doubts about the suggestion by Bush that a silent majority of Palestinians, if given the chance to express themselves honestly in free elections, would reject violence against Israeli targets.

A survey published on Sunday in the Palestinian newspaper Al Hayat Al Jadidah found that 60 per cent of respondents supported suicide bombings within Israel and a stunning 86 per cent supported attacks against Israeli military and settlers within the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

It's the right thing to do

It's the right thing to do President Bush signed a bill into law, extending death benfits to domestic partners of policemen and firefighters killed in the line of duty.

The new law allows a $250,000 federal benefit for survivors of public safety officers to be paid to any beneficiary listed on the victim's life insurance policy. The money has been available only to spouses, children and parents.

It's only fair.

Here's a tough one

Here's a tough one Gay mom's daughters head for the hills.

HOUSTON (KHOU) -- Two teenage girls say that they can no longer live with their mother because she is gay. They've asked the state to take them in, but it says it won't interfere with this family that's divided.

Inside a Missouri City home two teenage girls packed their bags and moved out. Seventeen-year-old Keena Green and her 15-year-old sister, Nikki, are no longer living with their mom.

A mom who says that they were kidnapped. "Yes, I know that they were," says Kilma Green.

She says a church called the Body of Christ kidnapped them. Keena and Nikki are members of the church. The girls tell 11 News that they weren't taken away, but that they ran away because their mom is gay.

First, kidnapping is not accurate. The girls are not being held against their will. Alienation of affection, possibly, but not kidnapping.

But we do have some interesting issues here. Forcing the girls to live with their mother would interfer with the free practice of their religion, abridging their first amendment rights. On the other hand, unless we want to declare that homosexuality is grounds to consider a parent unfit, the state cannot intervene and take the children away.

This passage:

Nikki adds, "I believe what the bible says about homosexuals. And I believe that had an affect on our decision. But I also believe if she was going to love us the right way she should get rid of her lifestyle and make us number one instead of the women."

hints at promiscuity, which in itself is not grounds to pull the girls out, unless it could be shown that the mother's lifestyle led her to neglect her daughters.

Of course, the state doesn't have to pull the kids out of the home; they've done that on their own already. Can the daughters sue for emancipation, based on these grounds?

Any lawyers out there?

It's about time!

It's about time! The folks who terrorized a pro-Israeli meeting at SFSU has been kicked off campus for a year.

Members of the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) surrounded a group of pro-Israel demonstrators at a May 7 rally, yelling, "Hitler didn't finish the job" and "Get out or we will kill you," and threatening the mostly-Jewish crowd with physical harm.

In addition to the suspension, the group also lost its funding for one year and had its Web site shut down.

One year seems a little lenient.

New Jihadist Army Forming in Balkans

New Jihadist Army Forming in BalkansFrom DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s Intelligence Report
24 June:

The next radical Islamic terror attack in America could well originate in a corner of the Balkans, where a new jihad force is taking shape quietly and unhindered. In its last issue, published on Friday, June 21, DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military sources reported that close to 20,000 fighters, battled-hardened veterans and eager young recruits, are already under arms, with more joining up all the time.
An Islamist bloc of nations (whose formation has been reported in the past by DEBKAfile) - made up of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, al Qaeda and Hizballah, with active Palestinian support - is behind the new Muslim Balkan army. Saudi, Iranian and Iraqi intelligence services and al Qaeda operations officers in Macedonia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Albania are tasked with recruitment, training and organization. The units are armed with modern weaponry, including missiles and artillery, while handpicked young Muslim recruits have been sent to sign up at private flying schools, especially in the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, as the nucleus of an air force.

For what it's worth. Remember, Debka also predicted a mass invasion of Jordan which didn't occur.

Run that by me again?

Run that by me again? Worldcom may go belly up because of the scandal:

WorldCom Inc. teetered toward what would be the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history after shocking Wall Street — and the president — with yet another corporate scandal: $3.8 billion in expenses hidden from investors.

Stocks plunged Wednesday after the disclosure by the long-distance and Internet ( news - external web site) services company, the latest revelation of how business ethics were trashed during the technology boom of the late 1990s.

I thought businesses went bad during the evil 80's under Reagan's watch. You mean to tell me that it really happened during the greatest peacetime expansion of our economy in history, under the watchful eye of Bill Clinton? Say it ain't so!

Arthur Andersen served as WorldCom's accountant during the period in question. The accounting firm, once one of the world's largest, was convicted earlier this month for the destruction of documents related to its work for Enron.

Andersen blamed WorldCom for the inaccuracies and said its work was in compliance with SEC standards: "It is of great concern that important information about line costs was withheld from Andersen auditors by the chief financial officer of WorldCom."

But accounting experts disagreed. Bob Bertucelli, director of the tax institute at Long Island University in New York, said there's no way that such an accounting error should have gotten past Andersen's audit.

"The auditor is responsible for everything that goes on, whether it's discussed with the auditing firm or not," Bertucelli said. "It should have been found. It's a clear cut violation of generally accepted accounting principles."

Arthur Anderson again. Why am I not surprised?

UPDATE Rand Simberg is asking the same question I am

You've gotta be kidding!

You've gotta be kidding! The Pledge of Allegience is unconstitutional?

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Stunning politicians on both the left and right, a federal appeals court declared for the first time Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because of the words "under God" inserted by Congress in 1954.

The ruling, if allowed to stand, would mean schoolchildren could no longer recite the pledge, at least in the nine Western states covered by the court.

Those wacky judges! What I really have to wonder about is why they took the case in the first place. Then I read a little further:

The 9th Circuit is the nation's most overturned appellate court — partly because it is the largest, but also because it tends to make liberal, activist opinions, and because the cases it hears — on a range of issues from environmental laws to property rights to civil rights — tend to challenge the status quo.

God save us from glory hounds looking to force their will on the rest of us!

You know, I think I'll sue the schools for forcing my kids to listen to the Pledge of Allegience, because it forces them to take an oath which is not supported by the Constitution. For example, "indivisible" is not a Constitutional concept, so why should we have to pledge our allegiance to it?

That would be no more ridiculous than Nednow's complaint.

New post

New post in And So It Goes, The Loves of My Life: Why Don't we Steal Away.
Excerpt:

I started my junior year, eager to see Lisa again. Later, she told me how she talked to her mother, and told her she was surprised at how happy I was to see her. I guess I wasn’t as suave as I was hoping. Lisa still wasn’t thinking of me as boyfriend material, and I didn’t know how to get her to see me that way, so I continued being her friend, while dreaming of something more. That fall was a witch’s brew made up of equal parts exhilaration, fear, joy, and pain. I wanted so much to tell her how I felt, but I knew it would be a mistake, that it wasn’t time yet. So I kept my feelings hidden (I think) and wished for a chance to make her fall in love with me.

Whoever said wishes don’t come true is a fool.

More moderate Palestinians

More moderate Palestinians This is sickening.

Mariam Farahat interrupted the somber greetings offered by a visitor. "I don't want condolences, I want congratulations," she said. "I encouraged my son to sacrifice himself. It is a victory."

She was speaking of her firstborn, Mohammed, 19, who was killed in March during a one-man raid on an Israeli settlement in the southern Gaza Strip. Armed with an assault rifle and grenades, Mohammed killed five students at a military school for religious Jews and wounded 23 other settlers at Gush Katif before he was gunned down.

John Rennie discusses Creation Science

John Rennie discusses Creation Science John Rennie, the Editor in Chief of Scientific American wrote an article on Creation Science entitled Scientific American: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense I read the article, and wrote a critique of his reasoning. Here is a brief excerpt:

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution. Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more.

Call me crazy, but aren’t the first two at the very heart of evolution? If they are in debate, then isn’t the whole theory debatable? Mr. Rennie is in the unadmirable position of saying, “We know it happens, but we aren’t quite sure how it happens, why it happens, how long it takes, and oh by the way, we’ve never seen it happen.”

12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community.

Here is the key: “…because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species.”

Isn’t it a bit problematic to try and describe how speciation occurs when you can’t even agree on the definition of ‘species’?

If your interest is piqued, read the rest here.

New link

New link Knoxpatch.com is the latest addition to my links. Not really a blog, but a site which pokes fun at K-town. And let's face it, there's a wealth of material to work with.

The latest outrage

The latest outrage I've been away from the computer for a few days, and I just found this article via Dawson.

At about 9:00 pm, Boaz Shabo was en route from Jerusalem, when his cellphone rang. It was his thirteen year-old daughter, Aviya. She was frantic.

One by one, family members who were at home, were shot with an automatic weapon after the terrorist forced himself into their house.

She had witnessed it all.

"PLEASE, abba [daddy], come home quick!" she wailed into the receiver. "They are dying."

There is no rational defense of this action. Even if you accept the Palestinian position that these settlers were there illegally, shooting a 5 year old child is a monstrous act. Anybodty who countenances such an action is every bit as much a monster as the animal who pulled the trigger.

Conservative or Liberal?

Conservative or Liberal? Global News Watch has posted a quiz to identify your political orientation. Rather than focussing on issues, it instead tests your belief systems. As Howard says:

This isn't an issue-oriented quiz. It is a philosophy-oriented quiz. Why? Because if you're going to decide whether a person is a liberal or conservative, political philosophy is what matters, not issues.

I scored 9 of 11, putting me firmly in the conservative ranks.

Big surprise there!

Ben Stein on being a father

Ben Stein on being a father
Ben Stein writes for the American Prowler, when he isn't filming his game show, appearing in films (Ferris Bueller's Day Off), or lecturing on economics. (Where does he find the time?) And more importantly to him, will his son ever find the time?

But my son will if he is well want to spend ever less time with me as he gets into high school and learns to drive (and keeps us up at night in terror). Then he'll be in college if all is well, and who knows where after that, or even if we'll be alive. At some point he will want to be with his Dad again, but who knows what kind of shape I will be in then? The "daddy trap" is still there, and the daddy and Thomas trees are now indivisible. But that time with him was precious and it will not come back for a long time, if ever. There is a lesson here about how to spend your summers: planting the trees, getting caught -- forever -- in the Daddy trap, getting squirted with pink water by your son.

My two oldest boys are going away to college this fall.

I miss them already.

American Absurdity, pt 2

American Absurdity, pt 2

President Bush and Colin Powell are sitting in a bar.
A guy walks in and asks the bartender, "Isn't that Bush and Powell sitting over there?
The bartender says, "Yep, that's them."
So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor. What are you guys doing here?"
Bush says, "We're planning WW III."
And the guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"
Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Iraqis and one blonde with big breasts."
The guy exclaimed, " Why kill a blonde with big breasts?"
Bush turns to Powell, punches him on the shoulder and says, "See smart guy, I told you no one would worry about the 140 million
Iraqis!"

American Absurdity

American Absurdity

"You have been tried and found guilty by a jury of your peers, and sentenced to death. Do you have any last requests?"

"Yes. Before I die, I'd like to have one beer."

"Sorry, you're only 20 years old."

Old news I know, but you'd think we could do something about it.

Look at her face

Look at her face


Why is she important? Read this.

Neale, you need to read the entire post

Neale, you need to read the entire post Neale Talbot has responded at warblogger watch to my post below on tracking unique visitors, and once again, his math is suspect.

Let the festivities begin!

First, yes, I used a projection for this month, because the trend shows that traffic at Instapundit is growing, and that Instapundit has a monstrous retention rate. As proof, consider the following:
At the time of Neale's post, the average daily unique visitor count was 14560. Right now, at 7PM EDT, his daily average is 14773. These averages are computed over 31 days. Since the average is increasing, that means that he is getting more uniques per day than the previous average. Further, if Neale had looked past the averages to the daily uniques for the month of June, he would have found, as I did, that Instapundit's traffic has remained fairly constant at about 14,000 to 18,000 uniques per day during the week, and 7,000 to 9,000 uniques per day on the weekend. Unless you assume he is making a one shot splash on a daily basis, you must conclude that he is retaining a large portion of his increase in regular readers, which means that the total for this month is liable to be retained in large part through the next several months. It is not unreasonable to expect that Glenn will keep 70% of his increase this month over the long haul.

Second, Neale's good friend Jeff's analysis is right on. In fact, I addressed that in my post, assuming that approximately 80-90% of his daily total represent daily readers, not new readers, which is why my estimate stayed around 12,000 uniques PER DAY.

Next, Neale compares two numbers with different origins.

Using Richard's maths, Insnayapundit gets on average 225691 hits on average per month. So 225691/30 should equal 7523 hits a day. Why doesn't that match the average uniques? Why is it less? Isn't that a sheer impossibility?

There's no conspiracy Neale, just another analysis error on your part. You used the average monthly uniques, divided by thirty, then wondered why that doesn't match the average daily uniques. Here's why:
The daily average is computed over the last thirty one days, as is clearly labelled on the readout. The average monthly uniques is calculated over the last two months. The numbers are computed using different data ranges. You're comparing apples and oranges, especially since the current month is significantly higher than the past month.

Next, Neale questions my math, revealing his own weakness in the area.

7523 multiplied by 8% gives 602 for AOL users. Applying the AOL factor of 3, we can assume that 1805 (Richard multiplied wrong on his page, multiplying by 2). 7523-1805 = 5718. At the upper AOL level of 14% that leaves 4363.

From my post:

Now for more calculating. 13,000 daily hits multiplied by 8% gives 1040 hits from floating IP's. Applying our hit factor of 3, we can assume that 2080 hits represent repeat page views (1040 AOL users visiting 3 times each, count only the first visit, discard the remaining 2 visits),

I multiplied by two because, as I showed above, I still counted one unique visit out of the three. 3-1=2. Get it this time, Neale? If you subtract all three visits from the typical AOL user, you are now undercounting by a third.

Further from my post:

Also from eXTReMe, we find out that AOL traffic represents less than 4% of Instapundit's total traffic, which indicates that our first estimate was too conservative.

Of course, Neale continues to use the 8-14% estimate, rather than looking at the actual report, because it bolsters his total. Looking at eXTReMe, we see that AOL surfers represent about 0.19% of Instapundit traffic. However, I include half the Netscape 6 users, who may be AOL users. This is a complete guess, and could vary significantly in either direction. So we have a total of 3%

So, 7523 multiplied by 3% equals 14 visitors multiplied by (3 minus 1) equals a correction of 451, leaving 7072 uniques per day, within Neale's range, but at the upper limit, and certainly higher than his 3000 lower limit. However, taking into account the retention rate discussed above, we get the following:

14,799 uniques per day (current 30 day average) subtract losses of 30% (estimated at 4400) gives 10,399 uniques per day on average. Applying the AOL correction of 3% times 2 ( approx 623) leaves 9776 daily unique visitors.

If he maintains his traffic, as seems likely by looking at his daily tracking numbers (they aren't falling off) the total will exceed my original estimate of 12,000.
14,799 uniques per day. Applying the AOL correction factor of 3% times 2 (approximately 888) leaves 13,911.

From Neale:

Prove me wrong, children, prove me wrong!

Consider it done, Neale! Only the most conservative estimate manages to fall within your range, and that just barely.

Yep, here we go again

Yep, here we go again I’m having trouble reconciling our modern outlooks on science with our current philosophy. The problem is that the two worldviews are in direct opposition. Both cannot be true, yet we try to act as if they were. Here’s what I am talking about:

Science tells us that the world is naturalistic, that everything that exists can be explained through mechanistic processes. This is the assumption that forms the basis for the scientific method, and is the overriding principle of modern science. Any theory, postulate or observation that casts doubt on that principle is subject to a quick and complete dismissal, regardless of its merits. In short, science denies the divine.

On the other hand, in our daily lives, we embrace the divine and I’m not just talking about church on Sunday. Our fundamental principles, our core beliefs are rooted in a belief in and a respect for the divine.

We hold these truths to be self evident:

• that all men are created equal,
  
• that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
  
• that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

(italics mine)

These weren’t just words the Founding Father used because they sounded good; they represented the core principles upon which they founded our nation, and we still revere those principles today, despite the sarcasm and cynicism of modern times. We do believe that men are endowed with unalienable rights, although it is no longer fashionable to attribute those rights to some divine origin.

But if they aren’t divine, then where do they originate? Why do men have a right to life and liberty? Is there some naturalistic process that we can look to, that we can base these rights on, or are they nothing but noble nonsense dreamed up by overly romantic primitives?

In order for those words to be true, we have to make a couple of assumptions. First, we have to assume that life has some intrinsic value. Second, we have to assume that human life is more valuable than other lives. Of course, neither of these assumptions is compatible with a naturalistic point of view.

In the latter case, if the scientific viewpoint is correct then there is absolutely nothing that qualitatively distinguishes man from the other animals. We evolved guided by the same process responsible for the rabbit and the wolf. We may be more intelligent, but that intelligence is derived from a naturalistic process, and is therefore subject to the same rules and limitations as all other attributes of nature.

Put another way, we can ask ourselves this question:

Does a rabbit have the unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?

Answer: “Only as long as he is faster than a hungry wolf.”

Rights in a naturalistic world are not intrinsic but are firmly rooted in the exercise of power. Your rights exist only as far as you can enforce them, and conflicts between competing rights are resolved by the application of force, i.e. violence. This is the only possible conclusion if you start from a naturalistic worldview, but it is one rejected by most scientists. Their usual excuse is that science is not meant to answer questions like this, but that is a cop out. If all is naturalistic, then science should be able to answer every question.

Next, we consider whether life itself has any intrinsic value, regardless of form. Viewed from a naturalistic framework, life is not precious, but cheap. Everywhere we look, we find life; in deserts, frozen tundra, at the bottom of the sea, in the most inhospitable landscapes, we find some form of life. There is evidence that suggests that bacterial life existed on Mars. Life is ubiquitous. It is also savage.

Living things kill other living things, whether by crowding them out of their habitat, or slaughtering them for food, or killing them to claim a mate. For any number of reasons, and in the case of man, just for the fun of it, life kills other life. How then can it be said to be precious, to have any intrinsic value? The answer obviously is that it can’t. If this is a naturalistic world, then we are animals, nothing more, and our behavior is governed by the same rules which apply in the jungle.

In denying divinity, science denies the very qualities that set us apart from the rest of the animals. Most scientists, as pointed out earlier, avoid this contradiction; they put on blinders like a modern day Scarlett O-Hara. “I’m not going to think about that today. I’ll think about it tomorrow.” They understand that their professional beliefs break down as they approach the real world. The few that do follow the logic through to completion either reject the conclusion, or adopt an almost sociopathic detachment from the human race. I’ve met one such fellow; he is a biologist, and he firmly believes that we are nothing but animals, and that the law of the jungle is the only law there is. Mercy, compassion, altruism are all false concepts to him, existing only as traps for weaker minded individuals. Repulsive as that may seem, that is the only logical conclusion of a naturalistic worldview.

So, how do we reconcile these two pictures of the world? Do we live in the jungle, or is there something higher than “dog eat dog” competition? Is there some quality in man that elevates him above the other animals? Is life itself precious? Are their unalienable rights?

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you are saying that the world is divine, not naturalistic, in which case you may wish to review your views on science.

Sweet dreams. It’s my bed time.

Here's a tip for Neale Talbot

Here's a tip for Neale Talbot If you want to perform a mathematical analysis, be sure you can do basic math, OK sport?

Neale attempts to dissect Instapundit's traffic numbers to determine just how many regular readers he has. He first links to this Instapundit post, which notes that as of June 17, Instapundit had 226,916 unique visitors for the month.

Then he proceeds to analyse this number, and the mistakes begin to fly. We'll take it step by step:

According to the quoted figures, Instapundit gets about 15,000 unique visitors each weak.

Hmmmm. 226,916 divided by 4 comes out to 56,729, which is just slightly higher than the 15,000 per week claimed by Neale. In addition, Neale neglects to extend the total to get an entire month's traffic. Adjusting the total for 17 days to a projection for 30 days is done by the following:

226,916/17*30

which gives us a projected count of 400,440 unique visits in a month, or roughly 100,000 per week, which is even higher than Neale's claim of 15,000.

It is possible that this first mistake was due to calculating daily visits, but calling it weekly visits, which would explain why his figures are off by a factor of about 30, unfortunately, the next segment of Neale's analysis shows this to be untrue:

Assuming the figures are correct, if Reynolds is getting ~211,000 uniques a month, then about 6,800 of his 15,000 average visitors/week are floaters, with the remaining 8,200 his actual loyal audience ((6,800[floaters] x 30[days]) + 8,200[repeaters] = 212,200). This, of course, is only accurate if the repeaters only count once. The problem is, they don't.

No, the problem is that simple math continues to elude Neale.

• First, 226,916 does not round to 211,000 but 227,000.
  
• Second, as I demonstrated above, the actual monthly count is closer to 400,440 which would round to 400,000.
  
• Third, Neale does not give us his methodology for determining how many visitors are floaters, and how many are repeats.
  
• Fourth, Neale constructs a faulty equation to account for total number of visits.
  
• Fifth, he carries forward his error from the first section, insisting that 212,000 monthly visits equates to 15,000 weekly visits.

So, let's try a methodology that's a little more open, and much more accurate.

Starting with an accurate monthly count, 400,000 hits per month, we can assume 13,000 hits per day. Next, we have to figure out how many of these hits are repeat visits from floating IPs. According to this, AOL has about 14% of the market. Of course, that number changes dramatically with demographic groups, and is significantly lower among traditionally internet savvy groups, like your typical blogger. Checking my own referral logs, I find that on average about 8% of my visits come from AOL. Since I do my posting when most sane Americans are in bed, my repeat traffic is virtually nil, which tells us that the 8% figure should be relatively free of distortion. So we'll set these numbers as our boundaries, 8-14% of visits come from floating IP's.

Next, we have to determine how many revisits come from these floating IP's. Glenn posts quite frequently, which makes his page attractive for multiple visits throughout the day. However, most users only log in once or twice a day, so that would become the limiting factor. While 1.5 to 2 is probably a more reasonable estimate of page reloads, I'm assigning a multiple hit factor of 3, which makes a nice conservative estimate.

So, now we see that of Instapundits daily hit tally, 8-14% come from floating IP's, and that those hits are overreported by a factor of 3.
Now for more calculating. 13,000 daily hits multiplied by 8% gives 1040 hits from floating IP's. Applying our hit factor of 3, we can assume that 2080 hits represent repeat page views (1040 AOL users visiting 3 times each, count only the first visit, discard the remaining 2 visits), leaving 10,020 unique visits per day. Using the upper limit of 14%, we come up with 9360 unique visits per day. Now, if we reduce our multiple factor to a more reasonable one, say 2, our numbers shift to a low of 11180 and a high of 11960 unique visits per day. So our range is now 9360 to 11960 unique visits per day.

Let's check our work using another method. Looking at the tracking patterns on Instapundit's eXTReMe counter, daily traffic during the week is fairly constant, at an average of 14,550 unique hits per day. This stability indicates a strong repeat traffic. If a significant amount of traffic were event driven, the numbers would not be as stable. Based on this, we can assume that 80 to 90% of the daily total represents regular readership, with the remainder accounted for by one shot readers. 80% of 14,550 is 11,640. This falls well within the range we determined above. Also from eXTReMe, we find out that AOL traffic represents less than 4% of Instapundit's total traffic, which indicates that our first estimate was too conservative.

In this analysis, we found that Instapundit gets in the neighborhood of 12,000 unique visitors each day, most of whom are regular readers, as opposed to Neale's estimate of 3500-8200 per week. Neale's numbers only came as close as they did because some of his mistakes cancelled each other out.

He finishes his analysis with this sentence:

With 8,200 loyal readers at best, the New York Times need not fear Reynolds just yet

Big journalism doesn't fear bloggers because of their circulation, if it fears bloggers at all. Reynolds himself has made this point several times. But bloggers have shaped how print media covers some stories. Bloggers have changed the vernacular as well. Several major news outlets are now calling suicide bombings 'homicide bombings', a term first used in blogs. A minor change to be sure, but one which shows the power of blogging, even if you only reach 12,000 people a day.

Bloggers are having an impact on print journalism that is similar in scope to the impact of home video on TV journalism, and under much the same circumstances. Viewed with suspicion and scorn at first, both provide journalists with another tool to find and report stories

Another Tennessee blogger!

Another Tennessee blogger! Welcome to Newton's Kumquat, the latest to join the growing blogger community in Tennessee.

I'm not alone

I'm not alone NZ Bear , James Lileks , and I are on the same page.

The Bear:

But I am past the point of believing that they, as a people at this point in time, have a right to a state. Nor can they be trusted with even the basic freedoms a civilized society should expect and aspire to......

It is not time for yet another incursion into the territories, to be followed by a pullout in a few days. It is time for Israel to take full control of the West Bank and Gaza. All of it. And it is time for the complete and total disarming of the Palestinian people. No armed PA security force(s). No militias. No police. No guns, no bombs, no mortars, nothing. Israel should sweep in, and when they do, they should pack for a long stay. For they will have to be there a long, long time.

Mr. Lileks:

Let’s talk oppression. Let’s talk occupation. Let’s talk genocide, as Arafat likes to call any Israeli action. In college I fell in with a group of Ukes, and learned a good deal about the Soviet horrors visited on their nation. Churches: razed. Language: forbidden. Menfolk: off to the camps. Land: collectivized. Population: starved to death by the millions. You’d talk to the old men, the partisans who made it to America after the war, and their hatred of the Soviets was white-hot forty years later. Ukraine at the time was still under Soviet control, remember. And let’s pause a moment to remember all the campus protests over Russia’s illegal, genocidal occupation.

Didn’t take long, did it.

We housed a dissident who’d been kicked out of the USSR after spending a few years in a “psychiatric” hospital, where they’d done all sorts of horrible things to him and broken his health for good. Sixty years of occupation, oppression and mass extermination, and not one of these men would have taken the war to girls on a bus bound for a Moscow high school. Not one.

As for me, well, you saw what I had to say below.

More info please!

More info please! According to this brief story, scientists in Australia have managed to 'teleport' a laser beam.

Teleportation is usually found in science fiction programs like Star Trek, but a team of researchers from the Australian National University (ANU) has carried out a successful teleportation experiment in a gravitational wave lab.

Team leader Dr Ping Koy Lam says it involved creating a laser beam, its disembodiment and the recreation of the original beam in a different location.

How? details, man, I need details!

Time for a boycott

Time for a boycott Ted Turner has crossed the line.

Ted Turner, the billionaire founder of CNN, accuses Israel today of engaging in "terrorism" against the Palestinians, in comments that threaten to lead to a further decline in the news network's already poor relations with the Jewish state.
"Aren't the Israelis and the Palestinians both terrorising each other?" says Turner, who is vice-chairman of AOL Time Warner, which owns CNN, in an exclusive interview with the Guardian.

"The Palestinians are fighting with human suicide bombers, that's all they have. The Israelis ... they've got one of the most powerful military machines in the world. The Palestinians have nothing. So who are the terrorists? I would make a case that both sides are involved in terrorism."

This is the same man who called the terrorists of 9-11 "brave," then tried to excuse himself by saying that since he owns the Braves, that word is always on the tip of his tongue.

You know he's gone too far when he's too liberal for Jane Fonda to hang out with.

I'll have nothing to do with anything Ted Turner has a hend in, whether it be movies, sports, TV, whatever. Let him sit alone in irrelevance on one of his mega-ranches.

Proud Papa

Proud Papa According to this Reuters story, the father of the bomber who slaughtered 20 Israelis, most high school kids, is proud of his boy's accomplishment.

Mohammed al-Ghoul was a student of Islamic studies at al-Najah University in the West Bank city of Nablus. He had apparently disappeared about three days ago. His father told Reuters from his home in the al-Fara refugee camp, near Nablus, that he was "very happy" to hear that his son was the bomber.

Most fathers are proud when their kids hit a home run in a baseball game, or score a goal in soccer. Palestinian fathers are proud when their sons become mass murderers of children.

The time for making excuses is over. The Palestinian culture is diseased beyond hope of a cure, and needs to be put down like a rabid dog.

New day, same story

New day, same story Here's the FoxNews report:

JERUSALEM — A homicide bomber blew himself up on a crowded city bus in Jerusalem during rush hour Tuesday morning, killing at least 14 people and injuring more than 40, police said. Many aboard the bus were students on their way to school, witnesses said.

The blast shattered the bus just before 8 a.m. local time, peeling off its roof and sides. The explosion went off as the bus waited at a traffic light near a busy intersection in southern Jerusalem.

And Ha'aretz:

At least 14 people were killed and 40 injured Tuesday morning when a suicide bomber blew himself up on a bus full of passengers, most of them high school students, in southern Jerusalem. Five people were in serious condition, 3 sustained moderate wounds and 32 were lightly injured.

The explosion took place near the Pat Junction on Egged bus line 32A from the neighborhood of Gilo. The blast ripped through bus, leaving it a charred, mangled hulk at the side of the road.

The Israelis have more experience than anybody in identifying and stopping terrorists, but some still get through. It would be sheer arrogance for the US to think that we could stop all of them. This is what Cheney and Co. were talking about when they said future attacks on the US are inevitable.

The only way to avoid such attacks is to go on the offensive, to act rather than react.

War on Terror

War on Terror The Age, an aussie site, has this report on the three Saudi al Qaida members captured in Morocco:

Osama bin Laden, besieged in December in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan, commanded his fighters to disperse across the globe to attack "American and Jewish interests", according to accounts officials say they have obtained from three al Qaeda operatives captured in Morocco.

The three Saudi citizens are said to have told interrogators that they escaped Afghanistan and came to Morocco on a mission to use bomb-laden speedboats for suicide attacks on US and British warships in the Strait of Gibraltar, senior Moroccan officials said.

I'm shocked; shocked to discover that Saudis are supporting terrorism!

Upset win?

Upset win? According to Reuters, the US defeat of Mexico was an 'upset.'

Hmmmm. The US has won 4 of their last 5 meetings with Mexico, not counting this mornings game. How is a fifth victory an upset? Yes, Mexico won their group, and the US finished second in theirs, but Mexico was in a weaker group than the US.

Ah well, a win is a win. Next up Germany, and they look very good.

Now this is a decision I don't like.

Now this is a decision I don't like. The SCOTUS has ruled that the police can search your person and belongings without informing you of your rights first.

The justices, by a 6-3 vote, said a U.S. appeals court was wrong in ruling that a bus search should be considered unconstitutionally coercive unless the police first warn passengers they have the right to refuse to cooperate.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court majority that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches.

To me, this represents the true erosion of our constitutional rights, not some silly dust up over a graduation ceremony. The decision striles me as a bad one, although I have to admit I don't know anything more about the story than what is in this article. Why did the police focus on this bus, and on the two men? Was this a routine/random search, or was it specifically targetted at these two? If they had refused to co-operate, would that have been considered probable cause?

Home Depot just says"NO"

Home Depot just says"NO" to business with the feds:

ST. LOUIS (AP) - The Home Depot Inc., the nation's biggest hardware and home-improvement chain, has told its 1,400 stores not to do business with the U.S. government or its representatives, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Sunday.

The newspaper checked with managers at 38 Home Depot stores in 11 states. All but two said they had received instructions from Home Depot's corporate headquarters in Atlanta this month not to take government credit cards, purchase orders or even cash if the items are being used by the federal government.

"Engaging in business practices with the federal government is not a strategic focus of the Home Depot," company spokesman Tom Gray said. "The Home Depot is not and does not plan to become a federal contractor or subcontractor." He said it was an old policy.

Why would they do this? The following quote from the memo promulgating the policy gives a good answer:

The notification has a section that says commercial credit-card customers will receive a notice with their June bill that purchases could not be made "that would cause the company to be covered by or responsible in any way for compliance with" three federal laws or executive orders:

_Executive Order 11246 of 1965, which bans discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

_Section 503 and Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which requires affirmative action and prohibits employment discrimination by federal government contractors and subcontractors.

_The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, which requires that anyone doing business worth $25,000 or more with the federal government must take affirmative action to hire and to promote qualified targeted veterans.

Apparently, these regulations would cost the company too much money, so they are acting to ensure that they don't become subject to them.

Love vs lust

Love vs lust A way to plan your date accordingly. An excerpt:

WHEN THE BILL ARRIVES

IF IT'S LOVE
Discreetly take it as soon as it arrives, and don't allow her to see it. Decline her offer to split it with you. After all, her company is payment enough.
IF IT'S LUST
Look at the bill. Then look at her. Say, "So. Are you coming over?"

via goodsh*t

Ten Reasons To Go To Work Naked"

Ten Reasons To Go To Work Naked"

10. No one ever steals your chair.

9. Gives "bad hair day" a whole new meaning.

8. Diverts attention from the fact that you also came to work drunk.

7. People stop stealing your pens after they've seen where you keep them.

6. You want to see if it's like the dream.

5. To stop those creepy programmer guys from looking down your blouse.

4. "I'd love to chip in... but I left my wallet in my pants."

3. Inventive way to finally meet that 'special' person in Human Resources.

2. Can take advantage of your computer monitor radiation to work on your
tan.

And...drum roll...the Number One reason to go to work naked :

Your boss will never say, "I wanna see your ass in here by 8:00!"
ever again.

New Knoxville Blogger!

New Knoxville Blogger! Welcome Notes from the Underground to the fold. His first post is on the Tennessee financial crisis.

OSU Graduation

OSU Graduation This post at the Democratic Underground purports to detail instructions given to the graduates about their behavior during the commencement address given by President Bush.

The story goes that the Graduating class was warned that if they carried out a planned protest by standing and facing away from the President while he was speaking, they would be arrested, and their diplomas withheld. This action is not without precedent at OSU as this article shows, but finding any corroboration for this incident has been difficult.

In trying to find any documentation from a reliable source about this claim, I came across this article (reg req) from the OSU paper, documenting protests outside the stadium, which were allowed to continue witout molestation. Also from The Lantern comes this report on the speech:

There were few disruptions during Bush's speech despite efforts from protesters who urged graduates and guests to "turn your backs on Bush." Three graduates and six audience members — one draped in a Palestinian flag — actually did turn their backs but were hardly noticed by the crowd of about 60,000.

A further search found this site, where the protest, such as it was, was organized. The site has a link for people to post their personal accounts of the graduation. There is a grand total of 2 entries, one from a student, and one from the fellow who posted the account on DU, Jeff, AKA the Angry White Democrat. As the graduates who turned her back on Bush admitted, she was not harrasses, nor arrested, and she did get her diploma. Even Jeff was not arrested, although he also admitted to heckling during the President's introduction

When I first read this post, I couldn't believe my eyes. Now that I've researched it a little bit, I can see my skepticism was well founded, and my anger has shifted to the fools propagating this non event. You don't go around making up stuff like this. If there had been true repression of free speech, then outrage is the appropriate response BUT:

• The protest was allowed to continue outside the graduation ceremony;
• graduates who protested were allowed to remain, and receive their diplomas,
• the only person who was escorted out was Jeff, who came to the stadium for the sole purpose of protesting.
• there were no arrests made, even though some did participate in the protest.

This is not repression folks, and the furor being raised over at DU and other lefty locales merely confirms their fringe status. Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech does not give you the right to co-opt a public function in order to espouse your views. The other graduates, their families and friends, have rights as well. Unfortunately, most extremists think that their cause gives their rights precedence over anybody else's, which leads to such disruptive acts as shouting down guest lecturers to prevent them from speaking, or staging political protests at graduation ceremonies. Then when they are appropriately spanked like the spoiled brats they ape, they whine about 'repression,' and and cry about 'jack-booted thugs.'

The wonderful truth is that, living in America, they don't have the first idea what true repression is. They don't have to fear the midnight knock on the door, or the fear that they may disappear, becoming an 'unperson.' Newspaper offices are not burned out if they write an editorial criticizing the government, although supporting the government has been known to result in entire print runs being vandalized on some college campuses. There are reasonable controls placed where individual rights come into conflict, and those controls do not equal repression.

With everything that is going on, and the legitimate concerns over the erosion of certain Constitutional rights, I'm surprised that the left is getting itself into such a lather over this.

Light posting

Light posting for the next few days. Work has gotten busy, and like so often, every other facet of my life has followed suit. (Except for my social life, darnit!)

US EMBASSY BOMBED!

US EMBASSY BOMBED! In Pakistan,

KARACHI, Pakistan (AP) - A suicide attacker crashed a bomb-laden car into a guard post outside the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing five people and injuring at least 25 others on Friday.
The massive blast incinerated a dozen cars, including two police vehicles, and sent debris flying a half-mile. It occurred around 11:15 a.m. (1:15 a.m. EDT) in the sprawling southern port city.
Police said the bomb was concealed in a white car that the driver crashed into a police kiosk at the southern end of the consulate compound, destroying part of the heavy concrete wall. It also damaged the nearby Marriott Hotel and shattered windows in buildings a block away.

The death toll now stands at 8. No word on whether any Americans were killed.

Chaos Factor

Chaos Factor The website Raising Hell has developed a nifty little tool to allow you to calculate the chaos coefficient of your family.

I scored 1 billion.

I think it undercounts worse than a Florida polling machine....

Of course, the next question is, can we use this number for better planning? For instance, use the CsubCh to determine how much time to allow for routine activities, like shopping. Apply it on a logarithmic scale. for every order of magnitude, double the time required. So a task that would take a single person 5 minutes should take me 45.

That's pretty close....

New post

New post in And So It Goes; It's my Birthday!

At 0030, my parents called me here at work to sing 'Happy Birthday'. That's just too cool. Thanks Mom and Dad!

One last gasp on Intelligent Design.

One last gasp on Intelligent Design.

I spent two rather lengthy posts attacking the Popper definition of science, as it applied to the intelligent design theory.

On my way to work this evening, I realized that Intelligent Design is falsifiable, and due to the construction of the theory, it would be relatively easy to do so.

The theory boils down to this: there are biochemical systems in the body which are irreducibly complex, that is to say that the removal of any one piece renders the entire system inoperable. These systems cannot have evolved through neo-Darwinian natural selection, since any small change would result in a non-functioning system. Therefore, the systems must have been designed.

First, as I stated before, that conclusion is flawed, since it presupposes that no other explanation exists to explain irreducible complexity. Ironically, this weakness in the theory is what renders it falsifiable, making it, according to Popper anyway, scientific.

In order to falsify intelligent design, one of two things needs to be done.

1. Identify a sequence of steps whereby an "irredicibly complex" biochemical system could arise by gradual stages. For example, demonstrate a biochemical evolution of sight, from the most primitive photosensitive biochemistries to the most complex. The beauty of this approach is that you wouldn't have to prove that the evolutionary chain you construct is in fact the actual process. Merely by providing a viable alternative to intelligent design, you invalidate the theory.

2. Discover a new mechanism for evolution at the biochemical level which allows for systems to become irreducibly complex by stages.

Both of these approaches are well within current capabilities, which makes ID falsifiable, and therefore scientific. At least, if you still follow Popper's definition.

Katie hits another one out of the park.

Katie hits another one out of the park. It's easy to see why she's a professional. Her latest essay, covering abortion, cuts through the sloganeering and hypocrisy of both camps, and deals in a very honest and open way with what really matters.

Suddenly, I, a person with all her grandparents still alive, a person who had never even been to a funeral, was faced with death. Not only was I faced with death in the abstract, I was faced with The Decision. In consultation with my with my sweet, 26 year old husband, a man similarly unschooled in the ways of mortality, I was charged with handing down a judgment as to whether Peanut would continue to leap and hop about in my womb and ultimately, be born alive. With a somber face, the doctor uttered the words that were to become so familiar to us over the next weeks, "Now, no one can make this decision for you. Only you can decide."

What a choice to have to make.....

So much for the "moderate Palestinian majority"

So much for the "moderate Palestinian majority" According to polls conducted by the Palestinian Jerusalem Media and Communication Center most Palestinians favor the complete elimination of Israel.

Fifty-one percent of people surveyed said the end result of the uprising should be "liberating all of historic Palestine," referring to British-mandate Palestine, part of which was recognized as Israel in 1948.
Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Middle East war and these territories have since been the focus of internationally sponsored peace negotiations for the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Forty-three percent of respondents said the aim of the uprising was to end Israeli occupation and establish a state only in the West Bank and Gaza.
This compared with a poll taken in December in which 48 percent said the uprising's goal was to end the occupation compared with 44 percent who said the aim should be to eliminate Israel, the JMCC said.

As I said earlier in this blog, as soon as anybody can show me any credible evidence that support for the Intifadah and the elimination of Israel is not widespread, then I will entertain the notion of a sizeable moderate faction in Palestine. Until then, I'll know them by their actions.

If they aren't careful

If they aren't careful attorneys could slip below used car salesman in the public eye. Richard Reid's lawyers have successfully argued that a plane is not a vehicle for mass transit.

Reid's attorneys had argued at a hearing last month that there was a potential defect in the law because it does not clearly define an airplane as a vehicle of mass transportation.

The law doesn't define the word 'a**hole' either, but then, the defense attorneys appear to have that covered.

This is what happens when you sleep all day

This is what happens when you sleep all day You miss things like this:
Looks like a dead ringer to me.

Courtesy of the Junkyard Blog, who, along with Armed and Dangerous have just been added to the my links.

From a tract handed out last weekend in Gatlinburg:

From a tract handed out last weekend in Gatlinburg:

Concerned parents:

• Do you know what your children are watching on TV?
• Do you know that they are being indoctrinated with communist propaganda, cleverly disguised as entertainment?
• Do you know that the programming is so subtle that it has been on the air for decades, and only now, through sophisticated analysis techniques have we been able to identify the hidden subtexts that are programming your children to become mindless servants of the state?

Do you want to know more?

It’s alarming but undeniably true. The word programming will take on a sinister new meaning when you finish reading what we have discovered.

Some of the beloved children’s shows of all time are in fact secretly encoded with communist propaganda. The propaganda is skillfully hidden, obviously the work of a master of subliminal psychology. Each piece is so small as to be unnoticeable, but when taken as a whole by a properly receptive audience, the effect is as powerful as a blow to the head.

Before we delve into the messages hidden in your child’s favorite shows, let’s look at the mechanics of the process.

The TV you watch shows an interlaced picture, which means that half of the picture is replaced each time the tube is scanned. The tube is scanned 60 times a second, which results in a frame rate of 30 frames per second. 60 cycles per second, or 60 hertz is also the frequency at which we transmit AC power. Coincidence? Not hardly.

60 hertz is a primary harmonic of a certain type of brain wave called a theta wave. This brain wave pattern is associated with deep hypnotic trances, or meditative states, where the mind is open to suggestion. Experiments have shown that when people watch TV, their brain synchronizes with the scan rate, and begin to show increased theta wave activity.

Do you still think it’s coincidence?

The implications are staggering, folks. TV’s were designed to numb your conscious mind, leaving you open to whatever propaganda the government sees fit to put there.

Now that we know how the process works, it’s time to reveal the shows used to carry these diabolical messages, and to expose those messages to the light of day. You’ll be shocked to find that some of your old favorite shows are on the list.

• The Flintstones
  
• The Jetsons
  
• The Brady Bunch
  
• Gilligan’s Island
  
• Warner Bros cartoons, particularly Road Runner.
  

The list goes on, but I’m sure you’re shocked enough already.

“This can’t be true,” you say. “These shows were my favorites when I was a kid.”

People, that’s the dead giveaway. How much of the stuff you liked when you were a kid do your kids like?

Nothing!

Except for these shows.

Is the picture getting clearer yet? They like the shows because they’re programmed to! It’s so obvious once you put the pieces together.

Now then, how are the messages transmitted? Once the mind is in a properly receptive state, the messages are delivered via the actions of the character. Archetypical characters are introduced, and then made to behave in ways which support communist propaganda.

For example, the professor on Gilligan’s Island is a direct representation of American technology and ingenuity. He can build a trans-atlantic phone network out of coconuts, some colored vines, and a cable that washed up on the beach. He is a true whiz with gadgets, and a fountain of knowledge. But he is helpless when it comes to solving the primary dilemma, how to fix the boat. This symbolizes the futility of American technology and initiative when faced with the insurmountable obstacle of the communism, as it marches to inevitable victory. Wiley Coyote similarly represents the futility of technology when facing a natural power in the Road Runner. The tip off here is in the name “Road Runner.” The initials RR actually stand for Red Russia. Notice that the syllabic pattern is the same as well. Another tip off.

Going back to Gilligan’s Island, Ginger represents the seductive nature of capitalism. It looks great from the outside, but once involved, you find out that it is all an act. That’s why Ginger was an actress on the show. Another tip off-her hair was red.

It’s beginning to get frighteningly plausible isn’t it?

The Howells are easy, representing the useless, exploitative, upper class parasites, who exist on the efforts of others. The tip here is in the name Thurston Howell III. The Industrial revolution came first, then the American Revolution, and the third great revolution will be the Communist Revolution.

MaryAnn and Gilligan are the workers, the heart of the communist system. Good hearted, and simple, they follow the lead of the state, represented by the skipper, and do most of the labor that keeps the commune running. They need the guidance of the skipper to keep them out of trouble, just as the worker needs the state to take care of him.

So now you see how this seemingly innocent show is actually indoctrinating your children with communist propaganda. It only makes sense. Why else would such a lousy show still be on the air in every market in America?

WAKE UP PARENTS and take action now! Call the number listed below to find out how you can help.

The guy makes a strong case…..

New post

New post in And So It Goes: The Loves of My Life: The Tragic

New post

New post in And So It Goes: The Loves of My Life: The Comic

A nice note

A nice note Richard Bennett just sent me a nice note, thanking me for the link, and telling me that he once lived in Morristown, which is just up the road from me. He asks if that makes him an honorary Tennessee blogger.

Sure! Hey, the Axis of Weevil gives out memberships if a blogger is even remotely considering the possibility of moving to Alabama. Richard actually lived here for awhile. I wonder if we could get him to the next Tennessee blogger bash?

There is a difference, Katie

There is a difference, Katie Katie Granju just posted a new essay on show moms, and how she was surprised to discover she had become one.

But behind the pastel-colored sweatsuits, the over-permed hair, and the strong regional accents are women with a steely glint in
their eyes. These mothers are out to WIN. As youthful pageant competitors themselves back in the day, they may have never had the opportunity to make it past Miss Hickman County 1984, but their little girls are going to go all the way, dammit, and woe to anyone who gets in the way.

I never imagined that I could have anything in common with these infamous "pageant moms" until a recent evening as my sister watched me carefully packing my six year old daughter's riding clothes, boots, helmet, gloves, hair ribbons, saddle, bridle, and snacks in [reparation for a horse show the next day. My daughter, Jane, had already gone to bed, but I stayed busy
for the rest of the evening finishing up ironing, saddle-soaping,and polishing her gear.

I wrote about those pageant moms earlier.

There is a clear difference between what Katie is doing and what those pageant moms were doing. Katie's daughter is showing a horse. In a child beauty pageant, the child is the horse.

That makes all the difference.

Ends justifying the means?

Ends justifying the means? First read this:

WASHINGTON — The annual document the president prepares for Congress on national security strategy will include a new "strike first" military policy against terrorists and rogue states that possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, the White House said Monday.

My dad always taught me that if you are going to get into a fight, and there's no way to avoid it, make sure you land the first punch. Often, the fight will end right there.

Maybe I watched too many westerns as a kid, but I remember in every gunfight, the bad guy always drew first. Then the good guy drew like lightening and gunned the villian down, and it was legal because it was self defense. That ethic made an impression on me that remains still. You can fight back only when you are attacked, otherwise you are provoking the fight.

Now, we have an official national policy of striking first. I understand the reasoning behind it, and can't really say that I disagree with it; I'm sure my dad is all for it. But whenever you replace principle with expediency, you have to pay a price. A nagging voice in the back of my head keeps asking what is going to happen when that bill comes due.

That's one for the good guys

That's one for the good guys
(For the whacked out liberals out there, that means us)
Today, we found out that a month ago, a US citizen who was planning to set off a 'dirty bomb' was arrested as he re-entered the country.

An al-Qaida plot to detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb” in the United States was foiled when a U.S. citizen was arrested in Chicago last month as he arrived on a flight from Pakistan, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced Monday. The suspect indicated “some knowledge of the Washington, D.C., area,” but the plot was disrupted before a target was decided upon, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said later at a news conference.

Reading the rest of the article, it appears that this jerk was a typical thug until he joined up with al Qaida. That may be the scariest thing about this terrorist group. A common street thug can potentially trigger a nuclear device.

On a related note, I'd like to thank all the left wingers in the country who will cry and moan about how this was kept secret for a month, how the poor dear is being held indefinitely, and not being allowed free access to his lawyer. Y'all y'all keep worrying about the rights of scumbags like him. That frees me up to worry about the rights of my kids to not become nuclear waste.

That's it?

That's it? Heres the link. Read the story. It won't take long.

Where is the rest of this story?

Soccer hooliganiskis

Soccer hooliganiskisFrom FoxNews:

Russian soccer fans rampaged near the Kremlin after their team lost to Japan in World Cup play Sunday, torching cars, smashing store windows and attacking young Japanese musicians. At least one man was killed in the melee.

An Associated Press photographer saw a mutilated corpse lying on the street during the chaos, which erupted across a square from the Kremlin walls and lasted more than an hour.

At least seven cars were burning and more than a dozen were overturned. Dozens of others had their windows smashed. Officials said as many as 27 people were hospitalized.

About 8,000 fans, according to police, ran through the streets chanting "Forward, Russia!" and other soccer slogans. They broke shop windows, jumped up and down on cars and threw empty beer bottles at each other. Some were wrapped in the Russian tricolor

Russia is becoming more westernized every day.

Looks like it'll be a tie

Looks like it'll be a tie I was afraid of that. The US had the lead, and went into a typical soccer stall, but Korea is just too strong onn the attack for that strategy to work. They scored, and with 4 minutes left, it's a 1-1 tie. If it finishes this way, both teams will have one win and a tie, and be tied for first. Whoever wins between portugal and poland later this morning will be in third place. For the US to seal the second spot in the round of 16, they will have to at least tie Poland. Then it won't matter who wins between Portugal and Korea next week.

Flexibility is a good thing

Flexibility is a good thing I like running a multi part blog. I can write according to my mood, and the events in the world. If there isn't anything really captivating going on in the world, I can concentrate on my personal journal, and vice versa. Piers Anthony claims to have never suffered from writer's block because of a similar system, where he keeps several projects running simultaneously. If an idea for a project occurs to him while working on another one, he switches in mid stream to capture the idea, before returning to the original. I'm doing something very similar here.

Helps keep things fresh...

New posts

New posts in Battle of the Bulge; Transitions and And So It Goes; Swimming With Sharks

Enjoy!

You know, it just isn't fair

You know, it just isn't fair Two well researched and reasoned posts which took several hours to generate, and nothing. A throwaway to let people know I wasn't going to post, and I get a half dozen comments. Hmmm...maybe this is a trend; the less I post, the more comments I'll get.

Naah.

New post

New post in And So It Goes called Love is in the air in which I discuss intimate details of my love life. Keep it under your hat though....I wouldn't want just anybody reading this stuff.....

No bloggage tonight....I'm pooped. See

No bloggage tonight....I'm pooped. See ya tomorrow.

Popper and Evolution

Popper and Evolution
I should be sleeping now, but y’all got me started last night , and now that I’m home with my library at hand, I want to expand on a few of my comments, and provide a few more examples. If you’re not a science junkie, you might want to try another blog today. This may get a little dry. Don’t worry about me missing sleep though; I’ll sleep on the way to work.

I often do.

First off, I am not a creationist, nor do I consider intelligent design an inevitable conclusion. I do, however, have some serious reservations about evolution theory as currently espoused today, as it is woefully inadequate to explain the tremendous variety of life on Earth, or to describe how it all came about.

First, let’s examine the Popper Doctrine a little more closely. According to the doctrine, the tenets of science must be falsifiable. Therefore it follows that they must be testable. If you can’t devise a test to falsify a theory, it is not true science.

In the first place, one of the first lessons in Logic101 is that failure to prove a negative does not constitute proof of the positive, so right away, the Popper Doctrine is in a logical quagmire. Even if the testing of a theory fails to falsify it, the theory has not been proven. So in this view, nothing can ever be proven scientifically, only fail to be disproved, hardly the concrete basis we need for a mechanistic view of the Universe.

The second problem with the Popper Doctrine is that it relies on a completely mechanistic view of the universe, which is a failing of the scientific method itself. In essence, according to science, if a thing cannot be measured, it does not exist.

As an example, can we quantify love? Can we predict in advance the emotional reaction two people will have for each other, based on their characteristics? Obviously not, otherwise blind dates would be a wonderful thing, and matchmakers would all be wealthy. The actions of our emotions at the individual level defy prediction, although some progress has been made in predicting the emotional responses and reactions at the group level. But the fact remains that although we know much of the biochemistry of physical and emotional attraction, we lack the ability to quantify it.

Quite obviously though, love exists, otherwise it wouldn’t hurt so much. It exists as an emotion over and above the temporary biochemical reactions within the brain. But, in a purely mechanistic world, this thing called love would be amenable to analysis, calculation, and prediction. The fact that it isn’t strikes a severe blow against a mechanistic worldview.

Some argue that emotions and other behaviors are outside the rules, or are exceptions to the rules. This argument is a cop out of the highest order. A good theory must explain all of the data, not just the data that fits the curve. Once outlying data has been screened for experimental error, design flaws, or other sources of problems, each data point must be accounted for by the theory; otherwise the theory is incomplete, or incorrect. In a mechanistic worldview, close just isn’t good enough.

So, we see that the Popper Doctrine has a couple of inherent flaws, but let’s put those aside for a moment and assume that it works just fine. If that is the case, then why isn’t it applied more uniformly? I can think of several theories currently en vogue which completely fail to meet the Popper Doctrine.

A few examples:

• One of the popular theories about the origin of the universe involves the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and fluctuations in zero. According to this theory, the universe was at a zero state, but due to the requirements of the Uncertainty Principle, zero isn’t always zero, but is sometimes more than nothing, and sometimes less. (That’s right, less than nothing. Pretty cool stuff, huh?) Statistical analysis of this quantum level fluctuation revealed that given the right conditions, the variation of this zero state could reach a point where it would spontaneously ‘blow up’, creating the universe. Mathematically, this is OK, because the mathematicians balance the mass created with the energy of gravity, to maintain a zero sum. Obviously, this theory is not testable, and therefore is not falsifiable, but I’ve yet to hear anybody raise the Popper Doctrine.

• Another popular theory involves superstrings as the building blocks of all particles. The interactions of these one dimensional sub atomic particles are said to be the foundation of all mass and energy in the universe. A complicated mathematics has been developed to describe how this would work, but a problem quickly arose. The math required more than four dimensions in order for the theory to work. The theories proponents declared that the ‘extra dimensions’ were tightly curved upon themselves so as not to impinge upon our four dimensional space-time. Again, not testable, and not falsifiable, but rarely challenged on the basis of Popper.

• As a final example, one of the problems with the theory of the origin of the universe mentioned above is that statistical variations require time in which to occur, and before the universe existed, there was no time. Along comes the concept of “imaginary time” and this problem was neatly whisked away. Imaginary time ran on a different axis than our four dimensional space-time, and is therefore imperceptible to us. When enough time passed on that scale that the statistical royal flush occurred, and the universe was created, imaginary time was transformed into our current four dimensional space-time. Stephen Hawking also uses imaginary time as a foundation for his theory of a limited universe with no boundaries theory. Of course, once again, Imaginary time is a theory which cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be falsified, but I doubt anybody has accused Hawking of being a shaman instead of a scientist.

So, we are now left with a question: Why is Popper’s Doctrine applied so selectively? The answer lies in human nature, as always. The scientific establishment has a vested interest in maintaining the structure it has built laboriously over the decades. Paradigm shifts are resisted bitterly, even as evidence in favor of them mounts. New discoveries that fit within the established framework are welcomed eagerly, although still subject to stringent peer review, but theories that change that framework are fought tooth and nail. Just read a history of Tesla or Lister, or Paul Dirac for that matter. Science has a dogma every bit as rigid as that of the church, and although that dogma was developed with more rigor, and provides a much better description of the world around us, to step outside that dogma, even with considerable proof, is to invite scorn and derision. While it is fair for an institution to protect the precepts that served it well, it does not make sense to dismiss an idea out of hand, without even reviewing the basis for it, just because it disagrees with what you already know. The history of science is filled with discoveries that changed what we thought we knew.

By the way, I don’t reject any of the above theories out of hand. They represent solid attempts to explain all of the available facts. The fact that they are not testable in no way makes them poor science, in my opinion.

I realize that this argument is philosophical, rather than scientific in nature, but then again, so is Popper’s Doctrine. I’ve tried to use examples from other branches of science to show why his definition of science overly limited. I still like the way he blows a harp, though.

OK. I’ve done most of what I set out to do, and my typing is rapidly deteriorating, so I’ll leave you with one final question.

A cornerstone of evolutionary biology is that changes must occur gradually, by small increments. While the duration of these changes can be relatively short, accomplishing a major change in one step is the equivalent of invoking God, and is therefore a no-no. So how can we explain the development of bilateral symmetry? Certainly this represents a major change from the unicellular organisms. Can anybody devise a probable set of steps from amorphous clumps of cells to bilaterally or even radially symmetrical layout, providing a fitness edge each step of the way? Remember, even according to Richard Dawkins, major changes must occur gradually, and must provide a fitness advantage at each stage of the change.

By the way, I used Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, Gribbin’s In Search of Shrodinger’s Cat and Schrodinger’s Kittens, and Peat’s Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of Everything in preparing this post. If I misrepresented the science from any of those sources, I’m sure somebody will point it out.

All right, while you are doing your homework (the 2 of you that read all the way through this (I’m probably being wildly optimistic with that)) I’m going to get some sleep.

Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution

Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution Glenn Reynolds posts a link to Ian Murray's TAP article blasting Intelligent Design. Glenn concurs with Murray's conclusions, which just goes to show that knowledge in one area does not automatically convey knowledge in another.
We have a lawyer agreeing with a statistician/programmer about a theoretical biological process that neither has taken the time to examine.

Murray starts off by citing the Popper doctrine, that if a theory is not falsifiable, it is not science. I disagree with this position as being way too limiting. Many scientific theories were not testable when they were first proposed, Much of the work which laid the foundation for Einstein’s Special and General theories of Relativity, not to mention the entire field of quantum electrodynamics was done decades before the technology to test the theories could catch up to the imagination. Should those theories have been junked because they weren’t immediately testable? Einstein said he saw far because he stood on the shoulders of giants. Suppose those giants had been discredited by Popperites?

Murray later concludes that even if we reject Popperism, ID still fails as it is not part of a paradigm shift, because it’s main proponent is a lawyer. This is quite simply not true. As Behe demonstrates in his book, there is a growing dissatisfaction with Neo-Darwinism throughout the scientific community. As a few examples:

“[History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as] a minor twentieth century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology.” Lynn Margulis, Distinguished University Professor of Biology, Umass.

“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change---over millions or years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of an evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolut