Cynics and other scalawags be damned. What President Bush did over the Thanksgiving holiday was simply outstanding.
To make a thirty hour round trip, into dangerous territory, just to spend a few hours with the troops on the front lines is the act of a true Commander in Chief. The boost in moral for the men there had to be simply amazing. It probably also twisted the knife in Hussein's guts, to know that his hated enemy
passed into and out of his former country with impugnity.
My respect for the president has just gone up significantly.
Like I said before, it's basically inevitable. If there are enough people willing to die to accomplish a mission, they will succeed eventually. There are simply too many ways for a determined man to wreak havok in a free society. It could be car bombs; it could be gas in the subways; it could be a biological or chenical attack in a crowded venue. There's simply no way to anticipate and prevent every possibility while simultaneously maintaining a free society.
It can't be done.
Still, Democrats will surely use these attacks as a means of taking down the President. They will claim that it's all Bush's fault, that as President, it is his responsibility to protect the nation, and that any attacks on American soil prove that he is incapable of performing that role. This argument can be expected to gain a lot of traction, because it seems reasonable. After all, protecting his citizens is one of the top responsibilities of the President. However, given that future terrorist attacks are inevitable, challenging his competence over any attacks is an unrealistic standard. A more appropriate standard, one sure to be applied by Democrats if a fellow liberal sits in the White House in the future, would be, "Did the President take all reasonable actions to prevent a terrorist attack?" That is a valid question, and one which is open for discussion. The difference between a legitimate debate like that and the aformentioned attack is subtle, but critical.
So, how can you tell the difference between a genuinely concerned citizen trrying to further the debate and a partisan hack taking advantage of a tragedy?
Listen carefully to the rhetoric that follows the attack. If it is the usual hand-wringing ("Somebody should have done something!"), or blatantly opportunistic ("See! This is what happens when you elect a conservative! It's all Bush's fault!"), then you're surely dealing with a hack seeking political advantage out of devastation. A distinguishing feature of this style of attack is that the terrorists themselves will be relegated to an afterthought.
Another classic tell is the total lack of any realistic alternative plans. You'll hear statement like "Leave Iraq now!" and "This is a result of our misguided foreign policy!" or "We must open a dialogue with the terrorists." or "Let the UN take over!" or other garbage. (Quick hint: Regardless of past actions and who did what to whom, once the shooting starts (see NYC, Wash. DC on Sept 11, 2001) the time for talk has irrevocably passed. Unless you're talking surrender. That's reality folks. Any plan which doesn't account for that reality is a pipe dream.)
It's easy to complain that the administration failed to do the right thing; it's much harder to determine what the right thing was, even with the advantage of hindsight. And more difficult still to determine the proper course of action for the future. An honest critic will not just find fault; he will present a workable alternative to the present plan.
Finally, listen closely to the critics. Are they working to aggrandize themselves, or make the country safer? Are they trying to strengthen the US, or weaken the President? This is the hardest distinction to make, and often boils down to semantics and tone of voice; the connotations of the speech rather than the denotations of the words themselves. It can be a really close call, made even more difficult by the fact that there are many who believe that weakening the President will strengthen the country.
As for me, well, I believe we are in a global ideological war, one that reaches beyond lines drawn on a map. Radical Islam (which may not be all that radical, although I still hope it is) seeks to destroy everything America stands for. They are being aided by those who should stand with us, but through fear or jealousy choose to sit this one out. They believe that they can appease this enemy simply by isolating America. But the enemy is rabid, attacking any who refuse to join it fully, and they will find themselves under the knife before too long.
This is war "to the knife." There will be no quarter given by our enemies, who view every person, whether man, woman or child, as a legitimate target for death. They aren't fighting to detroy our infrastructure; they're fighting to destroy our will to fight. Militarily, this is a no contest; they don't stand a chance. Their best hope is to break our will to fight, make us want to quit, and it is here that they have their best shot at winning. Bill Hobbs posted that he didn't think that the Islamic radicals were foolish enough to atack us on our turf again. As I said in his comments, I disagree.
Another attack in America is a win for the terrorists. First, the "loyal" opposition, as described above, will immediately begin using the attacks to bring down President Bush. Given that he is the leader of the fight against terror, this is nothing but a victory for the terrorists. Second, how will we retaliate? What country do we strike at next? We're still working on Afghanistan and Iraq; we don't really have the resources to mount another invasion, nor do we have a viable target, except for Saudi Arabia, which, as the home of Mecca and Medina, is untouchable. We can continue the present course, or invade another country. In either case, another win for the terrorists. Third, the UN will do what it always does, sit and talk, and condemn the US, while the French and the Germans sit back and say "I told you so." Should we determine who funded and supported the attacks, you can count on the UN doing everything in it's power to keep the US from retaliating. Another win for the terrorists.
On the other hand, if the terrorists back off, we win. We continue to hunt them down, and they watch as a democratic Iraq begins a chain reaction in the Middle East, as dictators fall, and Sharia becomes a memory.
They have little to lose and everything to gain.
The only question that remains is "Will we give it to them?"
A couple of announcements.
First, the RTB has expanded again, with several new additions to the blogroll. Take a moment and check out a few of the new links to the left, including:
Welcome them all to the RTB.
Next, intensive negotiations between SKB and xlrq (Jeff) have resulted in the successfull conclusion of a mutual defense/non-agression pact between the RTB and the Bear Flag League, a group of California based bloggers that includes our own Andrew from Pathetic Earthlings. I've added a link to their page to the left.
Finally, I'm checking on interest in a holiday blogger's bash to be held sometime between now and New Year's Day. If you're interested leave a comment with proposed times and places, or send me an e-mail.
Are the Arabs willing and able to support democracy?
Do they want it? Can they handle it?
Here's how President Bush framed it in his speech in London:
In the West, there's been a certain skepticism about the capacity or even the desire of Middle Eastern peoples for self-government. We're told that Islam is somehow inconsistent with a democratic culture. Yet more than half of the world's Muslims are today contributing citizens in democratic societies. It is suggested that the poor, in their daily struggles, care little for self-government. Yet the poor, especially, need the power of democracy to defend themselves against corrupt elites.Peoples of the Middle East share a high civilization, a religion of personal responsibility, and a need for freedom as deep as our own. It is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to liberty; it is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of it.
I don't know if Islam and democracy can be reconciled; I know for sure that the fundamentalists don't think so. As evidenced by their actions is Saudi Arabia and Turkey, where dozens of Muslims were slain in terror attacks, the terrorists regard moderate Muslims with the same hatred they show Christians.
President Bush points to secular Muslim nations, nations that have successfully segregated religion and government, creating the opening for democracy, but there is another side to the story. In the remaining Arab nations, Islam still provides the basis for the government. There is no separation; the church is the state. Will a people brought up for generations under this system be able to break free?
The President's vision presupposes that freedom and democracy represent the natural state of man, which is a questionable assumption. Democracy certainly is the most successful governing system today; but it remains to be seen whether that is a one time occurance, or a general truth.
However, the Iraqi people should be the ones to make the choice. As many critics before the war mentioned, you can't force democracy on anyone. But what you can do is give them the chance to take it for themselves.
Which brings me to Salam Pax, who provides the best argument that some Iraqi's are not ready for democracy.
He had a letter in the Guardian which reads in part:
You have spilled a glass full of tomato juice on an already dirty carpet and now you have to clean up the whole room. Not all of the mess is your fault but you volunteered to clean it up.
This reminds me so much of the aging infant at the Clinton-Dole debate who whined that the President should be like a father, and "take care of us."
Bull!
I've got a message for both of you from a real father. Grow the hell up! Pax, we're not there to clean up the mess Saddam made; we're there to give you the chance to clean it up yourselves. It's called being an adult, nimrod! We did what you couldn't; we're always glad to help out. But now, the ball is in your court. Leave England (you might want to say "Thank you" to Tony Blair on your way out. He helped in your liberation immensely and it's just good manners) and go back to Iraq and get to work. Remake your country into what you want it to be. Take part in the writing of the constitution; work on the provisional government; do something that shows you are willing to take on the awesome responsibility inherent in self rule.
Unless you just like being a subject instead of a citizen.
reps needto take a quick reality check. They see the Dean who's running now as easy to beat in the general election. They say he's too far to the left to capture the center voters.
But it's always been true that to win the nomination, you have to energize your base, which means playing to the fringes. Once the nomination is sewn up, you play to the swing voters to win the general election. After all, your base isn't going to vote for the other guy, so you can move a good way towards the center to pick up the swing voters without alienating your fringe enough that they sit out the election.
You'll know when Dean feels he has the nomination in hand because he'll make a hard turn towards the center.
Oh, the dems are in deep trouble folks. They've boxed themselves into the unenviable task of running away from the very platform they're running on.
As evidence, consider the howls of outrage over the first ad from the RNC.
"It's wrong. It's erroneous, and I think that they ought to pull the ad," Daschle told NBC's "Meet the Press" program on Sunday.
"We all want to defeat terrorism," the South Dakota senator said. But "to chastise and to question the patriotism of those who are in opposition to some of the president's plans I think is wrong."
And
Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy called it an "attempt to stifle dissent." On ABC's "This Week," Kennedy said "dissent is a basic part of what our whole society is about."
Oddly, the AP article does not give a link to or quote from the ad itself, even though it's readily available. I'm sure it was just an oversight; it's not like they didn't want anyone to check for themselves, right?
Well, I'm always happy to do my part, and if you follow the link, you'll see that both Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy have firmly wedged their heads up their respective (let's hope) keisters. Here are the two statements in the ad that have aroused the ire of the donks:
- Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.
- Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others.
What dissent has been stifled? Whose patriotism has been questioned? The ad simply points out the established dem line of attack on the president. Despite the evidence of connections between Iraq and terrorism in general, and the growing evidence of connections with al Qaeda in particular, dems still hold to the position that Iraq was not a legitimate target in the war on terror. Dems also recite the mantra that the US must allow the UN to take the lead in the war on terror. And since that war is demonstrably vital to our national security, both of the statements in the ad are true.
But the majority of people in this country support both the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and that's the crux of the dem's dilemma right there, folks. If they actually run on what they're running on, they lose. So they attack any attempt to connect them with their platform, and they keep that platform comfortably vague. They're all for fighting terrorism, as long as we don't actually, you know, fight terrorists.
Every culture has them, stories about how the world came to be. The Greeks had Nyx, Uranus, and Gaia; the Norse had the Frost Giants and Asgardians; the Chinese had Pan Gu breaking from the egg, the Christians have Genesis and Adam and Eve, and so on.
While these stories vary wildly depending on the originating culture, they all share one feature: They all gloss over how something comes from nothing. One solution is to just start with something existing that acts to create everything else. On the other hand, the other solution is to dodge this problem by seeing everything as a cycle with no beginning or end, as in the Hindu tradition. Neither solution is very satisfying.
But we don't have to rely on myth anymore to discern the ultimate origins of our universe. We have science to find the answers for us, right?
Well, sort of.
The current theory for the origin of the universe involves some rather abstract concepts of complexity, chaos, and quantum mechanics. Basically, it goes like this:
First, there was nothing. Absolutely nothing. But nothing is kind of fuzzy, particularly when you get down to the quantum level. There's this thing called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, that tells us we can't know for sure the exact state of anything, not because we can't measure it, but because it is actually indeterminate. As you get to a smaller and smaller frame of reference, that indeterminancy grows, and when you get to nothing, the indeterminancy is large enough that nothing now varies from something to less-than-nothing. Now, this isn't a measurement error, but an actual variance in the real status. Zero, at the quantum level anyway, is an average of all the quantum variations from less than zero to greater than zero. These variations are sometimes referred to as the quantum foam. In theory, our universe is just a BIG variation in zero.
Complicating the situation, these variations do not take place over time, since without space, you cannot have time. So how can you have a variation without a time frame through which to vary? Simple, the variations occur in (I'm not making this up) imaginary time. (No, I can't do that math either. Here is a simpler explanation.) Adding in a little chaos theory, those fluctuations become bigger, and if you use just the right equations, you can get those fluctuations to explode from a quantum scale into the macro, or real world scale.
And now you have a lot of something from nothing. Pretty cool!
Of course, a bunch of something doesn't do much good if it's just laying about randomly like clothes in my kid's bedroom floor. It has to be organized, and organization requires an organizer, right?
Not in complexity theory, it doesn't. Self organizing complex systems are just the ticket to clean up a messy room! Put simply, when you throw lots of small parts together, and hit them with a stream of energy, they may begin to function as a whole. A mathematics to describe the process has been developed, but whether it has applicability to the real world or not has yet to be determined.
But it's kind of neat to mess around with.
So now we have science's answer to creation stories. First, there was nothing. Then, quantum level fluctuations around nothing, taking place in imaginary time, sort of "blew up" onto a macro scale, creating the entire universe, which then proceeded to organize itself in accordance with yet to be discovered mathematical principles.
Yeah, I'm convinced...
OK, here's a test for all you anti-war zealots out there. Devise a way to mount a terrorist attack here in the US. Your attack should carry an economic and psychological impact, as well as killing as many people as possible. Remember that as a terrorist, you go after a soft target, one that isn't overly defended, or hard to reach. The target should be fairly prominent for best news mileage.
I'll give you an example. Take the classic "dirty bomb" scenario, but let's make it a little bit easier. The damage of a dirty bomb is not caused by the radiation, which is any case will be fairly minimal, but by the economic impact of the cleanup, and psychological distress caused by the action. A dirty bomb renders a large area unusable until an extensive and expensive cleanup is performed. Low level radioactive waste (LLRW) works just as well as the high level stuff to cause these effects, and it is much easier to acquire. Locating and hijacking a shipment of LLRW wouldn't be that difficult. Add some explosives to the container (or if you want to get fancier, repackage the material for maximum dispersal) drive to the middle of a medium size city, and blow it up.
Now, that's part 1 of the exercise. Part 2 is to devise a counter strategy. Part 3 of the exercise is to repeat part 1 and 2 for every possible scenario you can imagine. Even staying within the constraints of simplicity and economy, any reasonably intelligent person could come up with hundreds, if not thousands of potential attacks. Feel free to focus within your area of expertise. If you're a computer dude, think of internet based attacks; an engineer, look at taking out buildings, bridges, or services. If a tree can knock out power over most of the northeast, think what you could if you really try!
Part 4 is to get your buddy to do the same thing. I'm sure he can think of things you haven't.
Part 5 is to figure out how to implement your strategies without A) busting the budget, or B) totally destroying the freedoms that make America worth protecting, all while facing a "loyal opposition" that has decided verything you do is wrong.
This is called Homeland Security folks. That's the job they have, and it doesn't take a whole lot of thought to realize that it's an impossible task. There's no way to anticipate every avenue of potential attack, react to it, and eliminate the threat without reducing America to a prison state.
It simply can't be done.
The only way to prevent future terrorist attacks is to get rid of the terrorists. Now, there are two approaches to this. You can try to appease them, give them what they want, or you can fight them. Appeasement is simply slow suicide when what your enemy wants is your destruction. They want America dead. They've said it often enough, and I take them at their word.
The only way to preserve our way of life, our freedom and our liberty is to take the fight to our enemies, wherever they may be. Some cry that we shouldn't strike first, that we run the risk of agitating the terrorists. Let me clue you in; they're already agitated. 9/11 didn't come from a calm, peaceful group. Neither did the bombings of our embassies, or the Cole, or the Khobar Towers, or the nightclubs, or any of the other attacks on Americans carried out by Islamic fundies. The first blow has been struck, but it wasn't by the US.
We didn't pick this fight, despite what revisionists want to claim; it was picked for us by a sucker punch from a September sky. Our enemy wanted to hurt us, and he did. Now we have to do what it takes to make sure he can't hurt us again.
While 100,000 people marched in London to protest President Bush's war on terrorism, terrorists murdered 27 people and wounded 450 more in a double suicide bombing in Turkey.
There are no protests against the terrorists scheduled.
Imagine this scene: A major US company develops and markets an infant formula specifically for African Americans, and sell it in predominantly black neighborhoods. They hype the formula as meeting specific needs of that community. And their product is a big seller, capturing a third of the market.
Then babies start to get sick and die. Some are permanently brain damaged. Others show no apparent damage, but the damage could be hidden, surfacing years from now. The damage is linked to this formula, which, on independent review, is found to be deficient in Vitamin B-1. Further investigation shows that the manufacturer changed the formula to remove the B-1 supplement.
Wouldn't that be a major story? Wouldn't it be front page, above the fold stuff?
Then why isn't it?
Israel opened a criminal investigation on Monday into suspicions the deaths of two babies were linked to a German-made, soy-based formula pulled off Israeli store shelves and found to lack an essential vitamin.
The article goes on:
Humana GmbH — part of the Humana Milchunion collective, Germany’s second biggest producer of milk products — said in a statement it was looking into the matter and suggested the illness “may have had other causes.”
Remedia indicated Humana was responsible.
At a news conference in Herford, Germany, Humana chief Rolf Janshen said the formula recipe was unique to Israel and no other markets were affected.
He said Humana had commissioned independent laboratories to check the formula and “contrary to the Israeli findings, vitamin B-1 has been found.”
Israeli Health Minister Dan Naveh has called on his German counterpart to “get into the picture as soon and as seriously as possible.” Israeli health officials said the formula deviated from its original approved composition.
Humana GmbH, part of the Humana Milchunion collective, Germany's second biggest producer of milk products, said in a statement that its kosher Remedia Super Soya 1 product did not contain the amount of vitamin B-1 that the product advertised.
Okay, I know that sometimes things just happen, that coincidence is the rule, not the exception, but still, a German company sells a product specifically tailored for Jewish consumption, changes the formulation, and winds up with a product that kills babies...
And that's not worthy of major coverage?
OK, it's only an Israeli problem. That's why it's not getting much coverage, right?
Heinz, which bought 51% of Remedia in 1999, said the Remedia formula isn't manufactured, sold or marketed by any Heinz unit anywhere else in the world. But although Remedia doesn't export the formula, some independent companies may have shipped small amounts to other countries, generally for consumption by families who observe Jewish dietary laws, Heinz said.
So I looked for warnings in America and found this:
The Israeli baby formula was pulled off the shelves during the weekend in seven or eight Rockland grocery stores that cater to the county's Jewish population.Shopkeepers were asked to remove all varieties of the Remedia brand from the shelves, even though officials believe the problem occurred only in the soy formula.
Local authorities took the step after Israeli officials connected the soy formula to three infant deaths and about 20 cases of brain damage.
The soy formula made by Remedia, an Israeli company partly owned by the Pittsburgh-based H.J. Heinz Co., listed vitamin B1 among its ingredients but apparently did not contain the essential nutrient.
Notice anything odd? Try this, the lead paragraph:
The Rockland Department of Health yesterday warned pediatricians and family doctors to be on the lookout for signs of vitamin B1 deficiency in infants who were fed an Israeli baby formula that lacked the essential nutrient.
I routinely blow off most charges of anti-Semitism, chalking it up to the natural cussedness of human behavior, but damn! All of the sudden, it's an Israeli baby formula. The German company isn't even mentioned in this article. Is this just sloppy reporting?
It is no easy thing to shoot or blow up young men and women because they wear American uniforms. Indeed, the soldiers are themselves oppressed members of America's vast underclass. Many don't want to be here; joining America's mercenary army is the only way they can afford to attend university. Others, because they are poor and uneducated, do not understand that they are being used as pawns in Dick Cheney's cynical oil war.
Unfortunately, we can't help these innocent U.S. soldiers. They are victims, like ourselves, of the bandits in Washington. Nor can we disabuse them of the propaganda that an occupier isn't always an oppressor. We regret their deaths, but we must continue to kill them until the last one has gone home to America.
I won't link to the garbage; you can find it if you want to read the rest. But nobody can ever tell me again how the right is meaner than the left.
Not after that filth.
But for now, we'll have fun.
You see, back in the old days, before the world was wired, nobody remembered what you said yesterday. That was a great thing for newspaper pundits. They had complete freedom to spin with the prevailing winds, and if they contradicted themselves, nobody would notice because their words would be inaccessible in a couple of days, entombed on microfiche in the dry stacks of a musty library, used to line the bottom of a birdcage, or to wrap a particularly smelly piece of fish.
Which brings us to the New York Times.
Andrew Sullivan points out a particularly glaring example of the Times engaging in a particularly egregious case of self contradictory spin.
How embarrassing!
At some point, print media might realize that archiving can now be done at the individual level, and take measures to ensure that these embarrassing little mistakes stop. An optimist would suggest that they'll stop spinning the news, and engage in a little more straight reportage. On the other hand, a realist will assume they'll just make their archives inaccessible.
Or, like the KNS, they'll make you pay to retrieve an article.
Now there's a climatologist who is predicting that global warming will actually cause an ice age. (Link via Cox and Forkum)
Key paragraph:
In the past, the slowing of the Gulf Stream has been intimately linked with dramatic regional cooling. Just 10,000 years ago, during a climatic cold snap known as the Younger Dryas, the current was severely weakened, causing northern European temperatures to fall by as much as 10 degrees. Ten thousand years before that, at the height of the last ice age, when most of the UK was reduced to a frozen wasteland, the Gulf Stream had just two-thirds of the strength it has now.What's worrying is that for some years now, global climate models have been predicting a future weakening of the Gulf Stream as a consequence of global warming.
Sounds scary, doesn't it? Except that it's all a guess. The author even admits later that there is no direct evidence supporting his theory.
So why publish at all?
Yet again, this highlights the fact that global warming, for which we have only ourselves to thank, is nothing more nor less than a great planetary experiment, many of the outcomes of which we cannot predict.
Oops, your bias is showing. No reputable scientist is attributing all of the recent temperature change to man made sources. In fact, the debate over how much is caused by human activity is on going, and quite contentious.
At least he's honest enough to admit that we have no idea what effect, if any, our activities will have on the climate. In the absence of strong evidence, pieces like this one are just propaganda.
For some real information on the science against global warming, check out this site.
More good news for America. According to the new FBI report, hate crimes fell dramatically over the last year, including crimes against Muslims.
This represents a clear difference between America and the Islamic extremists we're fighting. We hold the extremists accountable for their actions, not their co-religionists or countrymen. They believe that every American, or American ally, down to the smallest child, is a legitimate target for reprisals.
It's the difference between civilization and savagery. Any attempt to equate our actions in Iraq with those of terrorists ignores this basic fact and is morally reprehensible.
Not to mention just plain stupid.
Saturday, the Vols came out and played hard, and got a big win. Fulmer surprised everybody by going for it all on 4th and goal at the 2, and made it pay off.
When you're overmatched, say, gambling in Las Vegas, if you take the safe bet, all you do is minimize your losses.
But you still lose.
The way to win when the odds are against you is to throw down big on the first bet, cutting down on the house advantage.
But was it genius, or desperation?
Tennessee ranks 9th in rushing, 8th in passing, and 10th in total offense in the SEC. Only Mississippi St. and Kentucky are worse. Fulmer knew his offense was not getting the job done, and he had to make the most of the opportunity.
So he went for it, and it paid off. But what does this win really mean for the future of the Vols? After reading the rosy coverage in the KNS, and hearing the folks on WNOX talking about getting to the SEC Championship, I have to throw the BS flag. We had fewer yards rushing than Miami had in penalties. The offense was held to under 200 yards. We won because of an outstnading defensive effort that forced three turnovers, recovered a 4th, and the 'Canes penalty laden performance.
The Vols most likely opponent in the SEC championship, Ole Miss or LSU, ranks 1st and 2nd in total offense. LSU also ranks 2nd in total defense. We can't hope that either team will pull a repeat of Miami's performance, so we'll have to see a tremendous improvement in the Vol offense if we hope to have a shot at winning the SEC.
And we're going to get the chance to play, because Georgia will lose to Auburn.
The good news is that Saturday's game reminded me of the '98 team. It wasn't always pretty, but the team alwaysfound a way to win. If the current team can keep that kind of intensity and attitude, we've got a chance.
And you can throw the stats out the window.
Vols 45 Miss St 14
UPDATE: According to the forecast, Saturday will be cold and rainy. WE all know how well Casey plays in bad weather, so I have to change my prediction.
Miss St 28 Vols 12
OK, it won't be that bad. Here's the real one:
Vols 28 Miss St 17
I was going to write something for today, a story from my Navy days, but I've got nothing that comes even close to what you'll read here.
That's why we have Veteran's Day; to honor men like him.
Your friend and humble narrator was asked to list my top 20 dinner companions for inclusion in John Hawkin's poll at Right Wing News.
Here is my personal list, along with a few brief comments:
1. Stephen Hawking 2. Paul Dirac 3. Nicola TeslaI'm a science groupie. What can I say?
4. Thomas Jefferson--The brains behind the Revolution.
5. Samuel Adams--The man who made the Revolution happen just by being damnably unpleasant.
6. Andrew Jackson7. Jefferson Davis
8. Robert E LeeThe two men who typified the best of the Confederacy, who decided it was better to try and save the ideals of the Union rather than the form of the Union.
9. Jennifer Connelly--No explanation needed.
10. James Carville
11. Rush LimbaughTwin sons of different mothers. Listening to them fight it out would be the best show of the year.
12. Andrew Carnegie--Made zillions. Gave it away. Gotta respect that.
13. Jodie Foster--Again, if I have to explain this one....14. Voltaire
15. Mark Twain
16. Jonathan SwiftThree men known for puncturing pomposity. Their scathing wit, particularly if directed at 10 and 11 above should make for dazzling dinner conversation.
17. Hillary Clinton--The woman is a walking paradox; a paragon of strength nd conviction, yet stays married to a walking erection. Why?
18. Shakespeare--The man could write for the angels, yet get down and dirty for the Proles. And I want to know who got his best bed.
19. Jesus Christ--I hesitated before including this one. What would you say?
20. The Dalai Lama--How does it feel to have a strange group of men come up to you as a kid and tell you you're the reincarnated head of an ancient religious tradition, and that you are expected to give up everything to take up your roll?
Sunday morning, I had the opportunity to hear Massimo Pigliucci debut a new lecture debunking the latest form of Creationism, Intelligent Design. The lecture was sponsored by the Rationalists of East Tennessee and was held at The Candy Factory.
In short, Intelligent Design theory states that living things (or in some versions, parts of living things) are so complex, and so specific to their function, that they could not have arisen by random mutation, and therefore must have been designed. Pr. Pigliucci, a few quibbles aside that I'll get to shortly, did a good job of demonstrating the flaws of such an approach.
Pr. Pigliucci took issue with Demski's Explanatory Filter, which through elimination, tries to prove that some systems must have been designed. As Pr. P pointed out, the filter is incomplete, leaving out a range of alternative explanations for the system. With his filter, Dembski makes the same mistake as does Michael Behe, inferring a result that is not justified by the evidence. Simply pointing out flaws in current evolutionary models does not automatically indicate that the system was designed, only that there are gaps in our knowledge.
Pr. Pigliucci did make a few questionable assertions during the lecture. At one point, he stated that every number he had seen assigned to the probability of evolution was bunk. He spelled out his justification, by saying that 1) we don't have a strong theoretical basis for assigning the probabilities, and 2) we don't have enough data to generate the probabilities. I tend to disagree with him on the first statement, since I can come up with an algorithm for a rough estimate myself. Through observation, we can come up with an estimate of the current rate of genetic mutation. Using our knowledge of global conditions throughout earth's existence, we can develop a rough range of how the rate of genetic change varies over time. Next, we'd determine what proportion of genetic changes are beneficial, and therefore likely to be selected. Combining the three gives us the expected rate of beneficial genetic changes. All that remains is to compare the time predicted for a change to the time recorded in the fossil record for the change to see how probable it was that evolutionary forces were behind the change.
This would be a very rough estimate at first, but the model could be refined as more information is obtained. After all, as Pr. Pigliucci said during the Q and A portion of the lecture, science doesn't always hit the true answer, especially not on the first swing. Often, it's a matter of picking the closest answer that fits the most data, to get an approximation of the true answer.
In another portion of the lecture, Pr. Pigliucci stated that design theory implies a "perfect" design by a "perfect" designer. His humorous example was that if the universe were designed, zebras would have automatic rifles, to defend themselves from the lions. He went on to say that obviously, zebras couldn't have guns, as there was no evolutionary pathway for that kind of development. Approaching that argument from the design side, perhaps the "perfect" designer wanted a predator/prey relationship between the two animals, thus both animals are "perfectly" suited to their roles. On the more serious scientific side, obviously the evolutionary pathway did exist, and was taken by primates as they developed the intelligence and capability for handling tools. I would suggest that, given enough time, zebra's reversing their evolutionary course and moving towards a tool handling path is no more or less unlikely than the evolutionary reversal of aquatic mammals, who developed arms and legs from fins, then reversed course on their return to the sea.
However, as I mentioned above, these are just quibbles, and do nothing to take away from Pr. Pigliucci's main point, that Intelligent Design, as proposed by Dembski, is not valid science. But before closing, I must address the atmosphere surrounding this lecture.
Pr. Pigliucci did a good job keeping his antipathy towards religion under wraps; it only surfaced in a couple of quick side comments that obviously were not part of the formal lecture. It rapidly became apparent during the Q and A portion that his audience had no such restraint. "Misguided" was perhaps the kindest term used to describe those who have a religious faith, while one fellow bluntly asked if all creation scientists were liars. That type of emotional bias provides nothing constructive.
Going back to the lecture, Pr. Pigliucci demonstrated that Dembski's filter did have a real world application, as long as additional information is available, and as long as a "designer" is assumed. Since creationists make that assumption, the filter would be valid in their frame of reference. No lying or deception required. Science, on the other hand, makes no assumptions about the existence of a deity, positive or negative; it does not deny God, rather it ignores Him.
The Rationalists at this meeting fall into a trap similar to the one that trips up Dembski and Behe, trying to reach a conclusion that isn't justified by the data. Proof of evolution does not disprove the existence of God, despite fundamentalists' fears. Rationalists need to remember that just because a rational explanation exists, that doesn't automatically make it correct. At one point, it was rational to believe that the earth was the center of the universe. It wasn't just religious doctrine; it made sense. The earth was steady beneath our feet; it was the heavens that whirled above us. What seems rational today may be revealed as wildly irrational by new information tomorrow, and our current beliefs may seem as quaint as the Ptolemaic view of the universe.
Additionally, there are aspects of our existence that do not yield themselves to rational explanations.
Try coming up with a rational explanation for Beethoven's 9th some time.
Healing Iraq is a new blog written right from the scene in Iraq. Zeyad provides commentary on Reconstruction and the Occupation from an Iraqi point of view. He paints an interesting picture, from an angle you won't find on the nightly news.
for my absence yesterday. I was set back with a lousy head cold. I was sneezing my head off for hours, which was annoying, but the head rush after 6 or 7 consecutive sneezes was kinda cool...
The US compound in Baghdad has been attacked
It looks like mortar rounds have been fired into the Coalition Provisional Authority Headquarters. By my count, at least 40 people have died, and several hundred have been injured since the start of Ramadan. Most of the killed and wounded have been Iraqi civilians. Yet the article linked above says this:
Insurgents have increasingly been targeting diplomatic and humanitarian facilities, mainly with vehicle bombs and homicide attackers. The Oct. 14 explosion outside the Turkish Embassy killed a bystander.
Attacking US forces makes them insurgents; attacking Iraqi civilians makes them terrorists.
The stepped up attacks, with their major civilian casualties brings up another point. Back during the invasion, when one US missile went astray, killing non-combatants, the Bush Administration was condemned for failing to protect the innocent Iraqis. Those same folks are now noticeably silent when the innocent Iraqis are beng killed by "insurgents."
Go figure.
I went to the Duke game last Saturday because I didn't want to have to pay $45 to watch it on TV. #10 for the ticket, plus $5 for parking, $5 for a program, and $3 for a coke, and I saved $22!
A few notes from the game:
Normally, I would pick Miami by about a million points, but the odd line from the Duke game, picking us to win by more points than we normally score, and the relatively low line for the Miami game(12.5) makes me suspicious.
Not that I think games are rigged or anything.
I'll pick Miami by 10 in a low scoring flag-fest.