Author: ATinNM

That’s the early estimate of Voting Eligible Population from the Election Project.  

Any analysis of the 2014 MidTerm election has to start with the fact 63.4% of voters didn’t bother to engage.

This is the Spontaneous Uprising diary (it says so in the title.)

As BooMan is doing Important BooMan Stuff in Los Vegas.  Hob-knobbing with political leaders, the Movers, the Shakers ——

I thought that sect had, more-or-less, died out?

It’s a gift to be simple,
It’s a gift to be free,
It’s a gift to run around naked
and make whoopie in June.

H’mmm.  Somehow I don’t think that’s right.

Anyway!

THIS IS OUR MOMENT

I think:

is a really Great Leader and a man that has the whole world in his heart when he makes decisions.

And he:

is kind, generous, and deeply concerned with the ability of the French people to achieve Liberté, Fraternité, Egalité in their daily lives and, indeed, across France.  

And what can be said about …

What a man.  Strong in his opinions.  A fighter for Truth and Justice.  Able to make the hard decisions yet a true compassion and understanding for the British people united under the Queen (God Bless ‘er!)

And as they stand …

(Ok, sit)

united these three Great Leaders of the three Greatest Powers of Western (and therefore the Greatest) Civilization will take us by the hand and lead us into the future.  

Oh …

Yeah …

What’s her name ….

She’s OK, by me, too.

[The preceeding was an unpaid political announcement showing that even lefties of the libertarian persuasion can be bought.  More complete and total bullshit can be purchased by sums of money mailed to the writer at this blog address.]

Tomy DeLay has just sent the following letter to his ol’ buddy Hastert:

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
The Capitol Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:

It has been a great privilege, a high honor, and one of my most treasured personal pleasures to have served with you and our colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives for more than twenty-one years. You have been a stellar example for our nation of personal courage and steadfast conviction, and I thank you for your leadership of this great institution as well as for your personal friendship.

As you are aware, I have recently made the decision to pursue new opportunities to engage in the important cultural and political battles of our day from an arena outside of the U.S. House of Representatives. As a result, I am informing you of my intention to formally resign as the representative of the 22nd Congressional District of Texas to be effective at the close of business on June 9, 2006.

May God continue to bless you, the President, this great institution and its Members, and our nation.

Sincerely,

Tom DeLay
Member of Congress

Letter was obtained from Raw Story

Trying to get confirmation.

Responding to a public outcry against the big merchant-banking firms who had monopolies on key commodities and good the goverment convenged a council to investigate.  Specifically they wanted public feedback regarding:

   1.  Were large commercial companies prejudicial to the public interest?

   2.  Should all the commercial companies be disbanded, or their activities merely limited?

   3.  How could this limitation be achieved and the abuses by the commerical companies suppressed?
 The companies responded by defending unlimited commercial activity nd rejecting any intervention by the state.  First, there was a trickle down affect as all of the population profited not just the companies … even the farmers in their fields who sold their crops locally.  Second, the state benefited by the taxes due to increased economic activity.  Third, if the state intervened “it is the man in the street who complains most loudly.”  Fourth, economic power underlied and supported international political power.  

Although inflation, over the past 6 years, had doubled the cost of goods the companies discounted that by saying their overseas suppliers were the cause and restricting business activity would not improve the situation.  And if the state intervened those overseas markets could very well be lost due to international competition.

The companies ended with, “business cannot operate properly under any constraints whatsoever.”

In the end the Head of State decided any restriction was against the national interest as it was these companies who lent money to the state for strategic, diplomatic, military, and other political purposes.

The investigatory body, of course, was the Diet of Nurenberg constituted by, and under, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V in 1522.

[Source: Worldly Goods: A New History of the Renaissance by Lisa Jardine.]

Let the snark-fest begin!

[Cross-posted to EuroTribune]

Are you excited?  (I am.)

All over Sweden the holiday season officially begins with Sankta Lucia or Saint Lucia’s Day on December 13th. Just how Lucia became an honored saint in Sweden is a mystery, for she was born in Italy in the third century (ya take your saints where you can get them I suppose).  St. Lucia died as a virgin and martyr with the former being a somewhat odd recommendation as we will see, below.

Because she died at the turning point of the year, when the nights begin to get shorter and the day’s light lasts longer and longer, she became a symbol the sun.  The Sun, as you may or may not know, is slightly scarce during the winter in Sweden.  Lucia imagined as a shining figure crowned by a radiant halo.

Before dawn – i.e. 10:00 AM – on Saint Lucia’s Day  Swedish mothers all over the world awaken their children. Together they will prepare “bread for hunger and candles to light the darkness” which are part of the Lucia Day ceremony.

First come the Lucia Day costumes. The oldest daughter, dressed in a long robe of white, tied with a crimson sash, represents the saint. On her head she wears a metal crown, the base of which is covered with green leaves of lingonberry, the mountain cranberry. Sometimes tiny leaved ilex, or some other evergreen leaf is used. Five, seven, or even nine white candles are set into Lucias’ crown.

The grown up members of the family, father, aunts, uncles, grand parents, are supposed to sleep through all the excitement of these preparations. They must sleep so soundly that the smell of coffee and the fragrance of warm Lucia buns and ginger cookies does not waken them.

When all is ready, the procession forms. Lucia takes up her tray, and walking carefully and slowly, leads the troop to father’s door. Softly the mother – or Eldest Woman or whomever wins the cat fight – sounds the pitch and the children begin the traditional song.

Santa Lucia, thy light is glowing
Through darkest winter night, comfort bestowing.
Dreams float on dreams tonight,
Comes then the morning light,
Santa Lucia, Santa Lucia.

Attention is now turned to the decorations which every Swedish home must have. Here are the small “Julbockar”, the Yule goats (goats are a symbol of Thor), and the little “Julgrisar”, the Yule pigs (pigs are a symbols of Vanir: Freyr & Freyja), to hang (we used to hang horses for Odin but that gets a bit messy in the standard home, condo, or apartment/flat) on the tree (the World Tree Yggrasill). These traditional animals are cleverly made of tied, twisted, bent, and braided straw. Straw symbolizes grain (No Kidding, right?), therefore food and prosperity (and in keeping with the um “nature” of the Vanir much whoopie-whoopie but that comes after the kiddies are back in bed).

You cannot find out any more information about St. Lucia’s Day by going here

Felaktig länk

Länken som du angav fungerar inte, antingen är sidan borttagen eller flyttad. Om du klickade på en länk vänligen meddela ansvarig på den webbplatsen att länken är felaktig.

I find this a deeply moving rememberance of my childhood as Ms. ATinNM is a descendent of refugees from from the ‘Great White North’ a.k.a ‘O, Canada, eh?’ and knows naught of it.  When asked if she would be interested in getting up before dawn, making coffee, donning a white dress, and wearing a crown with burning candles she merely looked over her glasses at me and went back to her crossword puzzle.  

sigh  

I just recieved an email from Senator Kerry about his 20,000 Troops Home For the Holidays petition.
Text of E-Mail

We can’t depend on George W. Bush finally seeing the light. And we surely can’t rely on Dick Cheney finally telling the truth. We can’t even count on Karl Rove seeing big Democratic victories in the 2005 elections as a sign that Americans want a clear strategy in Iraq, not just more slash and burn Republican staged events that aim to mislead.

We’ve got to count on intense grassroots pressure forcing Republicans in the House and Senate to force this White House to face reality.

That pressure ratcheted up yesterday when Republican candidates who aligned themselves with Bush fell to defeat in Virginia and New Jersey. Bush’s last-minute personal campaigning in Virginia sealed the Republican candidate’s defeat.

The bottom line: It’s becoming harder and harder for the Republican Party to defend Bush’s failures.

And no Bush failure is doing more damage than the President’s stubborn clinging to self defeating “stay as long as it takes” rhetoric in Iraq.

That’s why, in just a few days’ time, nearly 200,000 people have signed on to support our demand that the President present a clear and concrete plan for Iraq. We’re starting with a call for the withdrawal of 20,000 American troops over the holidays, linked to the successful completion of December elections in Iraq — sending a signal to Iraqis that Iraq belongs to them. And we’re pressing the Bush Administration to get it right with a new strategy that will bring the vast majority of our combat troops home by the end of 2006.

If you haven’t signed yet, it’s critical that you do so now:

Withdraw 20,000 troops over the holidays

Our goal is to collect 400,000 signatures before Thanksgiving. That’s 20,000 Americans stepping forward each day for 20 consecutive days in support of our “20,000 troops home over the holidays” drive.

It’s the vitally important first step in our call for a concrete plan that will produce genuine progress in Iraq and bring home the vast majority of our brave fighting men and women by the end of next year.

We can no longer let Republican politicians get away with providing political cover for George W. Bush’s multiple failures on Iraq. We can’t let them explain away policies that keep failing . . . scandals that keep deepening . . . principles that keep getting trampled on . . . and the urgent needs of America’s families that keep getting ignored.

Your signature right now can really help.

Withdraw 20,000 troops over the holidays

Tomorrow I will be speaking out again and offering a resolution on the floor of the Senate to commit to the needed steps this White House refuses to take — a plan for Iraq.

In less than a week, we’ll be launching the next critical step in our “20,000 troops home over the holidays” campaign. We’ll be placing impossible-to-ignore billboards in the home districts of Republican leaders across the country.

The message on the billboards will be “Withdraw 20,000 troops over the holidays.”

The message behind the billboards will be even clearer: “In 2006, no Republican candidate will get away with putting his or her loyalty to George W. Bush ahead of what’s right for our troops and our country.”

Republicans have let the Bush Administration make one mind-boggling mistake after another in Iraq with hardly a word of protest.

As investigations and indictments mount, they pretend they can’t see the corruption. As the bullying tactics of the extreme right wing dictate the Republican agenda, they pretend they can’t see the danger.

And, as a White House hamstrung by a dizzying array of failed policies, botched decisions, and corrupt practices reels out of control, they pretend they can’t see their own responsibility to act.

If they’re not willing to lead, they need to get out of the way. We’ve got to get them out of the way so that we can roll up our sleeves and move America forward again. That’s what the most critical legislative and electoral contests of the next twelve months are going to be all about. We’re going to get “do nothing to offend the President” Republicans out of the way, so that we can move America in the right direction again.

Let’s push hard — and let’s promise each other to not stop pushing until we have put our America back on track.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

P.S. Friday, President Bush will deliver another defense of his irresponsible “stay as long as it takes” approach to Iraq. But, more and more Americans are rallying to our call for forward movement in Iraq and the withdrawal of the vast majority of our troops by the end of next year.

Text of Petition

America can no longer tolerate the Bush administration’s failed “stay as long as it takes” approach to the war in Iraq. It is time for Congress to demand and for George W. Bush to deliver a clear, concrete plan.

As a first critical step in that direction, I am calling on the Bush administration to respond to the completion of December elections in Iraq by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the holidays.

The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to “stay as long as it takes.” To undermine the insurgency, we have to simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks.

The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of 2006.

If George W. Bush refuses to produce a concrete plan for Iraq, then, at the start of 2006, we will demand that Congress acts to take the decision out of his hands. And, if the Republican Congress fails to call the Bush administration to account, we will use the 2006 elections to take the decision out of their hands. We won’t stop until we succeed.

End Petition Text

You can sign the petition with the link aboveor here.

The following are prepared excerpts from a speech to be given by Senator Kerry at Georgetown University today.
Kerry speaks from his heart and conscience on Iraq:

“A few weeks ago I departed Iraq from Mosul. Three Senators and staff were gathered in the forward part of a C-130. In the middle of the cavernous cargo hold was a simple, aluminum coffin with a small American flag draped over it. We were bringing another American soldier, just killed, home to his family and final resting place.

The starkness of his coffin in the center of the hold, the silence except for the din of the engines, was a real time cold reminder of the consequences of decisions for which we Senators share responsibility.

As we arrived in Kuwait, a larger flag was transferred to fully cover his coffin and we joined graves registration personnel in giving him an honor guard as he was ceremoniously carried from plane to a waiting truck. When the doors clunked shut, I wondered why all of America would not be allowed to see him arrive at Dover Air Force Base instead of hiding him from a nation that deserves to mourn together in truth and in the light of day. His lonely journey compels all of us to come to grips with our choices in Iraq.

The Challenge in Iraq:

Now more than 2,000 brave Americans have given their lives, and several hundred thousand more have done everything in their power to wade through the ongoing internal civil strife in Iraq. An Iraq which increasingly is what it was not before the war — a breeding ground for homegrown terrorists and a magnet for foreign terrorists. We are entering a make or break six month period, and I want to talk about the steps we must take if we hope to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that’s not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict.

Kerry Defends The Right to Dissent:

It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it to those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.

In fact, while some say we can’t ask tough questions because we are at war, I say no – in a time of war we must ask the hardest questions of all. It’s essential if we want to correct our course and do what’s right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. No matter what the President says, asking tough questions isn’t pessimism, it’s patriotism.

The Truth About How We Got Here:

The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no “slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force — just as there’s no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise.

I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can’t rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, `enough blame to go around,’ and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to say so plainly and unequivocally.

Administration’s Mistakes Have Narrowed Our Options:

We must begin by acknowledging that our options in Iraq today are not what they should be, or could have been.

The reason is simple. This Administration hitched their wagon to ideologues, excluding those who dared to tell the truth, even leaders of their own party and the uniformed military.

When after September 11th, flags flew from porches across America and foreign newspaper headlines proclaimed “We’re all Americans now,” the Administration could have kept the world united, but they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead, they pushed allies away, isolated America, and lost leverage we desperately need today.

When they could have demanded and relied on accurate instead of manipulated intelligence, they chose not to. They were wrong – and instead they sacrificed our credibility at home and abroad.

When they could have given the inspectors time to discover whether Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction, when they could have paid attention to Ambassador Wilson’s report, they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead they attacked him, and they attacked his wife to justify attacking Iraq. We don’t know yet whether this will prove to be an indictable offense in a court of law, but for it, and for misleading a nation into war, they will be indicted in the high court of history. History will judge the invasion of Iraq one of the greatest foreign policy misadventures of all time.

But the mistakes were not limited to the decision to invade. They mounted, one upon another.

When they could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have learned from George Herbert Walker Bush and built a genuine global coalition, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have implemented a detailed State Department plan for reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq, they chose not to. And they were wrong again. When they could have protected American forces by guarding Saddam Hussein’s ammo dumps where there were weapons of individual destruction, they exposed our young men and women to the ammo that now maims and kills them because they chose not to act. And they were wrong. When they could have imposed immediate order and structure in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam, Rumsfeld shrugged his shoulders, said Baghdad was safer than Washington, D.C. and chose not to act. He was wrong. When the Administration could have kept an Iraqi army selectively intact, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have kept an entire civil structure functioning to deliver basic services to Iraqi citizens, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have accepted the offers of the United Nations and individual countries to provide on the ground peacekeepers and reconstruction assistance, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they should have leveled with the American people that the insurgency had grown, they chose not to. Vice President Cheney even absurdly claimed that the “insurgency was in its last throes.” He was wrong.

Bush Administration: The Real Cut and Run Republicans

Now after all these mistakes, the Administration accuses anyone who proposes a better course of wanting to cut and run. But we are in trouble today precisely because of a policy of cut and run. This administration made the wrong choice to cut and run from sound intelligence and good diplomacy; to cut and run from the best military advice; to cut and run from sensible war time planning; to cut and run from their responsibility to properly arm and protect our troops; to cut and run from history’s lessons about the Middle East; to cut and run from common sense.

And still today they cut and run from the truth.

The Kerry Plan: The Path Forward

This difficult road traveled demands the unvarnished truth about the road ahead.

To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately – I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security. But to those who rely on the overly simplistic phrase “we will stay as long as it takes,” who pretend this is primarily a war against Al Qaeda, and who offer halting, sporadic, diplomatic engagement, I also say – No, that will only lead us into a quagmire.

The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay “as long as it takes.” To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays.

The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn. No more shell games, no more false reports of progress, but specific and measurable goals.

It is true that our soldiers increasingly fight side by side with Iraqis willing to put their lives on the line for a better future. But history shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency. The real struggle in Iraq – Sunni versus Shiia – will only be settled by a political solution, and no political solution can be achieved when the antagonists can rely on the indefinite large scale presence of occupying American combat troops.

In fact, because we failed to take advantage of the momentum of our military victory, because we failed to deliver services and let Iraqis choose their leaders early on, our military presence in vast and visible numbers has become part of the problem, not the solution.

The Military Agrees:

And our generals understand this. General George Casey, our top military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” And Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, writes, ”Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency.” No wonder the Sovereignty Committee of the Iraqi Parliament is already asking for a timetable for withdrawal of our troops; without this, Iraqis believe Iraq will never be its own country.

We must move aggressively to reduce popular support for the insurgency fed by the perception of American occupation. An open-ended declaration to stay `as long as it takes’ lets Iraqi factions maneuver for their own political advantage by making us stay as long as they want, and it becomes an excuse for billions of American tax dollars to be sent to Iraq and siphoned off into the coffers of cronyism and corruption.

It will be hard for this Administration, but it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down, starting immediately after successful elections in December. The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of next year. If the Administration does its work correctly, that is achievable.

We Need A Political Solution:

Our strategy must achieve a political solution that deprives the Sunni-dominated insurgency of support by giving the Sunnis a stake in the future of their country. The Constitution, opposed by more than two thirds of Sunnis, has postponed and even exacerbated the fundamental crisis of Iraq. The Sunnis want a strong secular national government that fairly distributes oil revenues. Shiites want to control their own region and resources in a loosely united Islamic state. And Kurds simply want to be left alone. Until sufficient compromise is hammered out, a Sunni base can not be created that isolates the hard core Baathists and jihaadists and defuses the insurgency.

We Need a Regional Security Agreement:

The Administration must bring to the table the full weight of all of Iraq’s Sunni neighbors. They also have a large stake in a stable Iraq. Instead of just telling us that Iraq is falling apart, as the Saudi foreign minister did recently, they must do their part to put it back together. We’ve proven ourselves to be a strong ally to many nations in the region. Now it’s their turn to do their part.

The administration must immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia. All of these countries have influence and ties to various parties in Iraq. Together, we must implement a collective strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise. This must include obtaining mutual security guarantees among Iraqis themselves. Shiite and Kurdish leaders need to make a commitment not to perpetrate a bloodbath against Sunnis in the post-election period. In turn, Sunni leaders must end support for the insurgents, including those who are targeting Shiites. And the Kurds must explicitly commit themselves not to declare independence.

To enlist the support of Iraq’s Sunni neighbors, we should commit to a new regional security structure that strengthens the security of the countries in the region and the wider community of nations. This requires a phased process including improved security assistance programs, joint exercises, and participation by countries both outside and within the Middle East.

Improve Training:

Simultaneously, the President needs to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them. The Administration must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.

Win the Real War on Terror:

We will never be as safe as we should be if Iraq continues to distract us from the most important war we must win – the war on Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the terrorists that are resurfacing even in Afghanistan. These are the make or break months for Iraq. The President must take a new course, and hold Iraqis accountable. If the President still refuses, Congress must insist on a change in policy. If we do take these steps, there is no reason this difficult process can not be completed in 12-15 months. There is no reason Iraq cannot be sufficiently stable, no reason the majority of our combat troops can’t soon be on their way home, and no reason we can’t take on a new role in Iraq, as an ally not an occupier, training Iraqis to defend themselves. Only then will we have provided leadership equal to our soldiers’ sacrifice – and that is what they deserve.”

Without a lot of bother as a prelude …

This came from an e-list I’m on and I thought it might be of interest to some and a break from Plame’ing to others.
On the Scopes Trial Paradox

Many scientifically inclined thinkers are wondering how, eighty years after the embarrassing Scopes Trial, we seem to be back to square one: Science has to defend itself against those who misunderstand or misconstrue the implications of Darwinian evolution, and science teachers have to re-assert their right to teach science to school children, instead of succumbing to injunctions to present evolution as an alternative mode of  interpreting observed data. There is something paradoxical in the fact that so many decades after the matter was thrashed out in court and in open forums, and
after so much progress has occurred in technical science, forces have been unleashed which call for a return to pre-scientific hypotheses as to how life emerged and progresses on our planet, albeit in the garb of science, embellished with technical jargon.

There are at least two explanations for this paradox: First, we recall that the Scopes Trial was the climax of a social restlessness caused by daring new views and values in entertainment, in the use of language, in women’s attires, in calls for abolishing prohibition, etc. all of which caused the kind of fright in the hearts of the guardians of traditional morality that
jolts some ayatollahs of the Islamic world today. They felt that what they regarded as public debauchery resulted from the cold and crass advances of
human-related sciences such as sociology, psychology, and evolutionary biology. They were convinced that if children are taught that we are essentially complex machines that have emerged by chance from slime and salt water, they could not be persuaded to moral codes that urge self-restraint and cautions against premarital intimacies.

Later in the century, from about the late 1960s, there have again been major transformations in American mores and morals, which include experimentation with drugs, poor church attendance, overt skepticism towards sacred texts, teenage and extra-marital pregnancies, and promiscuity. Once again, those who are genuinely concerned about what they regard as the moral degeneration of American society, rightly or wrongly associate these changes to a godless scientific framework in which Man and mouse differ essentially in their chromosomes: otherwise, one is as insignificant and irrelevant as the other in the stretch of cosmic history.  Irrespective of the truth content of this
view, it is difficult for the unsophisticated citizen to derive the Ten Commandments or their equivalent from this scientifically chaste perspective. Given that the devotees of Science are more after scientific Truths than  social and cultural predicaments, the wardens of moral rectitude imagine that by re-formulating science, we can save our youth from prurient penchants and protect society from godless worldviews.

The second key to the paradox lies in this: Unlike scientific breakthroughs, social progress is not unidirectional. The most enlightened society of today has the potential for reverting to dark-age depths. Collective values can shift, if appropriate provocations come into play. Germany’s slide to Nazism is a classic instance of a fairly enlightened society was drawn to barbarism of the worst kind. In our own times, the Patriot Act, which impinges on individual freedom and the proposed tinkering with  British tolerance of
hate-mongering imams are examples. Vigilance alone is not enough to preserve enlightened values. One needs to adjust to changing circumstances, and keep an eye on extremist forces on either side (Science or Religion) that can push moderates to the other extreme. If scientists  ignore the corollaries of their atheistic findings (no ultimate purpose or meaning to human
existence), then no matter how cogent their theories, and how solid their factual bases, science is likely to be regarded as culture-unfriendly.

This means that without compromising its own integrity, science needs to give a more sensitive, if not sympathetic hearing to those who are touched by religion. Benign disregard for the moral implications of scientific theories, calm indifference to the spiritual longings of people, and condescending, not to say contemptuous attitude of the spokesmen for science
towards religion: all these have contributed to the current awkward state in the matter of teaching evolution in our schools.

In the face of the environmental, social, and political threats that we face, we of the twenty-first century don’t have the luxury to deepen the divides that have become the hallmark of our times. Much of our welfare depends on how sincerely and effectively men and women of goodwill from all groups in conflict come together in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, and mutual respect to make this a better world for all of us.

At a time when the United States is looked upon with considerable disdain and resentment by many for the assertion of its military might in many regions of the world, there is no need to provoke ridicule by insisting that we teach ancient poetry and metaphor as equivalent to modern science in our interpretation of natural phenomena. It would be like insisting that we also teach astrology, alchemy, and numerology in our courses on astronomy, chemistry, and mathematics.

Dr. V. V. Raman : Emeritus Professor
Rochester Institute of Technology
September 20, 2005

[From the diaries by susanhu.]

Update [2005-10-11 14:18:23 by ATinNM]:
Yet more information coming in, via Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC Countdown newsletter:

In a “special report” tonight and tomorrow, Olbermannn will be going through the 13 false alerts that were oddly timed with political problems.

Yesterday New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said police would be “slowly winding down” the intensity of subway patrols, after the target date cited in a federal warning about a possible terrorist attack passed without incident. See this.

As Pete Williams said in his report last night, those arrests in Iraq turned up nothing. “Law enforcement officials say today that investigations in the Iraqi city where three men were arrested last week, in response to a tip … turned up no evidence whatsoever of any plan to attack New York. That includes giving the three men lie detector tests, searching their computers, and checking their phone call records.”

Tonight… a postmortem on this latest terror threat, which officials at Homeland Security had said was of doubtful credibility.

And on Wednesday, Keith takes a closer look… As he said yesterday, “…we spoke of at least thirteen [13] coincidences of timing, between bad political news for the government, and a terror or terror-related event… We will be presenting a special report detailing those coincidences on Wednesday night’s edition.”

——————————-

CNN has a banner headline:

“Informant in Iraq admits information about a terror plot against New York subway was a hoax, sources tell CNN”

No details are available as of 9:45 MST.

Too funny. MORE below:

Update [2005-10-11 12:30:56 by ATinNM]:

All information from CNN

“Information that led to heightened security for the New York City transit system was a hoax, government sources said Tuesday.

The sources said an informant in Iraq who provided the tip had told investigators there was a terrorist plot involving New York’s subway system. That informant admitted he gave false information, the sources said.

Law enforcement sources said last week the person who passed along the New York tip also gave information that prompted a military operation in Iraq, which led to the arrests of three al Qaeda suspects in Musayyib, about 45 miles south of Baghdad.

Government sources said the three men arrested in Iraq with suspected links to the possible plot had been interviewed and underwent lie detector tests showing they knew nothing about such a plan.”

As I responded to Colman. The importance of this is the fast debunking of the Bush administrations attempt to shore-up their polling numbers.

Roy Spencer is a Climate Scientist who has had papers critical of Global Warming published in reputable scientific journals.  

OK, fair enough.  The evidence for Global Warming has been extremely difficult to achieve, mathematical models of climate continually run into NP-Complete (not computable) and Chaos (everything goes wierd), and the historic baseline of baseline is not only short but incomplete.  Climate is Sensitive to Initial Conditions so a slight change of value assignment (quantification) to the variables in a model lead to drastic changes in the behavour of the system.  The flow of recursion – which equation is processed when – can also have a dramatic affect.  
Skepticism is a valuable tool in science.  Skeptics are needed to ensure enthusiasm doesn’t run amok.  But the skeptics must also adhere to the proceedures of Science – mere nay-saying is not enough.  Skeptics must also adhere to the accepted scientific findings unless solid, solid, evidence is presented.

Dr. Spencer, in a post on his blog has just made the astonishing claim “…intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.”  

Adorn thyself with a tin-foil hat.  We’re off to La-la land.

“Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.”

Notice the word “faith” is invoked early.  Scientists do not accept arguments by faith; they accept arguments based on deduction, inference, and evidence.  The point here is to ego-flatter some clod who never graduated from the 6th grade that his/her incoherent opinion is intellectually equivalent to the rigourous knowledge of someone who has studied a field all their life.

Also notice the intellectual dishonesty, Dr. Spencer invokes the social prestige of science without actually engaging in scientific methodology.  The fact “most books” were written by “scientists” – Who?  What are thier fields?  What was the evidence?  How many books?  What was the reaction of their peers? References? – is a cover to gloss his ‘Appeal to Awe’ Logical fallacy.  

“True evolution, in the macro-sense, has never been observed, only inferred.”

The counter to this is: So What?  I have never “observed” the logical formulation modus ponens only examples of modus ponens.  Let me make this real clear:

If it is raining then the ground is wet.  It is raining.  Therefore, the ground is wet.

If Socrates is a man then he is mortal.  Socrates is a man.  Therefore, he is mortal.

Are two examples allowing the inference of the True and Valid logical structure, modus ponens:

If X then Y.  X.  Therefore, Y.  

but are not identical to modus ponens.  Modus ponens is the Universal pattern;  the examples are the Existential particulars.

But there is a very good reason Dr. Spencer has to outlaw inference, see below.

“Possibly the most critical distinction between the two theories (or better, “models”) of origins is this: While similarities between different but “related” species have been attributed by evolutionism to common ancestry, intelligent design explains the similarities based upon common design. An Audi and a Ford each have four wheels, a transmission, an engine, a gas tank, fuel injection systems … but no one would claim that they both naturally evolved from a common ancestor.”

One can only laugh.

First, a Theory and a Model are two different things.  A Theory is a verified systematic statement of principles and relationships of phenomena.  A Model is representation, mathematical, verbal, or physical, of something.  

Second, his example does not hold.  Cars, in my limited experience, do not have sex.  Therefore the offered evidence is a non sequitar.  Which leads to …

Third, we see yet more Material Fallacies.  Dr. Spencer is assuming Intelligent Design rather than proving Intelligent Design.  Admittedly it is faster and easier to assume what one is trying to prove but it is generally considered, since about 300 BC, to be methodologically flawed.  To define Intelligent Design and immediately move on is to Beg the Question.  Where is the valid proof?  It is not enough to show flaws in some other explanation.  One has to show proof your explanation is valid and in the above paragraph it has been shown Dr. Spencer’s offered ‘evidence’ is invalid.

“Common ancestry requires transitional forms of life to have existed through the millions of years of supposed biological evolution. Yet the fossil record, our only source of the history of life on Earth, is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional forms of life that would connect the supposed evolution of amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, etc. “

Oh, Bullshit.  Dr. Spencer, here, is simply lying.

“This is why Stephen Jay Gould, possibly the leading evolutionist of our time, advanced his “punctuated equilibria” theory. In this theory, evolution leading to new kinds of organisms occurs over such brief periods of time that it was not captured in the fossil record. Upon reflection, one cannot help but notice that this is not arguing based upon the evidence — but instead from the lack of evidence.”

Now we are deep in tin-foil hat territory.

That no dinosaurs are found above the K-T Boundary,  mammalian species found above the K-T Boundary are not present below the K-T Boundary, and the diversification of mammalian species after the K-T Boundary is not captured in the fossil record?  Really?  In what Universe?  

Dr. Spencer is demanding species that do not exist have to leave a fossil record after they have been snuffed-out in order to prove they no longer exist otherwise it is “lack of evidence.”      

This is why Dr. Spencer has to disallow inference.  Put in his own field and using his own methodology:

We measure temperature in El Paso and Denver but not in Albuquerque.  As inference is not allowed, and we have a gap in the temperature record at Albuquerque, the only valid conclusion possible is: Albuquerque has no temperature.

To-whit, To-whoo.

There is a lot of other stuff to be ridiculed in the blog but – hey! – why should I have all the fun?