Nicholsclan.com : a dimension of mind...

Blather from Kansas

In what may be the worst attempt ever to have your cake and eat it too, Sam Brownback offers this editorial explaining is contorted views on evolution and religion. While he makes some salient points:

The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.

But then asserts his ignorance by saying:

It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.

Neither science in general or evolution in particular exclude the possibility of design or purpose. They do not require it, but they do not exclude it. These are crucial, not subtle differences. His rhetoric will do nothing to keep the rational public from continuing to believe he's a couple of fries short of a Happy Meal. I expect his attempt to defer, at least somewhat, to science will not sit will with the hard-core creationists. His only accomplishment was perhaps to appease those who won't read his diatribe too carefully or don't care too much about the issue anyway. And those people likely won't read his editorial, nor did they see the debate, and probably don't know who Sam Brownback is in the first place.

Stick a fork in him...

One Short Amendment

The following Charles Krauthammer column sums up my views on the current immigration bill which just recently cleared the Senate. I've copied it below as the link requires registration.

The Amnesty Compromise Needs a Caveat

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, May 25, 2007; Page A19

As the most attractive land for would-be immigrants, America has the equivalent of the first 100 picks in the NBA draft. Yet through lax border control and sheer inertia, it allows those slots to be filled by (with apologies to Bill Buckley) the first 100 names in the San Salvador phone book.

The immigration compromise being debated in Congress does improve our criteria for selecting legal immigrants. Unfortunately, its inadequacies in dealing with illegal immigration -- specifically, in ensuring that 10 years from now we will not have a new cohort of 12 million demanding amnesty -- completely swamp the good done on legal immigration.

Today, preference for legal immigration is given not to the best and the brightest waiting on long lists everywhere on Earth to get into America, but to family members of those already here. Given that America has the pick of the world's energetic and entrepreneurial, this is a stunning competitive advantage, stunningly squandered.

The current reform would establish a point system for legal immigrants in which brains and enterprise count. This is a significant advance. But before we get too ecstatic about finally doing the blindingly obvious, note two caveats:

(a) This new point system doesn't go into effect for eight years -- eight years of a new flood of immigrants chosen not for aptitude but bloodline. And who knows if a different Congress eight years from now will keep the current bargain?

(b) It's not enough to just create a point system in which credit is given for education, skills and English competence. These points can be outweighed by points given for -- you guessed it -- family ties, which are already built into the proposed point system. There are already amendments on the Senate floor to magnify the value of being a niece rather than a nurse. ( Barack Obama is proposing to abolish the point system entirely in five years.) A point system can be manipulated to give far more weight to family than skills -- until it becomes nothing but a cover for the old chain-migration system.

As for the bill's provisions about illegal immigration, let's not quibble: It grants the essentials of amnesty. True, there is a $5,000 fine (for a family of five!) attached to registering for legal status in the United States. But the truly significant penalty for illegal immigration is deportation -- which undoes everything the immigrant has built in America. When the feds raid a sweatshop, the fear is not that the agent will grab you and yell, "We are here to collect a fine." The fear is that he will yell, "We are here to deport you back to the subsistence and misery you fled in China."

From the moment this bill is signed, every illegal alien who does not have a criminal record can register with the U.S. government for temporary legal status. Moreover, as soon as the president certifies that certain border enforcement triggers have been met, this cohort of 12 million becomes eligible for the new Z visa -- renewable until death-- which allows them to stay and work and travel and reenter.

This is amnesty -- and I would be all in favor of it if I believed in the border enforcement mechanisms in this bill. If these are indeed the last illegal immigrants to come in, let us generously and humanely take them out of the shadows. But if we don't close the border, that generous and humane gesture will be an announcement to the world that the smart way to come to America is illegally.

In this bill, unfortunately, enforcement at the border is all bureaucratic inputs and fancy gadgets: principally, a doubling of the Border Patrol to 28,000, lots of high-tech sensors and four unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). And 370 miles of fence -- half of what Congress had mandated last year.

Does anyone imagine these will stop the flood? Four UAVs? And how does 370 miles of fence close a border of 2,100 miles? And if fences work (of course they do: look at the San Diego fence), why not build one all the way?

The amnesty is triggered upon presidential certification that these bureaucratic benchmarks are met -- regardless of what is actually happening at the border. What vacuous nonsense. The trigger must be something real. I propose a single amendment, short and very concrete: "The amnesty shall be declared the morning after the president has certified (citing disinterested studies) that illegal immigration across the southern border has been reduced by 90 percent." That single provision would guarantee passage of this comprehensive reform because most Americans would be glad to grant a generous amnesty -- if they can be assured it would be the last.

The Assault on Reason

Borrowing from the title of Al Gore's new book, and perhaps continuing yesterday's rant on the decline of critical thinking skills in this country, I am focusing today on the decline of gray in this country. No, no... I know we're all getting older and there is no shortage of gray hair. I won't even argue the shortage of gray matter, since I think there's plenty of it about - albeit often overly focused on Gamecube strategies and the fate of Anna Nicole's baby.

Rather, I think we we need to regain the ability to see issues and arguments in shades of gray. The world is far too complex a place to see in black and white. Yet this is what we seem to demand, especially of public figures. Pick a side of the fence and stand firmly there. You're either with or against us; so choose. Further, we seem intent on trying to interpret gray area positions as polar so that we can stand against them. The latest evidence comes courtesy of Mitt Romney.

John Edwards, who supports a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, said he would keep the country safe by going "after terrorists where they are."

Mitt Romney retorted,

"Remember that old Edmund Burke quote, it's a famous quote, 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.' And that, I am afraid is the boiled down version of what John Edwards said, is that good men should do nothing. Put their head in the sand and hope it all goes away,"

This is clearly not what Edwards said. Edwards is taking a pretty rational middle of the road position. Yes, terrorists are a threat. Yes, we need to be vigilant against them. We need to continue and even increase efforts to take out terror cells at their roots. But he's acknowledging the reality that the Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terror and is in fact, defocussing what should be highly specific and direct action against actual terrorists.

Is Al Qaeda in Iraq? Yes, they are now. And they still will be once we pull back and stop trying to mitigate what is largely a civil war. Which is part of way we can't just pull out entirely and go home. Al Qaeda is also in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and probably many other places. We can't reasonably take on the government of every country in which they set up operations. Al Qaeda is opportunistic, and will exist where ever it's easy and fruitful for them to be. Is our presence in Iraq focusing the Al Qaeda operations? Probably. But is it rational to hold a war in what was arguably a neutral 3rd party country just so we have a battlefield of operations with Al Qaeda? That's more than a bit nuts. We could do them much more damage through covert activity, intelligence work, black ops, and surgical military strikes then we are doing with our massive and expensive efforts in Iraq. This is what Edwards is proposing.

However, Romney polarizes the issue. He wants to stay the course in Iraq. He positions the opposite as running home and sticking your head in the sand and doing nothing. Then asserts that if you are not with him, then you are obviously the polar opposite. This is like saying that I like to play Volleyball. If you don't like to play volleyball, then you sit on the sofa all day and pick your nose. Then when I meet you, I can ask if you like to play volleyball. If you say no, I feel justified in my assertion that you are a nose-picking couch potato.

We've had enough of this sort of demonizing polar logic over the last 6 years. It's time to recognize that the world is a pretty complicated place - way more complicated than can be conveyed in a 30 second TV spot. It's high time we start acknowledging the people who do think deeply through the complexities. And it's time we start showing the ones who pander to the sound bite to the door.

The Laziest Woman on Earth??

We report... you decide...



Maybe they should make a Seqway with a sidecar??

Creation Wins!!!

The Christian Academy Science Fair winners have been announced. Now most of the projects and awards sound like typical middle school science fair fare:

Lake Algae: How Best to Chemically Remove It.
What Is the Best Electroplating Material?
Does Calcium in Milk Strengthen Bones?
How Do Fears Change with Age?
Can We Build an Environmentally Friendly Electric Generator?
Can a Polarized Lens Affect a Digital Photograph?

Heck, my own 6th grader did his project this year on how fat content effects the melting rate of ice cream. And just a helpful hint... on a scorcher of a day, treat yourself to top quality heart-stopping artery-clogging ice cream to allow yourself the best opportunity for a drip free cone.

However, the science teachers at The Christian Science Academy should be taken out and flogged for not only allowing young Brian Benson to pursue his misguided project, but for then giving him First Place in the Life Sciences category.

Brian Benson, an eighth-grade student who won first place in the Life Science/Biology category for his project “Creation Wins!!!,” says he disproved part of the theory of evolution. Using a rolled-up paper towel suspended between two glasses of water with Epsom Salts, the paper towel formed stalactites. He states that the theory that they take millions of years to develop is incorrect.

“Scientists say it takes millions of years to form stalactites,” Benson said. “However, in only a couple of hours, I have formed stalactites just by using paper towel and Epsom Salts.”

The faults with this project are almost too numerous to mention. Let's start with the fact that he won for Life Sciences despite his project having absolutely no biology content. Maybe then we could talk about the fact that evolution says absolutely nothing about stalactite formations (or anything else about geology for that matter).

But we'll give the poor boy the benefit of the doubt and assume that what he was really trying to do was prove that the Earth was only a few thousand rather than a few billion years old. And we'll ignore that even at the middle school level, students are expected to have their purpose, experiments, and conclusions at least all on the same topic for an acceptable (much less a winning) project.

Still, Epson salts are made of magnesium sulfate. Stalactites are made of calcium carbonate. There's no reason the growth rate between these two substances should be the same. It would be like assuming that since I can bake a cake in 20 minutes that this should be ample roasting time for my holiday turkey.

And even then, the boy's assertion about "millions of years" of growth are wrong. I would be very surprised if he got more than a couple inches of "stalactite" growth from his salts in a few hours. Let's assume 2 inches. Stalactite growth is anywhere from 0.1cm/thousand years to much higher rates depending on conditions (acidity, moisture, etc.) Even at slow growth rates, this gets us a 2" stalactite in hundreds of thousands of years, not millions. So his comparison numbers aren't even in the right order of magnitude.

The point of a science fair is to encourage students to use the scientific process. It rarely results in original findings and often the topics are downright trite. But the key is whether or not the students were able to pose a question or a problem and then determine an answer using the proper method. This boy's work fails miserably on those goals. It is nothing short of disingenuous for the faculty to have encouraged much less rewarded that behavior.

I'm sure young Brian was just picking up on the fairly common claim by creationists that the rapid growth of stalactites proves that the Earth could be much younger than scientists claim. And under the right circumstances, stalactite growth can be fairly quick (on a geologic time scale). But the claim that this proves the Earth is young is faulty logic. Under the right circumstances (four-leaf clover in both pockets, blue moon, lucky underpants on) I can sink a half-court shot with nothin'-but-net. That's certainly no reason to expect that to be a typical outcome.

Creationists are free to believe what they will. Science is in no danger of being debunked by them. But by training children in this illogical approach to analysis are we raising a generation of kids doomed to be Enron accountants, Justice Department attorneys, and media spin doctors?? Kids who are predisposed to let the desired outcome drive the facts? Critical thinking and analysis skills are vital to many, if not most occupations. They are also pretty important in your personal life for things like making sound financial decisions and... well... voting. These skills are not limited to the realm of science. But they are learned in school under the banner of science.

If your school's science curriculum is teaching your child that this crap passes for good science. Then I hope the English curriculum is teaching them to say clearly over a cheap loudspeaker, "You want fries with that?"

Run-away Thoughts

I spent many hours this afternoon at what may have been the longest track meet since the 1904 Olympics. My son did turn in a best time, so there were highlights to the day. But mostly I agreed with my younger son who noted that he was hungry, and tired of sitting, and "Why can't we go home?"

As I was whiling away the interminable time while the officials organized the gaggle of kids into lanes and started another heat, it occurred to me that:

- In the fall, I watch the kids play volleyball... and I miss being out on the court.

- In the winter, I watch them swim... and I long for the cool rhythm of the water.

- In the spring, I watch track... and I'm good. Bored, but good.

We're All Gonna Die

I find it hard to believe I'm linking to Oprah, but... Dr. Oz (I assume he's a regular?) is asserting that good health demands you have sex over 200 times a year.

"If you have more than 200 orgasms a year, you can reduce your physiologic age by six years," Dr. Oz says. He bases the number on a study done at Duke University that surveyed people on the amount and quality of sex they had. "They looked at what happened to folks that are having a lot of intercourse over time, and the fact is, it correlated."

Among the benefits of having sex often, Dr. Oz says, is that it can prove that your body is functioning as it is supposed to. "But in addition, having sex with someone that you care for deeply is one of the ways we achieve that Zen experience that we all crave as human beings," he says. "It's really a spiritual event for folks when they're with someone they love and they can consummate it with sexual activity … seems to offer some survival benefit."

Let me spare you the math... that's four days a week. The fact that this was a university study presumes that there is a statistically significant group of people that manage to maintain that pace on a regular basis. I want to meet whomever organizes their calendar. Either I don't know what I'm doing (with calendaring), or they don't have kids.

May I Have Your Autograph Mr. Ashcroft??

By now you've heard that former Deputy Attorney General James Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday that Alberto Gonzales in March 2004 — when he was Bush's White House counsel — had tried to undermine the department he now heads by attempting to get Ashcroft to sign off on the warrantless wiretaps.

Despite being in the intensive care ward at the time, Ashcroft told the White House boys to go pound rocks. He believed the program was illegal. Hold it. Let's review that. John "God is the King of America" Ashcroft found the administration's warrantless wiretapping program to be illegal. John "Let the Eagles Soar" Ashcroft, John "Torture 'em til They Talk" Ashcroft, the defender of all things Bush-ish, found this program to be over the line. Isn't that like throwing a party so trendy that Paris Hilton was uncomfortable? Like finding a hairstyle Sanjaya wouldn't wear? No one is saying what the original incarnation of this program looked like, but the fact that it spooked Ashcroft scares the hell out of me. Fortunately it was toned down to something that Ashcroft could live with, but still something to which the courts and much of the legislature objected. But even this toned down version was enacted at least several weeks after the original program was given the go-ahead from the White House. So the really illegal program was already in full-swing when the only sorta-kinda-illegal-ish program was approved by the AG.

Is there any actual limit to the amount of illegal activity which we will tolerate from this administration? Nixon was forced from office on significantly fewer and less dire crimes than these. But still we placate ourselves with the knowledge that in only 600 days we can wipe the slate and start over. It's clear that if Bush was caught doing Condi on Laura's new Oval Office carpet that we'd have to remove him from office immediately. Hell, we could probably get him removed if evidence came to light that he paid for an abortion for a drunken paramour in 1974. But why aren't activities that are actually against the damn law a reason to send him packing? Isn't that why the framers created impeachment in the first place?

Seriously... is there any conceivable revelation that would warrant bringing an end to this madness?

We Interrupt This Broadcast...

In what may be the comestible development of the century, an Illinois man has begun brewing Pizza Beer. The pizza flavored beverage is the answer to many a beer-drinker's prayer. Now we may dispense with all that unproductive phoning, ordering, impatient pacing, tipping, and chewing. Just sit down and drink your dinner.

The world will never be the same.

2008 - It's a Done Deal Bear

Ted Rall takes a break from his usual incendiary views to offer a pretty rational perspective on how the 2008 Presidential race may play out. Although, as he admits, it's way too early for this to be credible. But based on where the major players are today, this analysis does seem pretty rational. I'm sure John Edwards is hoping so...

A Mysterious Business Model

I came to find myself in need of some small stencils for a project I was working on. I checked with all the family scrapbooking girls (are there any scrapbooking guys?), but no one could hook me up. However, everyone did agree that I could find what I was looking for at a scrapbooking store. So with trepidation I headed off on Saturday morning to the local estrogen dominion known as the Paper Garden.

I entered and immediately noticed a very long table chock full of nattering women. They were ostensibly scrapbooking, but I used to work in an auto garage, and all the guys gathered there on a Saturday morning were not working on cars. This was no different - except there was less swearing. I was the only guy in the place. And from the surprised look on the sales girl's face, I may have been the only guy ever in there. I was half expecting a klaxon to sound.

But the girl was friendly and helpful nonetheless. I told her what I wanted and she quickly admitted they didn't have any stencils. However, she did offer that she had a machine that could cut letters. She wondered if maybe I could trace around the letters if she cut them out of heavy card stock. I asked if instead, could I have the negatives from the cutouts? She thought for a moment? Then said they usually just throw them out, so sure, I could have those.

She then proudly led me to a rack of card stock and began to explain the huge variety of colors in which I could get my letters. I stopped her short, reminding her that since I was just using it as a stencil, the color didn't matter. She seemed disappointed, and selected a sheet of white for me. She then led me to the machine which was located inside the pen where they had the nattering women corralled. I followed, but the women in the pen looked uneasy as if a trespasser was in their midst. I selected a jaunty little font and asked her to make me a full alphabet of upper and lower case letters. She cut my white sheet into four strips and made my stencils. And the whole room seemed grateful that I was finally headed to the cash register.

My long ordeal was nearly over. I asked the helpful girl what I owed her. She responded cheerfully, "35 cents."

I asked if she was kidding, and she said that they only charged for the paper and I only used one sheet. I happily dug the change from my pocket, thanked her, and escaped to my truck.

I can only assume that it costs a small fortune to be put in the nattering women's pen. There's no other way I can see that this place stays in business. It makes me wonder if we should have charged all those guys for hanging at the garage those many years ago.

Would You Please Pass the Testosterone?

I'm eating an otherwise peaceful meal with my barely teen and near teen boys the other night. One gets up to get the milk jug from the fridge (again) to fill his glass. (Honestly, I'm beginning to entertain laying in a feed pipe from the dairy up the road.) Anyway, as his glass nears the full mark, his brother notices the jug is nearly empty. He announces, "I want some too!" and grabs the jug to wrestle it from the other's hand.

Fortunately, the jug was almost dry so there was no spillage, but it was an opportunity to give a mini-lecture on manners and politeness, with just a grazing across the topic of pointlessness - since there was a full jug sitting 10 feet away in the icebox.

But enough of that... back to the meal. Where a few minutes later, the other decides on another slice of ham. The stuff I cut had all been eaten, but there was a big slab still on the platter along with a carving knife. So he picks up the knife to slay his quarry, but he's having a little trouble getting his cut started. So big brother bounds across the table to "help".

"No, you do it like this!" He asserts as he grabs the knife handle and tries to wrest it from his brothers hand. But little brother is not about to relent, and the knife begins to swing around between them as they vie for control.

"Alright FREEZE!!!" I bellow in a voice that made the squirrels in the back yard stop in their tracks. And the knife stopped moving, but was still in both their hands. Then in a quiet and calm voice I ask, "Does anyone see anything that could possibly go horribly wrong here? Anything at all?"

The knife gets put down and everyone returns to their seats. I carved more ham for everyone. There was a solid 30 seconds of blissful silence until they started arguing over whether an 8" carving knife is a weapon or a tool. This degraded into an argument over whether or not you could have a missile that was not rocket propelled - an argument I yearned for by the time we got to one over whether a Zoid could defeat a Pokemon in battle.

I think puberty is longer from this side of the fence...

The Brick Testament

What if you had way too many Legos and way too much time on your hands? Well, you might produce The Brick Testament - a retelling of the Bible using Lego bricks.

An Anonymous Rant

The following was posted anonymously to this blog as a comment to my post on The Evolution of Republicans. However, it really doesn't pertain to that post. Nonetheless, I thought was interesting enough to deserve its own thread. The unedited contribution is:

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his Theory of Evolution

Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.

So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.

But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.

Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect -- somebody chanting Hare Krishna?

If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer. If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer. If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.And I wouldn't be offended.
It wouldn't bother me one bit.
When in Rome ...

But what about the atheists? is another argument.

What about them?

Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer!

Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell hundreds of thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating; to pray before we go to sleep.

Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a
handful of people and their lawyers are telling us
to cease praying.

God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you, well . .. just sue me.

The silent majority has been silent too long.. It's time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority don't care what they want. It is time the majority rules! It's time we tell them, you don't have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right ... But by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back ...
and we WILL WIN!

God bless us one and all ... especially those who denounce Him , God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still the greatest nation of all.

God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.

May 2007 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions.

Keep looking up.

I do agree with the first half of this article. The USA is a predominately Christian nation. Most surveys place it between 80% and 85% Christian. It's unreasonable to expect that Christian culture and rituals will not permeate life in America. As a non-Christian, it's my right to silently not participate. And as long as no one tries to force me to conform, there's no harm done whatsoever. I do think it gets a little sticky when we try to define "force" though. It takes a lot for me to feel coerced, but a teenager in a football huddle might feel forced where I would not. I don't know quite how to draw that line, and I think that's something that society and the courts have struggled with for 50 years now. The pendulum swings back and forth, but has not found its resting state yet.

But then I think the author takes a left turn.

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.

Ignoring the irony of followers of Jesus becoming sick and tired of turning the other cheek, the clear sentiment here is that the courts are somehow telling Christians (or anyone else) that they are not allowed to pray.

Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

No one is mandating, or even encouraging that anyone should stop praying. While it may be illegal to lead people in prayer at school, or to proselytize in school, you are perfectly free to spend all day praying if you so choose.

May 2007 be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions.

I always find it interesting when Christians take the position of being persecuted. Under the laws of this country, the Christians command a sufficient majority to pass any laws or constitutional amendments they would choose to pass. If they truly united around the goal, this could be a total Christian theocracy. But the reality is, the majority of Christians are pretty happy with a secularized government. The Evangelicals are not so content, but nor are they silent. And just because they are not getting their way does not make them persecuted. Evangelicals are welcome to place their God as the foundation of their families and their institutions. But they cannot place their God as the foundation of all our families and all our institutions. That would be a direct violation of the Constitution's 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of and from religion.

God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still the greatest nation of all.

I would argue that if you find the 1st Amendment to be one of the faults, then that is a pretty fundamental disagreement. It seems unlikely you find this to be the greatest nation, except for that whole 1st Amendment thing. Still, if you can get the Christians as a group to agree, you could change that amendment. But I think you would find that America quickly ceased to be what you'd known it to be. And if you support the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the "greatest nation of all," then why complain that you can't get your God ensconced into all of our public institutions? By definition, your God does not belong there.

The Evolution of Republicans

The ten Republican Presidential candidates met last night for their first debate. While most of the effort seemed dedicated toward pinning the Iraq debacle on Donald Rumsfeld, the "WTF" moment of the night for me came when the candidates were asked which of them did not believe in evolution.

Three candidates raised their hands. They were Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo. Huckabee later clarified that while he doesn't believe in evolution, he does support it being taught in schools. (Mighty intellectually progressive of you there, Mike.)

Now arguably, none of these guys is in any danger of getting to the White House. But that hardly abates the reality that they all hold, or recently held, significant positions within government. This level of intellectual disingenuousness should not be tolerated in our leaders. But that's a separate rant.

What really got me was the very formation of the question. The implicit assertion that evolution was a function of "belief". Evolution is a fundamental scientific principle. It is a model built on observed data, not a belief. Would anyone have been able to suppress a giggle if the question had been, "By a show of hands, which of you does not believe in gravity?" Further, would anyone who raised their hand have a campaign life expectancy that went into the following morning?

I have no expectation that politicians lack ignorance on every topic, especially ones outside their area of expertise. I expect that when confronted with issues on which they are ignorant, they will seek out appropriate counsel and alleviate that ignorance. That is the hallmark of any educated person. But to assert that evolution is a subject of belief, and then to proclaim your disbelief is an unequivocal admission of stupidity.

There is a distinction between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance can be cured.

Al Qaeda's at it Again

Those darned pesky terrorists... just when you think you have them on ropes, it becomes politically beneficial for them to be a viable threat again. Wednesday, in a speech about Iraq at the Willard Hotel, the president made a speech to a group of construction contractors. In it, he mentioned al Qaeda 27 times.

"For America, the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it's whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11."

Ummm... then why are we building a concrete wall between Shiite and Sunni neighborhoods? Why is Condi Rice in Egypt trying to get local support to quell the Sunni uprising against the Shiite-led government of Iraq? Did Bush miss the Pentagon inspector general report last month that stated, al-Qaeda had no ties to Iraq before the U.S. invasion in 2003? Sure, al Qaeda is active in Iraq now, but they are just being opportunistic. No one credible seriously believes they are the major source of violence in an otherwise peaceful community.

Hell, even Fox News called the White House on this when Bret Baier noted:

"This morning the president said that al-Qaeda seems to be a bigger problem than sectarian violence. That seems to fly in the face of what we've heard in recent weeks and months on the ground in Iraq."

Tony Snow replied

"Well, you've got a shifting series of circumstances."

Yes you do Tony. But the change of circumstance isn't on the ground in Iraq, it's here in the Congress and in the failing support for the war among the American populace. I'm sure you figure it's time to drag out the tried and true 9/11 terrorist threat, and see if you can get the public into a frothy panic. It's worked for you before. But I suspect that maybe the people are getting wise to that game. I hope so.

As an additional insult to the American public, in that same speech Bush referred to the First Amendment's clause about freedom of the press as:

"...just something that we've all got to live with."

So apparently he's a little worried that we're wise to the game as well...

The Commander Guy

Honestly, you can't make this stuff up...

President Bush coined a new nickname for himself — ‘’the commander guy” — on Wednesday, as he criticized Congressional Democrats in a speech to the annual gathering of the Associated General Contractors of America, a construction industry trade group. The man who last year proclaimed “I’m the decider,’’ in response to a question about whether he would fire Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, came up with this latest moniker in explaining why he vetoed an Iraq war spending bill that dictated a timeline for troops to withdraw from Iraq.

“The question is, ‘Who ought to make that decision, the Congress or the commanders?,’’ Mr. Bush said. “As you know, my position is clear – I’m the commander guy.”

Mr. Bush issued the veto Tuesday; on Wednesday, the House failed to muster the two-thirds majority necessary for an override and Congressional leaders went to the White House to talk to the commander guy about a new spending measure.

Both sides said afterward they believed compromise was possible. But if Democrats try to tie his hands in prosecuting the war, Mr. Bush has vowed to exercise his veto power again.

Would that make him “veto man?”

It's Hard to be a Dick

Dick Cheney that is... If you somehow missed Richard Cohen's summary of the Kucinich Case for Impeachment against Cheney, read it here. I do understand why impeachment is politically unpalatable right now, but I can't help but hope that somehow, someone in this administration will be held accountable for their actions.

What If Bags Aren't My Bag, Baby??

Much has been written lately about the environmental scourge of those damnable plastic shopping bags. As a nation, we go through 100 billion of them annually. That's 12 million barrels of oil used just to make shopping bags. I'm sure the trees are happier now that we've all switched to plastic, but the environment is less than thrilled.

Now I do try to be environmentally conscious, but I admit, I haven't switched to canvas bags yet. Awww, who am I kidding? I'm lucky I remember my shopper's club card. There's no way I'm going to remember to tote bags into a store. However, I do try to recycle and reuse the bags as much as I can. But today I decided that the easiest and most efficient way to reduce the number of bags used is for the local market to take young Katie the cashier and publicly flog her as an example to other cashiers.

I stopped at the market to pick up a few things on my way home tonight. I purchased 25 items (yes, I counted). Dear sweet otherwise pleasant Katie, somehow, managed to stuff those 25 items into just 12 bags. Three of the bags only contained single items, one of which was a jar of peanuts. That's just nuts!

Taking a brief respite for a little math... assuming Katie can check-out 10 people every hour for 7 hours/day, 5 days a week. And assuming she manages to rip through as many unnecessary bags with every customer as she does with me. This chick uses 2 barrels of oil a month just in her check-out line. She must be stopped.