Katy: "All I'm saying is that women are women."
Pat: "No---women are NOT women."
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Quote of the day
(taken completely out of context, you realize)
Monday, February 27, 2006
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
Having spoken with Sharon and David yesterday, I was reminded of this great photo of their new daughter, Hannah Sophia. Not only is she beautiful, but she's going to be one cool cat.
(click)
Science 1, Pseudoscience 0
Pardon the super-long post, but I was excited to receive the following e-mail from Robert Collins, the director of Alabama Citizens for Science Education, of which I am a member. ACSE is opposed to the teaching of 'creationism' or its by-product, 'intelligent design', in our public schools, and conducts letter-writing campaigns in order to prevent the use of classrooms as pulpits in Alabama. Robert's email addresses the so-called 'Academic Freedom Act', which through ACSE's efforts, was recently defeated in the House Education Committee. His email explains how the bill was defeated, and includes a description of his own experience with the legislators. The text of the bill follows. If you are at all interested in ACSE you can get plenty of information here. Keep church and state separate!
"SUCCESS!
HB106, the misnamed Alabama "Academic Freedom Act", was defeated in the House Education Committee last Wednesday. Special thanks to everyone who called, wrote or faxed. We made a difference!! Our work is not done. An identical bill in the Alabama Senate, SB45, is up for public hearing and vote next Wednesday, March 1 at 8:30 AM. I will send out a separate email Action Alert for that.
Yours for good science,
Bob Collins
Director, Alabama Citizens for Science Education
Here is a synopsis of last Wednesday's (Feb 22) defeat of HB106 (If you don't want to read the whole thing, please scroll down to "LESSONS LEARNED"):
The House Education Committee meeting started at 1:30 in room 602, a conference room in the State Legislature building that was designed to hold about 16 people, but about twice that many were in the room. 12 Committee members were present (6 Republicans and 6 Democrats - more on that later), 3 were absent. There was one TV station there filming, and a newspaper reporter taking notes. The meeting started with a 30 minute discussion and vote on another bill unrelated to HB106.
The public hearing for HB106 started around 2 PM.
There were 4 speakers opposed, none in favor. The first speaker was from an association of Alabama school superintendents; the second represented CLAS, the "Council of Leaders of Alabama Schools". Both felt strongly that this bill would circumvent the wishes of principals, parents and school boards; both strongly recommended that it be disapproved, and if it was approved that Kindergarten through 12th (K-12) grade be excluded so that it only applied to colleges.
I was the next speaker. My speech is at the bottom of this email. The thrust of my speech was that HB106 would allow teachers at all levels of education to present inappropriate material; for example, material that was racist or advocated the Morning After Pill, RU-486 and even abortion. Nor was there any requirement that this be age appropriate, so a second grade teacher could tell his/her students all about abortion and there would be nothing that any principal, school board or parent could do about it. I showed them several examples from various publications including the Physician's Desk Reference and the Johns Hopkins Family Health Book.
Various conservative committee members asked me several questions while I was at the podium after my speech, so there was no doubt that they understood what I had said.
The last speaker was a PhD Biologist from Auburn who said that this bill does an injustice to students because it distorts the idea of what science is. He also said that Alabama universities have a huge problem with students in their science classes that have not been properly prepared by Alabama K-12 schools, and this bill would only make the problem worse.
This scientist/speaker was asked a number of questions by Committee members (about 10 minutes), and he answered them all quite well. It was evident that some of the Committee members had some deliberate deficits in their own scientific knowledge. Other Committee members were quite articulate and well-informed.
I figured that we had a slam-dunk. What conservative, in an election year, would vote for a bill that would allow teachers to promote abortion in elementary school classrooms? Read on.
The Committee then had a lengthy discussion of the bill. Several conservative members said they favored expressing various points of view (they didn't mention any of the things that I brought up). There was a lot of discussion of Section 7 (see below), several committee members objected to its statement "this act shall not be restricted by any metaphysical or religious implications of a view", so the Committee voted unanimously to delete the whole section.
Several Committee members objected to this act being applied to all age levels, so Barbara Boyd (representative from Anniston) moved that the bill be changed to apply only to colleges and graduate schools. After a lengthy discussion, this was defeated 6 to 6 in a party line vote (Republicans against, Democrats for).
They also asked for some input from the Alabama State Department of Education. The Superintendent (Joe Morton) was not there, but a representative of the Dept of Ed said nervously that they did not take a position on the bill, but neither did they feel that it was necessary because this issue is already covered in the Alabama Course of Study for Science. (Historically, the State Department of Ed had been very nervous around this 2005 and 2004 versions of this bill, probably because of fear of funding or other political repercussions. Secretly, they hate it, but can't say anything.)
Somewhere in the middle of all this, the committee asked the sponsor (Rep Beason) why no one showed up in support of this bill. (Last year there were 2 speakers supporting it.) Mr Beason replied that he asked them not to come as a courtesy to the committee so as to not take up any unnecessary time. Yeah right.
By that time, this had been going on for over an hour and everyone was pretty tired of it. So they voted and it was a 6 to 6 tie. Since a majority was required, the bill failed in committee and is probably dead for the rest of this year. As best I can tell, this was a party line vote, with all Republicans voting for it and all Democrats voting against it. (There are ways to resurrect it. So we'll have to keep watching.)
LESSONS LEARNED:
1. The seeds we planted for the past three years were clearly evident. In 2004, a similar bill sailed through this same committee and the entire House on a voice vote. In 2005, we killed it. This year, a Committee member who we called before the meeting said she had some serious reservations about it. Another Committee member had done quite a bit of detailed analysis of the bill before the meeting. And it died again this year.
2. Creationists will vote to advocate creationism in science classrooms even if it also means letting teachers advocate birth control, the morning after pill, the abortion pill and even abortion itself in those same classrooms. This is a great case study for people who think you can reason with creationists.
3. Several professional associations opposed the bill. This carried an enormous amount of weight. Whenever possible, it helps a lot to coordinate with professional associations.
4. Calling politicians shortly before the vote is very effective.
5. The Creationists had done some advance work, lining up all 6 Republican supporters so completely that nothing anyone could say would sway them. There may have some political dealmaking (e.g., I'll vote for yours if you'll vote for mine) going on that was not readily apparent.
6. The interesting thing was that everyone who voted against the "exclude K-12" amendment voted for the bill, and vice versa. THIS MEANS THAT EACH AND EVERY COMMITTEE MEMBER CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT THEY VOTED FOR SOME VERSION OF THE BILL.
Here's a copy of my speech:
My name is Bob Collins. I attended public school in Alabama from first grade all the way through college. My son attended public middle and high school here before going to college, and my daughter is currently a sophomore at Spain Park High School in Hoover. I and my family attend Second Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.
I am opposed to this bill, called the “Academic Freedom Act”.
Everyone in this room knows what this bill is really about - the purpose of this bill is to try to promote teaching creationism in the public school classrooms. But don't take my word for it. I downloaded this copy of this bill yesterday from Alison, the official web Legislature site, and here on the bottom it says "creationism" and "intelligent design". Teaching creationism in public school science classrooms is not only unconstitutional, but does not help prepare our children to compete in an increasingly scientific global job market.
Please believe me when I say that I respect the beliefs of creationists. In fact, I used to be a creationist. But this bill goes far beyond teaching creationism, and it's the non-creationist things this bill would allow that I'd like to talk about for just another couple of minutes.
I'd like to call this Committee's attention to the phrase "present the full range of scientific views" in this bill. In fact, it appears four times in this bill and is really at the heart of what this bill is trying to do, two of those times it adds "in any curricula or course of learning". I'd like to ask this committee to really think about the full effects of what it means to allow teachers to "present the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning" in elementary, middle and high school classrooms.
One of the most insidious books to be published lately is “The Bell Curve”, which was very popular and sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Here we see a very scientific-sounding book, complete with graphs and scientific language, that presents the view that African Americans are genetically programmed to be not as smart as white Americans. These differences are substantial - 15 IQ points, that is one and one half standard deviations below whites.
Now this bill does require that teachers present only "views" that have not been "soundly refuted by empirical or observational science", but it does not say who decides that, and I've never met a prejudiced person who did not think that they had reasons, however, wrong, for their views. We would probably have to take them to court to disprove their views, and I think we can all agree that we would all rather spend our money on students than spend it on lawyers.
Hopefully someday Alabama will grow out of our prejudices. Unfortunately we haven't grown out of it yet. But even when we do, this bill will still be fatally flawed.
The intent of this bill is to allow teachers to present alternative theories or views. So it should be clear that if a teacher has the right to present theories under this bill that this bill would also permit them to present well established scientific facts. But I think we can all agree that there are some things that are well proven by science that still do not belong in elementary, middle and high school classrooms.
I brought a few of them with me today.
I'm sure that most of us are familiar with the Physician's Desk Reference. This book contains the product labeling information for most drugs available in the United States today. Drug companies are legally required to tell the truth in this labeling and to back up that proof with large amounts of well-tested science that is approved by the Federal government's Food and Drug Administration.
So let me read some of the full range of scientific views presented in this book, (Plan B).
The PDR is not the only source of this type of information. Consumer Reports has its own guide, again backed by lots and lots of hard science. Here on page 1138 it says, (mifeprestone).
And then there is the Johns Hopkins Family Health Book, an official publication of Johns Hopkins University. Certainly anything in this book would qualify as mainstream science, would fulfil the Academic Freedom Act's requirement that the views presented have published "empirical" and "observational support" and be covered by the phrase "the full range of scientific views". It says right here on page 280, (abortion).
Certainly there are times when parents, ministers and others will have to talk to our children about these things. But these are very sensitive subjects, and it this bill gives any teacher the power to discuss them without asking the permission of any parent, principal or school board. I hope everyone can see that this is not what we want for our school children.
Here's a copy of HB106:
HB106
By Representative Beason
RFD Education
Rd 1 10-JAN-06
SYNOPSIS:
Existing law does not expressly provide a right nor does it expressly protect tenure and employment for a public school teacher or a teacher at an institution of higher education for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views. In addition, students are not expressly provided a right to positions on views.
This bill would expressly provide rights and protection for teachers concerning scientific presentations on views and students concerning their positions on views.
A BILL
TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
Providing teacher rights and protection for a public school teacher or a teacher at an institution of higher education to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in applicable curricula or in a course of learning; providing employment and tenure protection and protection against discrimination for any public school teacher or teacher at a public institution of higher education related to the presentation of such information; and providing student protection for subscribing to a particular position on views.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:
Section 1. This law shall be known as the "Academic Freedom Act."
Section 2. The Legislature finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories. The Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of students to hold a position on views. It is the intent of the Legislature that this act expressly protects those rights.
Section 3. Every K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of Alabama, shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning.
Section 4. No K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of Alabama, shall be terminated, disciplined, denied tenure, or otherwise discriminated against for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning, provided, with respect to K-12 teachers, the Alabama Course of Study for Science has been taught as appropriate to the grade and subject assignment.
Section 5. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution of higher education, shall be penalized in any way because he or she may subscribe to a particular position on any views.
Section 6. The rights and privileges contained in this act apply when topics are taught that may generate controversy, such as biological or chemical origins. Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or encouraging any change in the state curriculum standards in K-12 public schools, nor shall any provision of this act be construed as prescribing the curricular content of any course in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education in the state.
Section 7. Nothing in this act shall be construed as protecting as scientific any view that lacks published empirical or observational support or that has been soundly refuted by empirical or observational science in published scientific debate. Likewise, the protection provided by this act shall not be restricted by any metaphysical or religious implications of a view, so long as the views are defensible from and justified by empirical science and observation of the natural world.
Section 8. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
Section 9. This act shall become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law."
"SUCCESS!
HB106, the misnamed Alabama "Academic Freedom Act", was defeated in the House Education Committee last Wednesday. Special thanks to everyone who called, wrote or faxed. We made a difference!! Our work is not done. An identical bill in the Alabama Senate, SB45, is up for public hearing and vote next Wednesday, March 1 at 8:30 AM. I will send out a separate email Action Alert for that.
Yours for good science,
Bob Collins
Director, Alabama Citizens for Science Education
Here is a synopsis of last Wednesday's (Feb 22) defeat of HB106 (If you don't want to read the whole thing, please scroll down to "LESSONS LEARNED"):
The House Education Committee meeting started at 1:30 in room 602, a conference room in the State Legislature building that was designed to hold about 16 people, but about twice that many were in the room. 12 Committee members were present (6 Republicans and 6 Democrats - more on that later), 3 were absent. There was one TV station there filming, and a newspaper reporter taking notes. The meeting started with a 30 minute discussion and vote on another bill unrelated to HB106.
The public hearing for HB106 started around 2 PM.
There were 4 speakers opposed, none in favor. The first speaker was from an association of Alabama school superintendents; the second represented CLAS, the "Council of Leaders of Alabama Schools". Both felt strongly that this bill would circumvent the wishes of principals, parents and school boards; both strongly recommended that it be disapproved, and if it was approved that Kindergarten through 12th (K-12) grade be excluded so that it only applied to colleges.
I was the next speaker. My speech is at the bottom of this email. The thrust of my speech was that HB106 would allow teachers at all levels of education to present inappropriate material; for example, material that was racist or advocated the Morning After Pill, RU-486 and even abortion. Nor was there any requirement that this be age appropriate, so a second grade teacher could tell his/her students all about abortion and there would be nothing that any principal, school board or parent could do about it. I showed them several examples from various publications including the Physician's Desk Reference and the Johns Hopkins Family Health Book.
Various conservative committee members asked me several questions while I was at the podium after my speech, so there was no doubt that they understood what I had said.
The last speaker was a PhD Biologist from Auburn who said that this bill does an injustice to students because it distorts the idea of what science is. He also said that Alabama universities have a huge problem with students in their science classes that have not been properly prepared by Alabama K-12 schools, and this bill would only make the problem worse.
This scientist/speaker was asked a number of questions by Committee members (about 10 minutes), and he answered them all quite well. It was evident that some of the Committee members had some deliberate deficits in their own scientific knowledge. Other Committee members were quite articulate and well-informed.
I figured that we had a slam-dunk. What conservative, in an election year, would vote for a bill that would allow teachers to promote abortion in elementary school classrooms? Read on.
The Committee then had a lengthy discussion of the bill. Several conservative members said they favored expressing various points of view (they didn't mention any of the things that I brought up). There was a lot of discussion of Section 7 (see below), several committee members objected to its statement "this act shall not be restricted by any metaphysical or religious implications of a view", so the Committee voted unanimously to delete the whole section.
Several Committee members objected to this act being applied to all age levels, so Barbara Boyd (representative from Anniston) moved that the bill be changed to apply only to colleges and graduate schools. After a lengthy discussion, this was defeated 6 to 6 in a party line vote (Republicans against, Democrats for).
They also asked for some input from the Alabama State Department of Education. The Superintendent (Joe Morton) was not there, but a representative of the Dept of Ed said nervously that they did not take a position on the bill, but neither did they feel that it was necessary because this issue is already covered in the Alabama Course of Study for Science. (Historically, the State Department of Ed had been very nervous around this 2005 and 2004 versions of this bill, probably because of fear of funding or other political repercussions. Secretly, they hate it, but can't say anything.)
Somewhere in the middle of all this, the committee asked the sponsor (Rep Beason) why no one showed up in support of this bill. (Last year there were 2 speakers supporting it.) Mr Beason replied that he asked them not to come as a courtesy to the committee so as to not take up any unnecessary time. Yeah right.
By that time, this had been going on for over an hour and everyone was pretty tired of it. So they voted and it was a 6 to 6 tie. Since a majority was required, the bill failed in committee and is probably dead for the rest of this year. As best I can tell, this was a party line vote, with all Republicans voting for it and all Democrats voting against it. (There are ways to resurrect it. So we'll have to keep watching.)
LESSONS LEARNED:
1. The seeds we planted for the past three years were clearly evident. In 2004, a similar bill sailed through this same committee and the entire House on a voice vote. In 2005, we killed it. This year, a Committee member who we called before the meeting said she had some serious reservations about it. Another Committee member had done quite a bit of detailed analysis of the bill before the meeting. And it died again this year.
2. Creationists will vote to advocate creationism in science classrooms even if it also means letting teachers advocate birth control, the morning after pill, the abortion pill and even abortion itself in those same classrooms. This is a great case study for people who think you can reason with creationists.
3. Several professional associations opposed the bill. This carried an enormous amount of weight. Whenever possible, it helps a lot to coordinate with professional associations.
4. Calling politicians shortly before the vote is very effective.
5. The Creationists had done some advance work, lining up all 6 Republican supporters so completely that nothing anyone could say would sway them. There may have some political dealmaking (e.g., I'll vote for yours if you'll vote for mine) going on that was not readily apparent.
6. The interesting thing was that everyone who voted against the "exclude K-12" amendment voted for the bill, and vice versa. THIS MEANS THAT EACH AND EVERY COMMITTEE MEMBER CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT THEY VOTED FOR SOME VERSION OF THE BILL.
Here's a copy of my speech:
My name is Bob Collins. I attended public school in Alabama from first grade all the way through college. My son attended public middle and high school here before going to college, and my daughter is currently a sophomore at Spain Park High School in Hoover. I and my family attend Second Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.
I am opposed to this bill, called the “Academic Freedom Act”.
Everyone in this room knows what this bill is really about - the purpose of this bill is to try to promote teaching creationism in the public school classrooms. But don't take my word for it. I downloaded this copy of this bill yesterday from Alison, the official web Legislature site, and here on the bottom it says "creationism" and "intelligent design". Teaching creationism in public school science classrooms is not only unconstitutional, but does not help prepare our children to compete in an increasingly scientific global job market.
Please believe me when I say that I respect the beliefs of creationists. In fact, I used to be a creationist. But this bill goes far beyond teaching creationism, and it's the non-creationist things this bill would allow that I'd like to talk about for just another couple of minutes.
I'd like to call this Committee's attention to the phrase "present the full range of scientific views" in this bill. In fact, it appears four times in this bill and is really at the heart of what this bill is trying to do, two of those times it adds "in any curricula or course of learning". I'd like to ask this committee to really think about the full effects of what it means to allow teachers to "present the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning" in elementary, middle and high school classrooms.
One of the most insidious books to be published lately is “The Bell Curve”, which was very popular and sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Here we see a very scientific-sounding book, complete with graphs and scientific language, that presents the view that African Americans are genetically programmed to be not as smart as white Americans. These differences are substantial - 15 IQ points, that is one and one half standard deviations below whites.
Now this bill does require that teachers present only "views" that have not been "soundly refuted by empirical or observational science", but it does not say who decides that, and I've never met a prejudiced person who did not think that they had reasons, however, wrong, for their views. We would probably have to take them to court to disprove their views, and I think we can all agree that we would all rather spend our money on students than spend it on lawyers.
Hopefully someday Alabama will grow out of our prejudices. Unfortunately we haven't grown out of it yet. But even when we do, this bill will still be fatally flawed.
The intent of this bill is to allow teachers to present alternative theories or views. So it should be clear that if a teacher has the right to present theories under this bill that this bill would also permit them to present well established scientific facts. But I think we can all agree that there are some things that are well proven by science that still do not belong in elementary, middle and high school classrooms.
I brought a few of them with me today.
I'm sure that most of us are familiar with the Physician's Desk Reference. This book contains the product labeling information for most drugs available in the United States today. Drug companies are legally required to tell the truth in this labeling and to back up that proof with large amounts of well-tested science that is approved by the Federal government's Food and Drug Administration.
So let me read some of the full range of scientific views presented in this book, (Plan B).
The PDR is not the only source of this type of information. Consumer Reports has its own guide, again backed by lots and lots of hard science. Here on page 1138 it says, (mifeprestone).
And then there is the Johns Hopkins Family Health Book, an official publication of Johns Hopkins University. Certainly anything in this book would qualify as mainstream science, would fulfil the Academic Freedom Act's requirement that the views presented have published "empirical" and "observational support" and be covered by the phrase "the full range of scientific views". It says right here on page 280, (abortion).
Certainly there are times when parents, ministers and others will have to talk to our children about these things. But these are very sensitive subjects, and it this bill gives any teacher the power to discuss them without asking the permission of any parent, principal or school board. I hope everyone can see that this is not what we want for our school children.
Here's a copy of HB106:
HB106
By Representative Beason
RFD Education
Rd 1 10-JAN-06
SYNOPSIS:
Existing law does not expressly provide a right nor does it expressly protect tenure and employment for a public school teacher or a teacher at an institution of higher education for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views. In addition, students are not expressly provided a right to positions on views.
This bill would expressly provide rights and protection for teachers concerning scientific presentations on views and students concerning their positions on views.
TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
Providing teacher rights and protection for a public school teacher or a teacher at an institution of higher education to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in applicable curricula or in a course of learning; providing employment and tenure protection and protection against discrimination for any public school teacher or teacher at a public institution of higher education related to the presentation of such information; and providing student protection for subscribing to a particular position on views.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:
Section 1. This law shall be known as the "Academic Freedom Act."
Section 2. The Legislature finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories. The Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of students to hold a position on views. It is the intent of the Legislature that this act expressly protects those rights.
Section 3. Every K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of Alabama, shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning.
Section 4. No K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of Alabama, shall be terminated, disciplined, denied tenure, or otherwise discriminated against for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning, provided, with respect to K-12 teachers, the Alabama Course of Study for Science has been taught as appropriate to the grade and subject assignment.
Section 5. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution of higher education, shall be penalized in any way because he or she may subscribe to a particular position on any views.
Section 6. The rights and privileges contained in this act apply when topics are taught that may generate controversy, such as biological or chemical origins. Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or encouraging any change in the state curriculum standards in K-12 public schools, nor shall any provision of this act be construed as prescribing the curricular content of any course in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education in the state.
Section 7. Nothing in this act shall be construed as protecting as scientific any view that lacks published empirical or observational support or that has been soundly refuted by empirical or observational science in published scientific debate. Likewise, the protection provided by this act shall not be restricted by any metaphysical or religious implications of a view, so long as the views are defensible from and justified by empirical science and observation of the natural world.
Section 8. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
Section 9. This act shall become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law."
Friday, February 24, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
oh really?
Note from the editors of this blog: The following excerpt from The Skeptic's Annotated Quran is meant to merely convey a portion of its teaching for edification and delight. It is in no way a criticism of the Muslim faith, except for those parts which encourage intolerance and oppression, and which incite fanatics to dress themselves in high-grade TNT on the weekends.
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other. ... So good women are the obedient. ... As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.
--4:34
Also be sure and check out The Skeptic's Annotated Bible and The Skeptic's Annotated Book of Mormon.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
good idea
Got a gun? Turn it in, get Sixers tickets.
For the next week, anyone who turns in a firearm to Philadelphia police will get two free tickets to a Philadelphia 76ers game.No questions will be asked about the firearm, officials said. It will be taken, melted down, and turned into playground equipment.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
oh great
In the ever-exasperating world of state revenue-building, the latest idea is to tax you when you get a speeding ticket. Even though you have generated no income or any benefit from the ticket whatsoever. If you live in Michigan, New Jersey, Texas or New York, you may want to ease it back a bit. And then write your Congressman.
my new favorite word:
Snowclone.
The term was coined by Glen Whitman in response to the following request from Geoffrey Pullum on the blog Language Log: "the thing we need a name for is a multi-use, customizable, instantly recognizable, time-worn, quoted or misquoted phrase or sentence that can be used in an entirely open array of different jokey variants by lazy journalists and writers."
SCOTUS OKs hallucinogenic tea
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that a small congregation in New Mexico may use hallucinogenic tea as part of a four-hour ritual intended to connect with God. Meanwhile, thousands suffer daily from abuses of caffeine, cigarettes, prescription drugs and alcohol.
Monday, February 20, 2006
handy
Are you still directed to the msn.com home page when you log on? Well that's about enough of that. Customize your own start page at Pageflakes.
Friday, February 17, 2006
may it please the court
Well, I'm writing from a location I never anticipated blogging from--inside the moot court room at the William and Mary School of Law in Williamsburg, VA. I'm here with the constitutional law moot court team (I'm the coach this year) for an appellate advocacy competition and we've got about twenty minutes before Michael and Dan have to go. They're nervous, as you might imagine. Michael is reading through his folder intently, reciting case facts to himself in an intense undertone; Dan is meandering through the halls, checking out the other teams, sizing up the competition. We are about to head to our appointed classroom, where they will argue for 15 minutes each in front of federal circuit judges from all over the nation. Talk about stress. Even though they've been immersed in their issues and arguments since Christmas, there's just so much riding on the line, and so much they can't control until they're standing there fielding a question. I was in their shoes last year, and it sucked. But once you get going you're reminded of just how much preparation you've done, and it gets easier. I think they'll do fine. The school is quite nice, and we actually had a fun time this morning strolling through the streets of colonial Williamsburg, watching the period actors hang about in their tri-cornered hats and stockings.
If Michael and Dan do well, we'll continue arguing until Saturday evening, and hopefully bag a trophy. If not, we'll all just be glad to have this thing over with once and for all. I guess the good thing is that we've all learned a great deal about the intricacies of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, which we may never have picked up otherwise. Anyway, it's showtime. The stage is lit, and the gods of eloquence are hovering in the wings, waiting to see who deserves their favor. Pray it is us.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
A Zesty Enterprise
Hey folks, my friend Sally-Anne has a new blog, and it looks cool. Definitely stop by and check it out, yo. (What is the plural of "yo"?)
http://zestyenterprise.blogspot.com
http://zestyenterprise.blogspot.com
how i love thee
The Eighth Annual Valentine's Day Poems.
I give up.
If you won't let me love you,
Please then, just let me pretend you love me
And I'm ignoring you because I find your love to be pathetic.
That way I can leave you alone
And still find myself with some dignity.
Unless you want to make out right now.
In which case, that's cool.
Happy Valentine's Day
I think Hollywood’s most memorable movie kisses is appropriate.
I love you, Mary Pat!
Monday, February 13, 2006
way back
This a fascinating article on the Sentinelese people, who live on a remote island in the Bay of Bengal, who have remained almost completely isolated from civilized humanity since, oh the stone ages.
oh lord
Good thing we've got JesusPets.
If you're a Christian, you've got a big problem on your hands. After you're swept away to walk the streets of gold with Jesus, red hot lava is going to pour from Mt. St. Helens and right over your dog, leaving his burned body encased for millennia until discovered by godless alien archeologists. And what do you suppose they'll do to his charred yet supple and hermetically sealed haunches? They are godless after all. (What would you do? That long space voyage sure can be lonely.)
JesusPets has the solution. For a modest fee you can live for eternity relatively guilt-free knowing a JesusPets animal lover took care of your dog for the rest of his or her natural life.
nice
Here's a great list of torrent files from RockyGrass 2005. Highlights include Bela Fleck, Doc Watson, Alison Krauss, and more.
I've always wanted one
This company builds hidden passageways in your house. Now you can have direct access to the Batcave.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
hmm
Interesting interview with Daniel C. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University who recently wrote a book called Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, which promotes the idea that religious devotion is a function of biology.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Thursday, February 09, 2006
I have a problem
A plane is standing on a runway that resembles a large conveyor belt. The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer belt/runway moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?
cold
From Thoreau's blog:
"The coldest night for a long, long time was last. Sheets froze stiff about the faces. Cat mewed to have the door opened, but was at first disinclined to go out. When she came in at nine she smelt of meadow-hay. We all took her up and smelled of her, it was so fragrant. Had cuddled in some barn. People dreaded to go to bed. The ground cracked in the night as if a powder-mill had blown up, and the timbers of the house also. My pail of water was frozen in the morning so that I could not break it. Must leave many buttons unbuttoned, owing to numb fingers. Iron was like fire in the hands. Thermometer at about 7:30 A.M. gone into the bulb, -19 degrees at least. The cold has stopped the clock. Every bearded man in the street is a graybeard. Bread, meat, milk, cheese, etc., etc., all frozen. See the inside of your cellar door all covered and sparkling with frost like Golconda. Pity the poor who have not a large wood-pile. The latches are white with frost, and every nail-head in entries, etc., has a white cap. The chopper hesitates to go to the woods. Yet I see S.W.—stumping past, three quarters of a mile for his morning dram."
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
i knew it
Interesting article on why we pay more for water than gasoline. Bottled Water: Nectar of the Frauds?
smoke, held
If you're like me and happen to be fascinated by Aerogel, you'll be happy to note that now you can buy some to put on your desk.
the new garden of Eden
The National Geographic has a good story here with photos of the "Lost World" of Indonesia, a mountainous rainforest area hitherto undiscovered by scientists which has produced an amazing variety of unknown and 'extinct' animal species. There's another good article here.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Reason #3,456,081 not to be a roach
This is a fascinating article about a wasp called Ampulex compressa, which has the ability to sting its victims and make them obedient to its will in every way. Definitely makes me glad to be perched atop the food chain.
The wasp slips her stinger through the roach’s exoskeleton and directly into its brain. She apparently uses sensors along the sides of the stinger to guide it through the brain …This and other stories can be found in this book.From the outside, the effect is surreal. The wasp does not paralyze the cockroach. In fact, the roach is able to lift up its front legs again and walk. But now it cannot move of its own accord. The wasp takes hold of one of the roach’s antennae and leads it–in the words of Israeli scientists who study Ampulex–like a dog on a leash.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Thursday, February 02, 2006
nice
I couldn't really care less about the Super Bowl personally, but I post this for the sheer genius truth of it. Go team.
Five things I had to keep explaining to the guy at REI
1. I’ll mostly be seated and typing while I wear these shoes
2. I very rarely leave the house
3. There’s a paucity of rocks to climb in the Sunset District
4. I’d prefer shoes that don’t look like “The Visible Man”
5. These have more than enough “torsion control” for smoking cigars and walking to the Walgreens
2. I very rarely leave the house
3. There’s a paucity of rocks to climb in the Sunset District
4. I’d prefer shoes that don’t look like “The Visible Man”
5. These have more than enough “torsion control” for smoking cigars and walking to the Walgreens
via 5ives
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
call Lance Armstrong
The USB flash drive on your keychain is old and tired. You desperately need a flash Wristband
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)