The rights and dignity of plants will not be assailed in Switzerland. The government's ethics committee has decreed that bio-ethicists's projects will not be eligible for funding if it's determined that said project might cause the plants to be humiliated. At least that's what the implication is, I think. No, really.


This should creep everyone out, but I don't suppose it will. The BBC knows where you live. And in this video, as images of British cities morph into computer circuit boards, they're coming to "your town, your street, your home" to collect if you don't pay your TV license fee. Because "it's all in our database." We are controlling the transmission. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. (Outer Limits...duh)

P. J. O'Rourke, in an LA Times article, offers advice to graduating seniors via the commencement address he'd give if only they'd invite him.

Here is Sports Illustrated's ranking of the major league ballparks as polled by fans. My personal favorite, old Tiger Stadium (neé Navin Field, neé Briggs Stadium) hasn't been occupied since the Tigers left in 1999 and will be demolished soon. Here's another neat site for Tiger fans that tells the history of the ballparks that stood at Michigan and Trumbull in downtown Detroit. Once a year, if I was lucky, I could get my dad to take me and a couple of friends up to Detroit for a ballgame. Sitting in the upper deck in right field one time we watched Stormin' Norman Cash hit one over our heads and onto the roof. The pictures of an empty, abandoned Tiger Stadium make me nostalgic and a little sad.


You know your problems are few and your blessings are many if this is the headline in your hometown paper:

Passengers inconvenienced when doors of Tokyo subway train don't open

No!! Say it isn't so!! What is to be next? Godzilla returning to crush us? Aieeeee!! Please open the doors!!


Here's an interesting site with a discussion of the movie "Expelled" and Ben Stein's recent hyperbolic comments concerning the role of science in the Holocaust. I like their pantheon of "Chicago Boyz" at the top of the home page.


This is a bit odd. Food Fight is a re-creation of wars fought since, and including, WWII. Countries are represented by foods characteristic of their national identity (e.g. hamburgers for the US, sausages for Germany).  You can get banned from participating in graduation ceremonies for this kind of thing...or so I've heard.

How cool is this? Watch the video and read the article to learn about the future of regenerating fingers (like the man in the video) and eventually maybe organs and limbs. Wow.


Now this is a guy I want in charge of the country. Unfortunately, he shows up too infrequently. My theory is Mr. Bush is basically a friendly, easy-going kind of guy and just very slow to anger. Wish he got p***ed like this more often.

Hey, it's guest-blogger time!! Wheee!! Here's a review of Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled," by my friend, Chris. Comments? Questions? Personal anecdotes?

Scott,
 
So, I went and saw the movie, 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'.  I’ve since read a lot of reviews out there that poke at many of the simpler flaws in this movie, like the blatant quote-mining of its interview subjects; its attempt to package atheism and the theory of evolution with Nazism and genocide, materialism, determinism, etc.; the film's lack of any substantial positive content to support the case for an 'Intelligent Designer'; etc.  So rather than go over all of that ground, I'd rather focus on the more fundamental issues presented by the movie.
 
But before I do, one thing I would like to challenge is what seems to be a favorite tactic of theists, including Ed Morrissey in his review that you forwarded to me, to attempt to portray atheism as a rival belief system containing positive assertions (e.g., an assertion that something either exists or that some event has occurred; examples of positive assertions would be that quarks exist or that a crime has been committed).  When atheists cannot prove the non-existence of a god, theists claim that atheism is no better off than belief in God.
 
While it is no doubt true that atheists have positive beliefs about things, including Dawkins, that doesn't mean that atheism is a system of positive beliefs.  The word atheism is a conjunction of the common prefix for negation, 'a', and the word for belief in a god or gods, 'theism'.  So, 'atheism' literally means 'non-theism', or the absence of a belief in god.  There is an infinite potential of things that I don't believe in -- including elves, unicorns, and God -- but knowing that implies nothing at all about what I do believe; neither whether I'm a godless, altruistic communist like Marx, or an atheistic, egoistic capitalist like Rand, or something else entirely.
 
'The onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive.'  I always thought that was a well-understood principle in philosophy.  After all, this is the very principle underlying the American legal principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty.  Proof is based on physical evidence and logical reasoning.  Things that don't exist (or events that didn't occur) have no physical characteristics that can be offered as evidence (since they don't exist!), and so it makes no sense to demand them of those holding the negative position (an atheist or a legal defendant).  The best that a defender of a negative position can do is to point out flaws in the reasoning of those asserting the positive position, or state the reasons for why such a thing cannot exist (or, for why the event in question could not have possibly occurred, which in law is called an 'alibi').
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
It’s been said that no one ever doubted the existence of God until philosophers tried to prove his existence.  The explanation is that the tools of philosophers – logic and reason – are ultimately inconsistent with religion.  Logic and reason are also among the primary tools of science, and so for that reason, I suspect this movie’s loud assertion of the scientific validity of an ‘Intelligent Designer’ will have the effect of only hastening the demise of that 'theory'.
 
Aside from the narrator and guide of the movie, Ben Stein, the main character in the movie is biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins.  I don't know what kind of biologist Dawkins is, but from what I heard from him in this movie and what I read in his book, 'The God Delusion', he is a lousy philosopher and an ineffective critic of theism.  He says some really stupid things.  No doubt, the filmmakers featured Dawkins so prominently -- and not an Objectivist philosopher, or someone like Christopher Hitchens, who they also interviewed for this film -- because of Dawkins' philosophic incompetence.
 
The 'Intelligent Design' (ID) advocates claim their views are science.  But is that true?
 
'Science' is systematic knowledge gained by the use of reason based on observation, where 'reason' is the faculty that identifies and integrates observed perceptual data in conceptual terms in accordance with logic.
 
'Supernatural', etymologically, means that which is above or beyond nature.  'Nature', in turn, denotes existence from a certain perspective; it is existence regarded as a system of interconnected entities governed by law, and therefore open to observation and understanding.  'Science' is understanding of 'nature'.
 
The designer that ID posits as the creator of life cannot be a natural being (even a natural 'alien' being, as Dawkins idiotically suggests in the movie) because, by the very premises of the ID proponents, the existence of such a natural being complex enough to design other life must itself necessarily require a designer.  So, the designer that ID postulates must, ultimately then, be a supernatural being.
 
‘A system of belief in and worship of a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe’ is the definition of 'religion', and the term for that supernatural power in a monotheistic religion is ‘god'.
 
So, ID is not science because ID is about a supernatural being, whereas science studies the natural.  The ID movement is a religious movement.
 
Given the constant attacks against atheism in the film and by ID proponents generally, it’s abundantly clear anyway that ID’s advocates are religiously motivated.  (Honestly, not that everyone doesn’t really know this, of course, but the point’s proven now.)
 
No one -- not even the filmmakers -- has accused academia or mainstream scientific research centers of discriminating against scientists for their religious views, but only for their stated scientific views.  And, or course, it's entirely appropriate for scientists to be evaluated on the quality of their scientific views (otherwise we'd have all kinds of kooks teaching every kind of nonsense in the schools).  There's nothing unfair about this, at all.  And, no one has said that religion can't be discussed in academia -- in the humanities.  They've only said that it's absurd to attempt to characterize religious views of the 'supernatural' as science.
 
Far from being unfair, the exclusion of religious content from science is critical to the further growth of civilization.
 
There’s nothing currently known that couldn’t have been ‘explained’ by reference to the actions of an imagined supernatural entity.  This is, in fact, what humans have done for all of their existence prior to the development of science.  And everything still currently unknown about nature could likewise be 'explained' by reference to a supernatural being.  To accept ID as an explanation for anything would be a complete death sentence for science.  Why bother studying nature when we can just say, 'God did it!'
 
ID is nothing more than another attempt by ignorant humans to explain the unknown in nature by positing the existence and actions of some magical, ‘supernatural’ entity.  The IDiots pushing ID want to take us back to the Dark Ages, when 'God did it!' served as a sufficient explanation for all natural phenomena that were not yet understood.  What brought humanity out of the Dark Ages wasn’t religion, but its rejection through the increased reliance on reason in the Western world (starting with men like Aquinas and his attempts to use pagan, Aristotelian logic to prove God’s existence).
 
Few people seem to realize that the current ID debate is not new.  For the most part, it is nothing more than a rehashed version of the 'Design' arguments made by theologians for the existence of God for hundreds or years, at least back to Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages.  And, of course, these arguments have been refuted by philosophers.  The best presentation that I know of is "Atheism: The Case Against God", by George H. Smith.  As Smith relates them, there are three basic forms of the Argument from Design:
 
(1) The Teleological Argument (that natural entities act to achieve specific ends, which behavior cannot have been by chance).
 
(2) The Analogical Argument (that natural objects display a level of complexity that is obviously evidence of conscious design).
 
(3) The Argument from Life (that the origination of life from the random interaction of molecules is unbelievably improbable).
 
The film provides versions of the second (Analogical) and third (Life) forms of these arguments, but not (that I could tell) of the first (Teleological).  The central focus of the film's argument (to the very limited extent that it actually makes one) is on the 'improbability' of life arising without a designer.  The notion of 'improbability' seems to be the common thread running through all of the design arguments.
 
In philosophy there is something analogous to an alibi in law; a statement by those defending the negative atheistic position as to why a supernatural entity cannot possibly exist.  The basic problem with all theistic arguments boils down to an evasion and contradiction of the most fundamental axiom of philosophy, that 'Existence Exists', and its corollary axioms of Identity ('A is A') and Causation ('An entity must act in accordance with its nature').  And, this contradiction of basic axioms certainly exists with respect to all references made by theists (and also, for that matter, by Dawkins) to 'improbability' in their arguments.
 
Rather than go into a full discussion of this, which is more involved than I can go into here, I'll just refer anyone interested to Smith's book, which is thankfully still in print nearly thirty years after its initial publication.  Or, I'll gladly discuss it with anyone who's interested.

A robot, a ROBOT, mind you, will conduct the Detroit Symphony. I've seen plenty of these in front of orchestras, just never dressed like this one.

A little plain-speak on taxes, retirement and the government bureaucrat mindset. Follow the link for the whole thing. Mr. Pournelle speaks of taxes as a government "fine." As in:

 They fine us for speeding, for spitting in the streets, for doing things they don't want us to do: they also fine us for improving our property, investing money to grow the economy, saving money; the implications are pretty clear?

Never thought about it that way, but it offers clarity, I think.


In a related item, Rep. John Campbell of California has introduced a bill called the "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is" Act. The bill would allow wealthy liberals citizens to voluntarily contribute more of their income to the federal government.

H.R. 5783 was introduced in response to complaints from many wealthy liberals that taxes should be higher on everyone, including small businesses, married couples, and couples with children.  Increasing taxes for these groups only hurts hard-working Americans during this uncertain economic time.

This allows people who are concerned with inequality the opportunity to do their part to ameliorate the situation. What could be more fair?


A review of Ben Stein's Expelled. Seems the movie is less an intelligent design polemic and at least as much a call for free and open discussion in the university. Haven't seen it, though.

In what will be a signal event for many of you ("Gosh, I remember where I was when Scott starting posting every day!") I'm going to be posting daily in conjunction with my daughter's indoctrination home-schooling. Please try to keep your ecstatic ululations to a minimum. Thank you.

Time magazine can, obviously, do what they like but do you think they'll accompany their upcoming issue with a big disclaimer? One that says, We will no longer pretend to be content with telling you what's going on in the world and confining our editorial positions to one or two columns, labeled as opinion. No, we have decided to nakedly enter the arena of advocacy and are therefore now marching in jack-booted lockstep with the International Global Warming Fix-It Gestapo. Get in step, comrades or be trampled under the soles of our righteousness!! Also, we will alter and exploit an iconic photograf to our earnest purpose. SILENCE! You WILL recognize the seriousness of this crisis and the goodness and compassion in our heart.
Here's the interview with Time's managing editor, Rick Stengel. What a surprise MSNBC put him on to spew his propaganda. Not.


From Jimmy Carter:

First of all, turns out that since the recently be-wreathed (by Carter) and Nobel Peace-Prize winning (wow) Yasser Arafat instituted the current round of pusillanimity around 1000 Israelis have been killed. By Carter's figuring 30 to 40,000 Palestinians must have died, right? Actually it's about 4600. Sad enough but off from Carter's figure by a factor of 10. Oh, and if you knew that firing a rocket into Israel would cause them to retaliate and it would kill 10 times [sic] or even 4 times the number of people you were managing to kill would you continue to do it? Who said that one definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? Doesn't it manifestly apply here? To put it diplmatically, I don't think we're dealing with people who understand the world in the way that we do.
With this and his other recent endeavors as an example, Mr. Carter has proven to be truly an embarrasment to himself and, unfortunately, our country.


The new Spanish Defense Minister is a (very pregnant) woman, as we can see in this photo. She's also a committed pacifist. Hmm. I  suspect this may become a conflict of interest at some point, but it certainly sounds, to quote Dirty Harry Callahan, "real stylish."


A moving testimonial to a fallen comrade-in-arms.


Why it's best, if you're an ex-president or the head of the Anglican church, to speak wisely and circumspectly when you criticize your country.


This was voted one of the top 100 moments in Major League Bseball history. Was it really 33 years ago?


An 8 year-old Yemeni girl has been granted a divorce. Her husband admits that the marriage was "consummated, but I did not beat her." Well, that's a relief! Isn't this what we should mean when we talk of the oppression of women? And why haven't we heard a constant chorus of loud cries about this sort of thing from NOW. Too busy decrying the slave trade (of women of course) in the US.


Obama defends his association with former 60's Weather Underground anarchist and serial bomber William "call me Bill" Ayers, a friend and supporter. He held a fund-raising event for Obama at his house.


From the Democratic debate Thursday evening:

Let me get this straight: Mr. Obama regards taxes as not for the purpose of raising revenue (because, don't forget, revenue declines when you increase the tax!) to finance the business of government. They're actually to be used for the manipulation of the social order! Isn't this one of the most egregiously transparent socialist-Marxist statement from a major party candidate on record? Unbelievable.


What a beautiful and insightful statement about, uh...OK, I'm not sure what. But does it really matter? Artificially inseminating yourself then inducing a miscarriage speaks for itself, does it not? Disgusting.


If you haven't visited Stuff White People Like you're missing the fun. Latest post? We like Rugby! Well, not rugby exactly. We like the shirts.

Hilarious, and somewhat frightening, what-if article by "Sins of the Assassins" author Robert Ferrigno. It's 2012 and Obama-appointed "Outreach Ambassador to the Heartland" Bill Clinton muses about the legislated demise of conservative talk radio, and other happenings, under a "Barry" and Michelle administration.


Bruce Springsteen comes out for Obama. Here's why:

He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next President. He speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that’s interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where "…nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone."

At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man’s life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams of My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment.

What an enormous load of crap and what a non-surprising disappointment to learn that yet another musician lives in fluffy bunny land. Where do you start with this new-agey nonsense? Here we go:
So it's only in your visionary music that you see an America that's generous? What fairyland of willful ignorance do you occupy?  Have you no knowledge of our world-wide reputation for helping other nations in times of crises? Our personal charitable giving? And, for just one example from the current evil administration, a record amount of money to combat AIDS in Africa? Any generosity perceived there, Boss?
When has the citizenry NOT been willing to tackle "nuanced and complex problems"? NOT been interested in its "collective destiny" or "potential of its gathered spirit"? And does this leave any room in your ideology for individual destiny and individual spirit? I'd rather have heard you say, "My candidate thinks that if we all have the freedom to pursue our own personal dreams and goals with a limited amount of interference from the government, the end esult will be an enormous "gathered spirit" that will be all the stronger and more impressive and real for not having been mandated. Kind of an e pluribus unum spirit, like it says on the money. And don't you think our "potential" has been realized on more than one demonstrable occasion like, oh I don't know, saving the world from the Nazis or overseeing the end of the Soviet Union? That's not potential, baby, that's goin out and taking care of business.
And of course if we want to question Mr. Obama's sentiments and choices of spiritual advisors it must be an exaggerated distraction from discussing the "real issues." The "real issues," Bruce, do receive their fair share of dicussion. If you ever actually listened to talk radio you'd know that it's more than the foaming-at-the-mouth, spittle-spewing, proto-Nazis you undoubtedly read about at the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post or hear about on The Daily Show and Bill Maher. It's actually the dearth of substantive discussion on the left, Mr. Obama being the leading example, that's a problem. I'd love to hear him tell us, specifically. what his plans are. He's against free trade, except one of his people told Canadian officials that he's really OK with it. He's willing to talk to anyone about the peace process, except now he won't talk to Hamas like Jimmy Carter, because they're committed to the destruction of Israel. He'll pull out of Iraq as soon as he's elected, but maybe a gradual withdrawal would really be more prudent. Just what are your positions, Mr. Obama? Not on midwesterners or typical white people or black liberation theology, please. We wouldn't want to be accused of being distracted from the "real issues."
Oh and by the way, Bruce, it's Dreams From My Father.


According to his just-released 2007 tax return, Obama and Michelle gave Trinity Church $26,200 last year to further the cause of greater understanding between the races, promote Christian values and, through sales of Rev. Wright's sermons on DVD, help promulgate the theory that (among other things) the US government created AIDS. Sounds like money well-tithed.

Expert analysts told Congress yesterday that a nuclear blast in a major U.S. city  such as Washington D.C was "inevitable" within the next 20 years. Sounds like someone needs some one-on-one time with President ("let's talk about why you're angry and what  my country has done to agrieve you") Carter and quickly. Maybe he'll lay a wreath on the graves of the inevitable victims.


Maybe after Jimmah's done hugging Hamas officials and paying his respects to dead terrorists we can get him  to sit down and chat with Mr. Ahmedinijad and friends so they'll stop being so intolerant disciminating in their tolerance of infidels people who haven't seen the light. Better hurry, though, 'cause in the meantime they're burning down synagogues.


Brigitte Bardot is on trial again in France. Her crime? Inciting racial hatred. How did she accomplish that? you might ask. Slitting the throats of unbelievers? Strapping an explosive device to herself and planning to blow herself up in a busy pizza place? Stoning an adultress to death? Well, no. Actually, she expressed an opinion about the Islamic practice of the ritual slaughtering of animals for religious ceremonies. Now, you might or might not agree with Miss Bardot but that's not the point. Don't you think it's a little scary to put her on trial simply for expressing an opinion? And if you don't, what makes you think your opinions might not be next? And who'll be there to object to that?
Just for fun, here's a photo of Bardot (holy moly!) in 1965 with William F. Buckley.
Cool! Now all we have to do is find a shark big enough to fasten this frickin' monster laser onto its frickin' head.

Gosh, Mr. Obama, enlighten us with more stereotypical things about mid-westerners that will help perpetuate the things people on the coasts already believe about those ignorant hicks in the middle of the country. And by middle I mean everywhere east of the Bay Bridge in San Francisco and west of Newark, New Jersey. At a San Francisco fundraiser on April 6 Mr. Obama opined:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them.

me: I understand what you mean, but if nothing's replaced them how have these folks survived? Wouldn't you move if there were no jobs? So these poor folks are just hanging around, shuffling up and down the streets of Allentown with their hands in their pockets, heads bowed, looking for change on the sidewalks?

And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

me: And who's fault is this supposed to be? What percentage of the blame belongs to the federal government? Undoubtedly some does, but listening to Mr. Obama explain this would be particularly illuminating.

So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

me: You mean like opposing the free-trade agreement with Colombia as have both you and Mrs. Clinton? And is there any way in which your and the Democrats pro-labor unions positions may have exacerbated this problem?
Just seems like an opportunity to make a gratuitous comment about the great unwashed's loony attachment to their guns, their crazed  fundamentalism and their natural aversion to non-whites. Which is manifested in their dislike of immigrants. Not to be confused with the frustration they feel over their government's inability or stubborn refusal to effectively address the problem of illegal immigration. You know. As in immigrants who have broken the law by entering the country illegally. Which makes them criminals? Wouldn't that be a legitimate "sentiment" Mr. Obama?
I grew up in the mid-west, Mr. Obama. Still go back there a lot and I can't recall the last time I saw a crowd of bitter, gun-toting, racist xenophobes. Oh wait! There was that one bunch of guys...nope, sorry. They weren't either, come to think of it.

Update: OK. They were toting guns. But that was going on long before everybody lost their jobs. And it's a good thing, generally.

This may be the most depressing parenting story of the year. Two "parents" arguing over which gang their 4-year-old should aspire to join. I'd like to have an argument over exactly why this child should not be taken away from these two idiots? What's the future best-case-scenario for this unfortunate being?

Excited about "going green" with your new little, twisty-shaped, fluorerscent light bulbs? Can't wait to get rid of those nasty incandescents? Well, you better hope you never break one. In a quote from Scientific American Jim Berlow, director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division, recommends starting your cleanup

by opening the windows and stepping outside. "Any problems at all frequently are handled for the most part by quickly ventilating the room," he says. "Get all the people and pets out of the room for 15 minutes and let the room air out. If you have a central heating system or an HVAC [heating, ventilating and air-conditioning] system, you don't want it sucking the fumes around, so shut that down."

The important thing is not to touch the heavy metal. After airing out the room, the larger pieces of the bulb should be scooped off hard surfaces with stiff paper or cardboard or picked up off carpeted surfaces with gloves to avoid contact. Use sticky tape or duct tape to pick up smaller fragments; then, on hard surfaces, wipe down the area with a damp paper towel or a wet wipe. All materials should be placed in a sealable plastic bag or, even better, in a glass jar with a metal lid.

Yeah, this bulb exchange thing sounds like a good idea. Trade a non-verifiable and, at best, dubiously harmful amount of CO₂ emissions for the attractive alternative of exposure to a verifiably toxic substance. More science from Clyde Crashcup when we all know Leonardo should be in charge.

Update: Fixed the link problems. Sorry. That was weird what the post manager did to that copy.

Update: What's also dubious is the EPA's cleanup recommendations, of course. They'd get the vapors and call out the National Guard just to scoop out kitty's litter box.

Wow. Nothing less. An English autistic savant man draws whole cities from memory after a single pass in a helicopter from a thousand feet. I'm not talking about small cities either. This YouTube video shows him recreating Rome in a drawing that took 3 days! As Hamlet says, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Incredible in the truest sense of the word.

Charlton Heston's death has left a hole in the acting world but, just as importantly, in the world of conservative politics. His contributions included his very visible advocacy for the second amendment as president of the National Rifle Association but also as a frequently published letter-to-the-editor writer in the Los Angeles Times. Witty, to the point and articulate these letters make for interesting and enlightening reading. RIP Mr. Heston and many thanks for your fine work. You were a great man.

An entertaining list of the 50 Greatest Comedy Sketches of All Time. They're all here: More Cowbell, SNL Celebrity Jeopardy, Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition, Kids in the Hall's Head-Crusher, SCTV's Great White North. Oh man, what great fun!