Thoughts from Kansas

Are you still reading this?

2006-12-11T08:55:00.000-06:00

We have moved to Scienceblogs. Adjust your links!

Googlebombing the election

2006-10-24T16:38:00.000-05:00

As part of a larger project to provide information about incumbents in tight races, we offer this list of news accounts.

Jon Kyl Rick Renzi J.D. Hayworth John Doolittle Richard Pombo Brian Bilbray Marilyn Musgrave Doug Lamborn Rick O'Donnell Christopher Shays Vernon Buchanan Joe Negron Clay Shaw Bill Sali Peter Roskam Mark Kirk Dennis Hastert Chris Chocola John Hostettler Mike Whalen Jim Ryun Anne Northup Geoff Davis Michael Steele Gil Gutknecht Michele Bachmann Jim Talent Conrad Burns Jon Porter Charlie Bass Mike Ferguson Heather Wilson Peter King John Sweeney Tom Reynolds Randy Kuhl Robin Hayes Charles Taylor Steve Chabot Jean Schmidt Deborah Pryce Joy Padgett Melissa Hart Curt Weldon Mike Fitzpatrick Don Sherwood Lincoln Chafee Bob Corker George Allen Frank Wolf Mike McGavick Dave Reichert

Announcement

2006-08-21T00:55:00.000-05:00

Thoughts from Kansas is moving! As of around now, the Scienceblogs version of Thoughts from Kansas is live, and all new posts will live there.

I'll be putting big reminders up here, and will do all I can to move you over there.

RSS junkies can either switch to the Sb RSS, or wait for me to switch the existing feedburner feeds to grab that. It's your call.

Blogger has been good to me for the last 2 years, and I'll miss the occasional inexplicable outages. Hopefully I won't have to miss any you regulars. The new site will be just as good, if not better. So change your links, update your homepage settings, and help warm up the new digs.

I'd especially appreciate long-time readers' suggestions about favorite posts that might help new readers learn what TfK is all about.

Why the Nazis?

2006-08-20T22:46:00.000-05:00

As Dr. Myers helps Francis Collins protect his name, it remains important to remember that "Darwinism" does not and could not justify Nazism.

That won't stop the heinous folks at the Coral Ridge Ministries from spending a million bucks promoting the absurd link, but it's worth remembering why it's false. We can turn, as Nick Matzke has, to professional historians like Robert Richards, who recently wrote: "It can only be a tendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis."

Or, like RSR, we could show how the particular linkages offered between Darwin and Hitler are tendentious, dogmatically driven, and plain wrong.

But there is a simpler way. The problem with these analyses is that there's nothing Darwin said that could have inspired a normative political philosophy. He observed how the world works, how A follows B. Whether it ought to in a given situation is entirely different, and Darwin didn't address those sorts of normative questions.

Hitler's horrific acts did not come from the idea that certain unfavorable traits could be removed from a population by selective breeding; that realization stretches back through thousands of years of human civilization. Darwin may have formalized the logic of it, but he did so by considering the accumulated wisdom of pigeon-fanciers, dog breeders and livestock producers. There was no secret in that regard which Darwin elucidated. Hitler's flaw lay not in recognizing an obvious truth about the world, but in identifying ethnic origin as an unfavorable trait, and in seeking to use the force of government to effect selection on that and other traits. The idea that natural selection ought to be government policy simply doesn't originate in Darwin. Darwin identified a natural process, a process that works all on its own.

Darwin did not produce a normative philosophy, he provided a descriptive and predictive theory. Newton did the same, as did Einstein. We cannot then claim that the normative philosophy of Nazism derived from Darwin's scientific work.

Some will claim that the normative portion, the part where certain groups were deemed lesser, comes not from the science, but from Darwin's rhetoric. Darwin does occasionally refer to racial groups in a way that suggests that some are superior to others. But in this regard, he was not innovating. He was a reflection of the biases of his day, biases which he was able to overcome. Indeed, if anything, a philosophy derived from Darwin is fundamentally egalitarian. As I said before:

Humans have evolved as long as fruit flies and bacteria. While apes are in decline worldwide, insects are ever more diverse and numerous. A phylogeny doesn't let you call one branch better than another. That's a radical egalitarianism, and it applies at all levels. You respect all people, and all life, because every being is a result of an incredible process, extended in time and space – a struggle against oblivion.

That egalitarianism, the idea that all people, and all races, and all species, share some essential element, is fundamentally Darwinian, and is a powerful counterforce against genocide, as it was for Darwin against slavery.

Unpopular President, Senators

2006-08-19T21:37:00.000-05:00

SurveyUSA managed to sneak the results of their poll on presidential approval and their poll of senator approval out without my noticing.

Last month, Kansas was the 13th most approving state, it is now the 20th, tied with Democratic stronghold Hawaii and swing-state Pennsylvania. There are only four states where the President has positive net approval, and all those states still give him better than 50%. Oklahoma, Idaho, Wyoming and Utah remain outliers in so many ways (some quite nice).

Looking under the hood, we find that net approval in Kansas has dropped from 7% to 19%, a stunning shift back towards the sort of numbers we saw three months ago, and suspected were outliers. Disapproval among Republicans hasn't risen as much as it did then, he enjoys 31% net approval rather than 20% in May, but both are well below the 40-50% it's been for the intervening two months.

Approval among Independents actually rose since last month (and fell since two months ago, and rose since three months ago). Independent opinion is spinning wildly over the last three months, but this months numbers also track well with those from May. Democrats seem to have hit a wall at 10% approval.

Conservative support for the president has reached the lowest point in SUSA's polling of Kansas: 60% approval, 22% net approval. That shift is encouraging to some extent, since it makes it possible to use the President as a wedge against even core Republicans, but shifting conservative opinion won't ultimately win Democrats seats in the legislature or the House.

We'll all have to meditate on what it means that Democrats are less approving of the President than liberals are, but again, those are fairly safe votes in the end. The battle is fought for moderate votes, and moderate approval of the President is unchanged for the third month running. At 60% disapproval, elected officials won't be playing up their friendship with the President to moderates, but it's disappointing to see that group unchanged while the electorate as a whole moves so much.

Three months ago, the President's changing approval rating was driven largely by western Kansas, as was the subsequent reversal of the trend. Beginning in April, the President's approval rating was at 54%, then dropped to 39%, returned to 60%. Last month it slid to 57%, and this month has reached the midpoint at 50%.

Wichita's brief flirtation with majority approval of the President ended, and eastern Kansas continues to disapprove at substantial percentages.

Looking at the Senators now, we find that Roberts went from last month's excellent showing as the 37th most popular senator to a disappointing 74th. Sam Brownback dropped one slot, from 67 to 68. The major change in his polling is a drop in approval by Democrats and a rise among Independents. Other groups remain unchanged.

Pat Roberts saw his net approval among Republicans drop 10 points, following an 11 point rise over the previous three months. Approval among Democrats has reached a new low for the time since the NSA spying was revealed, and approval among Independents is also at a historic low. Conservative approval dropped (to an anemic 60%) without a change in disapproval, moderates returned to net disapproval and liberal approval is remarkably high at 40%.

Expect numbers for the Governor soon, which should be very interesting to see.

Barnett presents plan to pay for tax cuts

2006-08-19T13:52:00.000-05:00

Cut school aid.
Also of interest in the article, Barnett says "Why have we not been growing? It's because we're a high-tax state, and we're not a business-friendly state," but the article points out that "In May 2004, Forbes magazine named Kansas the nation's most business-friendly state, and in March, a national corporate relocation firm said Kansas was among the top 10."

Out of touch is an understatement.

Fascism?

2006-08-19T12:47:00.000-05:00

Various people are asking Are We Fighting 'Islamic Fascists'? This in response to the President's claim that, "This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom." David Ignatius (linked above) says "I have been pondering since [last week] his description of the enemy. What are 'Islamic fascists,' and does this phrase make sense in describing America's adversaries?" Ed Brayton chimes in that, while he isn't wont to agree with the President, he sees the similarity. I confess that I do think that that makes the phrase sensible.

Both writers point to similarities in the practices of the Taliban or al Qaeda to the Nazis (not so much of a comparison is drawn to Mussolini or Franco). And the similarities are difficult to miss. Here's the problem. While it's true that one can find parallels between what we are fighting in Afghanistan and what we fought in Nazi Europe, the parallels don't match the definitions of the relevant terms. It's true, as Ignatius points out, that the Nazis and the modern enemy are both anti-semitic, but a pro-semitic fascist is not impossible, certainly not by definition. And non-fascists have certainly been anti-semitic as well, and have been anti-gay, anti-music, anti-women's suffrage, and anti-literature, all problems that Brayton cites as comparisons. These are not, then, defining traits of the fascist.

It isn't a sufficient condition for something to be fascist that it be bad. Fascism means something, and we forget what it meant and means at our peril. As Dave Neiwert wrote in his excellent "Rush, Newspeak and Fascism": "As 'fascism' has been bandied about freely, it has come loosely to represent the broader concept of totalitarianism, which of course encompasses communism as well." The historically minded will recall that communism and fascism were opposing forces. The United States managed to prevent either ideology from gaining a foothold, and while our vigilance against the former can relax, the latter remains a threat in our domestic politics.

Neiwert quotes scholar Roger Griffin, who explains fascism as palingenetic ultranationalist populism, where palingenesis refers to a phoenix-like rebirth. Griffin explains:

If fascism is defined in terms of a core ideology of ultra-nationalism that aspires to bring about the renewal of a nation's entire political culture, then the picture changes. The features so firmly associated with it in the popular historical imagination cease to be definitional. Instead they can be seen as external and time-bound manifestations of the central ideological driving force that is its only permanent feature: the war against the decadence of society and the struggle for national rebirth.

Fascism was and is an essentially nationalist movement. The fasces were symbols of a united nation. Our enemy is, as we've all come to understand, stateless. It may be tribal, but it is transnational and panethnic. In this regard, it is more similar to Marxism than to fascism. Ignatius misses this point in his discussion of fascism as a rejection of transcendence. Yes, there is an element of transcendence that al Qaeda rejects, but it is also a fundamentally transcendent movement. It transcends political boundaries, and idealizes a transcendent set of laws.

What we face in al Qaeda is not fascist, because it is not a nationalistic movement. Nationalism was a tool to rally the middle class, and al Qaeda neither rallies a nation nor a middle class. It draws from the dispossessed of many societies, and in doing so, charts a different course than fascism did. As such it is more dangerous than fascism, because it can spread more readily. Fascism's nationalistic character means that it must mutate drastically to find a foothold in a new nation. Fascism briefly flourished in the KKK and the Silver Shirts of this country, but could not tap into a broader cultural tradition. A nationalist movement can't be borrowed from abroad, it must be domestic, and so fascism failed in the US as it did in France.

Islamic totalitarianism (a more correct term, which refers to the vigorous authoritarianism of the fascists, the communists and other movements) has essentially taken over the niche that communist ideology played in the developing world. It represents a way of rejecting the West and the changes that are happening to the developing world. During the Cold War, that's what communism did. With its collapse, the developing world has found a new ideology to balance against the West. It isn't fascism now and it wasn't during the Cold War. It is totalitarian, and deserves opposition. It also deserves to be called what it is.

AIDS testing

2006-08-18T19:16:00.000-05:00

Two recent comments on the 25th anniversary of AIDS took up a similar call, one in the New England Journal of Medicine, the other from Scienceblogger Tara Smith.

Both essentially argue for the broadening of HIV testing in American society. The NEJM piece largely recycles the history of debates about testing for HIV in the general population, and state limitations on what testing can be mandated. Tara explains:

Currently, the testing paradigm in most areas is patient-instituted, and involves the three C's: consent, confidentiality, and counseling (generally before and after the test). If HIV testing were increased, a concern is that the quality of counseling could decrease, due to the lesser availability of trained professionals to discuss the implications of the test with patients. This could leave individuals whose test came back positive for HIV floundering, unsure what to do next, how to receive treatment or protect their loved ones from infection (or discuss that possibility with them), and unversed in dealing with the stigma that may follow a diagnosis of infection with HIV.

For these reasons, it's unlikely that any kind of universal testing will occur anytime soon.

When it was found that prenatal treatment with anti-retrovirals could decrease the chance of mother to child transmission, some states instituted mandatory pre-natal screening, but even that didn't spread. The stigma of HIV/AIDS is too great, and before the disease could be controlled effectively the testing was too close to a death sentence to make it mandatory.

As the NEJM points out, this sort of exceptionalism is no longer merited in an age where treatment for HIV/AIDS can extend lives for decades after an early diagnosis.

There's another case for change, one that is as true now as it was 25 years ago. Controlling the spread of the disease requires the standard tracing of sexual partners that's commonplace with syphilis and other STDs. Such mandatory screenings, matched with appropriate treatment and counseling before and after, could drastically cut the spread of HIV in society.

There is, however, a good argument against universal mandatory screening – excess false positives. In the course of an unrelated discourse a while back, I explained it as follows:

If you pick a random person off the street and test for HIV, a positive result is most likely not an undiagnosed case of HIV, but a false positive. For instance, the standard ELISA test used for HIV gives a false positive only 1 in 67 times. There are 300 million people in the US, and about a million are HIV+. If we tested everyone, we'd get 4.5 million false positives, meaning that the chances of someone with a positive test result actually being sick would be less than 1 in 5.

There are two things that make the testing that actually happens more accurate. First, every positive ELISA is verified with a second test, one that is more expensive and complex. ELISA catches 99.7% of true HIV+ cases, and sweeps up some extra. The second test weeds out that extra part. Average cost is held down by only testing likely cases.

The second thing that makes ELISA accurate is that it's not mandatory. We don't apply it at random, it's applied to people who think they are at risk. The fraction of HIV+ people among those who engage in risky activity is greater than the proportion of HIV+ people in the population at large, so the number of false positives decreases.

In the comments to that post, I was asked about Washington, DC's program to test every resident of the District. I replied:

The argument there is that, since 1 in 50 DC residents have AIDS, even more are HIV+. Even with a 1.5% false positive rate, your odds of actually being HIV+ given a test result remain high when the rate of infection in the population may well be above 3%. In a sense, the argument would be that living in DC is itself a risk factor.

Nationally, the infection rate is around 0.76%. At that rate, a positive test result is twice as likely to be a false positive as a real positive. At five times that infection rate, the odds are better than 2:1 that a positive result is an actual infection.

Mandatory testing will leave a lot of people in fear and confusion, unless the testing is done with tremendous care and and careful explanations. Telling 3 million people they might be infected when they aren't will cause mass panic, and to no good end. We need an end to exceptionalism, but not through universal screening. Universal screening itself would be exceptional. What we need is to treat HIV like other STDs, remove the veil of secrecy enough to implement effective partner notification and testing. The ACLU has listed some serious privacy and effectiveness concerns with such programs, but also suggests ways that programs of partner tracking could be made more effective.

Pot, meet kettle

2006-08-18T12:37:00.001-05:00

The DI's "Evolution News And Views" blog complains that LiveScience's "'All About Evolution and Intelligent Design' is neither all about evolution, nor is is it all about intelligent design."

Which is rich coming from a blog that, despite being hosted at "evolutionnews.org", has no evolution news.

Proof of Hanna/Barbera's scientific accuracy

2006-08-18T12:37:00.000-05:00

Via Schneier's discussion of the human/bear security trade-off, we learn that:

"There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists."

This seems like a good time to remind people that, once upon a time, tourists in Yellowstone would smear their offspring with honey to get pictures of their brood being licked by a bear. They were consistently surprised when the bear gave a little nip in the process.

Random quotations

2006-08-17T22:43:00.000-05:00

Apparently this is what we're doing:

The rules: "Go here and look through random quotes until you find 5 that you think reflect who you are or what you believe."
Part of being creative is learning how to protect your freedom. That includes freedom from avarice.
Hugh Macleod, How To Be Creative: 31 Remain Frugal, 08-22-04

We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails.
Bertha Calloway

America believes in education: the average professor earns more money in a year than a professional athlete earns in a whole week.
Evan Esar (1899 - 1995)

Don't limit a child to your own learning, for he was born in another time.
Rabbinical Saying

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

And, just because I can, one non-random quotation, from Pete Seeger (and probably Lee Hays before that):

Moderation in all things, even moderation.

Coulter on anorexics

2006-08-17T14:46:00.001-05:00

"Anorexics never have boyfriends. ... That's one way to know you don't have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."--Ann Coulter

So says the freakishly skinny, apparently single punditress.

Thanks to Lindsay for the tip.

Federal judge issues the obvious ruling: Illegal wiretapping is illegal, unconstitutional

2006-08-17T14:46:00.000-05:00

In a ruling that I could have predicted last December, a federal judge orders halt to the NSA's illegal domestic wiretapping:

A federal judge in Detroit ordered a halt to the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program, ruling for the first time that the controversial effort ordered by President Bush was unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor wrote in a strongly-worded 43-page opinion that the NSA wiretapping program violates privacy and free-speech rights and the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government. She also found that it violates a 1978 law set up to oversee clandestine surveillance.

The ruling first deals with the claims of state secrets privilege, the claim that the case cannot proceed without national security secrets being made public. The group of plaintiffs had simply asserted their claims about illegal surveillance on the basis of public statements, and the court found that the defense of those statements had also been advanced publicly, and so "the court finds Defendants’ argument that they cannot defend this case without the use of classified information to be disingenuous and without merit."

Judge Taylor also found that the plaintiffs had suffered actual harm as a result of the program, that reporters' and researchers' sources and attorney's clients had refused to speak with them over the phone, requiring expensive travel and undermining ongoing 1st amendment protected research and harming the rights of people to obtain effective counsel.

But Taylor continues by explaining that, even if that were not true:

it is important to note that if the court were to deny standing based on the unsubstantiated minor distinctions drawn by Defendants, the President’s actions in warrantless wiretapping, in contravention of FISA, Title III, and the First and Fourth Amendments, would be immunized from judicial scrutiny. It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

She goes on to cite Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (the 2004 case which had been advanced as a partial defense of the program), and Clinton v. Jones (!).

"Indeed," she continues, "as the perceived need for secrecy has apparently required that no person be notified that he is aggrieved by the activity," and no apparent actions have been taken as a result of it, "no victim in America would be given standing to challenge this or any other unconstitutional activity, according to the Government."

She found that the program violated FISA and the criminal wiretapping laws, and that these violations crossed into constitutional territory. The Fourth Amendment, she reminds us "requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause, as well as particularity as to persons, places, and things, and the interposition of a neutral magistrate between Executive branch enforcement officers and citizens." She held that the program is "obviously in violation of the 4th amendment."

After reviewing the state of the law on separation of powers, including Youngstown and Clinton v. Jones (again), she found that "the separation of powers doctrine has been violated." The AUMF defense did not sway her, since it is general and the specifics of FISA must govern the generality of that resolution. Even if the resolution authorizing force did replace FISA "Defendants have violated the Constitutional rights of their citizens including the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Separation of Powers doctrine."

The Court issued a permanent injunction against the government, holding that it is "is permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III."

I'm told that the President, when informed, went back to playing with toy soldiers.

Class Act

2006-08-17T10:19:00.000-05:00

From the Merry Wives of Windsor:

SLENDER. Why do your dogs bark so? Be there bears i' th' town?

ANNE. I think there are, sir; I heard them talk'd of.

SLENDER. I love the sport well; but I shall as soon quarrel at it as any man in England. You are afraid, if you see the bear loose, are you not?

ANNE. Ay, indeed, sir.

SLENDER. That's meat and drink to me now. I have seen Sackerson loose twenty times, and have taken him by the chain; but I warrant you, the women have so cried and shriek'd at it that it pass'd; but women, indeed, cannot abide 'em; they are very ill-favour'd rough things.

A few centuries later, such activity is frowned upon, as Troy Gentry is accused of killing a tame bear:

Authorities allege that [country music star] Gentry purchased the bear from Greenly, a wildlife photographer and hunting guide, then killed it with a bow and arrow in an enclosed pen on Greenly's property in October 2004.

The government alleges that Gentry and Greenly tagged the bear with a Minnesota hunting license and registered the animal with the state Department of Natural Resources as a wild kill.

Gentry allegedly paid about $4,650 for the bear, named Cubby. The bear's death was videotaped, and the tape later edited so Gentry appeared to shoot the animal in a "fair chase" hunting situation, the government alleges.

The Elizabethans at least had the dignity to sell tickets when they killed chained bears, and didn't pretend it was anything but cruelty.

Via Jesus' General, who offers Gentry some sage advice.

In which I survey the damage

2006-08-17T08:58:00.000-05:00

So Ms. TfK and I are tooling along, minding our business. A walk in the park seemed in order, so we had driven off to enjoy some fine weather. At the left turn into the park, we waited for traffic to stop when the light turned, and then made our quick turn during the yellow.

At least, that was the plan. Someone else, trying to beat the now yellow light, barreled through, sending our car into a 180.

Since I was in the passenger seat, I'm understandably glad that it was the rear tire that got bent on its axle, and the metal of the rear of the car that now hangs in ugly shards beneath the ripped plastic of the bumper. A few feet further forward and TfK would be on indefinite hiatus. My appreciation for seat belts is also considerably enhanced.

Ms. TfK and I caught our breath, determined we were not noticeably injured, and looked around for the other car. It seemed to have stopped, or at least slowed, but given its rapid acceleration away, the cut in speed probably just reflected lost momentum. This was unfortunate, since we were hoping to exchange insurance information, and perhaps offer some friendly tips on what those colored lights at the intersection meant.

Alas, they left, taking with them our hope of recovering the deductible. As luck would have it, they left behind their front bumber, as well as assorted glass shards, and attached to the bumper, their license plate.

A kind soul chased after them and wrote down the same number from their rear bumper. He saw four guys crammed in a crappy old sedan, then came back and sat with us until the police arrived to take his statement. On some karmic level, he helped balance out the truly atrocious thing those guys had done.

The police were excellent, efficient, kind, and informative. The paramedics who came to check us out were amiable and understanding. The AAA tow truck driver had sage advice. The insurance company is an insurance company, morally neutral at its best.

Having the license plate – DWN 1133 – the cops readily identified the owner, and were pretty certain that there was no insurance on the car (reliable sources tell me that's probably because they previously got a ticket for driving without insurance). The police are on the lookout for the vehicle and its owner, but consider their hopes pretty slim.

They expect that, given the Latino last name, the car's behavior, and the number of people in the car, it was probably owned and driven by illegal immigrants. The entire household will probably have the same last name, and will all deny driving the car, or even owning it. And even if the owner were to come forward, he probably doesn't have insurance, let alone the money to pay back the insurance company.

I suppose there's some sort of lesson here. I could talk about how this argues for giving driving licenses to people who will drive anyway, so they can then get insurance, and won't have to skip the scene after an accident. Others would make a case for sending the lot of them back to Mexico, which seems to be a bit late at this point.

But for now, let's rise above that fray and focus on a few important truths.

Seatbelts save lives. Wear yours.
Because of seatbelts and generally safe driving practices, we are alive and unharmed (barring a few aches and pains).
There are assholes in the world, and they drive. Watch out.
There are nice people in the world. Some in uniform, others just doing a favor for someone they never met.

Ms. TfK and I are still a bit shaken up a few days later, but we are largely settling down, and I think my heart rate and blood pressure are back within normal tolerances. Ms. TfK's may still be elevated because she's been dealing with the insurance company.

How you balance points 3 and 4 above, or how you balance the colossal damage to the car against the fact that we seem to have dodged any serious harm, says a lot about how you see the world. We're trying to be upbeat about this.

This isn't a bleg, but the deductible on the repairs is a little steep for two grad students. If you could spare a little PayPal cash, click on the hand in the sidebar.

Hack or Buffoon?

2006-08-16T23:58:00.000-05:00

Part of the reason Harry McDonald lost a his Board of Ed. race against incumbent John Bacon was the 10% of the vote that David Oliphant siphoned off. Suggestions that Oliphant's run was intended to weaken McDonald's showing have swirled since Oliphant entered the race, and the Pitch Weekly asked Oliphant some tough questions. I put the whole exchange below, but let's just pull out a few choice quotes.

First, he demonstrates his innumeracy and total lack of interest in the race by getting a simple inequality wrong, and being unable to either add two numbers or remember the results of his election.

Asked about his lack of fundraising (he spent only $425 he gave himself), and how he could get his name out if he didn't spend more than pocket change (and didn't show up at candidate forums), he replied "Well, that's the way it goes sometimes."

That it didn't have to be seems to have escaped him. Asked about who he would have picked of his two opponents, he utterly fails to see the contradiction in backing John Bacon while thinking that Bacon's science standards are the top educational problem.

Here's the interview:

The Pitch: Are you responsible for John Bacon winning the primary?

Oliphant: No. If you add mine and the other guy's together, it still comes out less.

Q. Really?

A. Yes. I didn't exactly do the exact math. John got 62 percent, if I remember right.

Q. I don't think that's true. [TfK- It isn't. Bacon got 49%, McDonald 40%, and Oliphant 10%]

A. I'm just sort of going off what I remember vaguely from that evening. And the other thing is, it's pretty presumptuous to think that all of my votes would go to either candidate. I mean, that's not even something I'd consider as a possibility.

Q. Your campaign didn't raise any money beyond the $425 you donated yourself. Does that suggest a lack of effort?

A. No. I chose not to accept any money. I didn't want to be beholden to anybody but the voters. [TfK- Like the ones who would have been donating?]

Q. But how were you going to get your name out? Obviously, that effort was insufficient.

A. Well, that's the way it goes sometimes. I definitely didn't want to take any money from the NEA. John's backing was pretty wrapped up and tied. So I just felt that someone needed to run representing parents.

Q. Did anyone ever talk to you about dropping out of the race?

A. Well, I actually had been asked to drop out a few days after I signed up. I said that I'm not a quitter, and I thought the voters ought to have the option of choosing who they wanted.

Q. If you couldn't win, would you have rather seen Bacon or McDonald win?

A. Me, personally? Simply because of the way he ran the campaign, I thought I would have much rather seen John. I thought he ran a much more professional and honest campaign and tried to keep it centered on the issues.

Q. But you stated that the state's top education problem is the board's decision on the science standards.

A. Right.

Q. Yet you would rather see Bacon win as opposed to McDonald?

A. Well, McDonald definitely did not represent parents. McDonald represented professional educators. Never once did he ever really talk about parents having input in their child's education. In fact, his position was that if you weren't a professional educator, you weren't competent to make a decision in your child's educational future. I can't support that outlook at all.

It barely seems worth observing that John Bacon is always "John," while Harry McDonald is always McDonald.

NRCC lags in ad purchases, surrenders Kansas 3rd

2006-08-16T10:44:00.000-05:00

MyDD points out that the NRCC's ad purchases fall below the DCCC's, and:

conspicuously absent from the Republican list are perennial targets like Dennis Moore in Kansas and Jim Matheson in Utah.

Democrats are challenging more seats, raising more, spending more, and frankly are fielding better candidates. Dennis Moore's seat isn't safe yet, but when you win as many times as he has in tough fights, the serious opposition looks elsewhere.

And Nancy Boyda continues to raise funds and fight hard to hold Jim Ryun accountable to his constituents. I continue to be amazed that he's even in Congress, let alone a multi-term incumbent. His prior experience is as a fast runner, and he hasn't demonstrated any special skills in office. It seems to me that any attempt at balancing him against a businesswoman with experience in government service and in the pharmaceutical industry would quickly put Boyda in Congress. She's sharp and she has a lot of good ideas about how to make life better for the 2nd district of Kansas. Next time she's in your area, be sure to visit with her, and don't be afraid to tell her that Josh sent you.

Phelps family backs Phill Kline

2006-08-15T10:41:00.000-05:00

Phelps donation to Kline campaign brings criticism:

Paul Morrison’s campaign for attorney general criticized Atty. Gen. Phill Kline on Monday for taking a campaign contribution from a member of the Fred Phelps family.

“The fact that Phill Kline would take money from a person who protests the funerals of our servicemen and women is disturbing,” Morrison’s campaign manager Mark Simpson said.

“Someone with such terrible judgment and skewed priorities has no business being attorney general,” Simpson said.

Benjamin Phelps has since decided that Kline is a meanie, but his $500 donation helped put Kline in office. Help put the Phelps clan in its place, put Paul Morrison in office.

Is our children learning?

2006-08-14T23:39:00.000-05:00

Lawrence Krauss, who gave a great talk at KU last spring, has an essay in today's Times about How to Make Sure Children Are Scientifically Illiterate, paying special attention to Kansas, of course. Speaking of creationist veterinarian and Board Chair Steve Abrams, he writes:

A key concern should not be whether Dr. Abrams’s religious views have a place in the classroom, but rather how someone whose religious views require a denial of essentially all modern scientific knowledge can be chairman of a state school board.

Abrams, of course, was not up for re-election, and has pledged to keep fighting his reactionary battle against, well, reality. And he won't be alone. Kathy Martin will still be around, and if we aren't careful, so will Ken Willard and John Bacon:

Another member of the board, who unfortunately survived a primary challenge, is John Bacon. In spite of his name, Mr. Bacon is no friend of science. In a 1999 debate about the removal of evolution and the Big Bang from science standards, Mr. Bacon said he was baffled about the objections of scientists. “I can’t understand what they’re squealing about,” he is quoted as saying. “I wasn’t here, and neither were they.”

This again represents a remarkable misunderstanding of the nature of the scientific method. Many fields — including evolutionary biology, astronomy and physics — use evidence from the past in formulating hypotheses. But they do not stop there. Science is not storytelling.

These disciplines take hypotheses and subject them to further tests and experiments. This is how we distinguish theories that work, like evolution or gravitation.

As we continue to work to improve the abysmal state of science education in our schools, we will continue to battle those who feel that knowledge is a threat to faith.

But when we win minor skirmishes, as we did in Kansas, we must remember that the issue is far deeper than this. We must hold our elected school officials to certain basic standards of knowledge about the world. The battle is not against faith, but against ignorance.

Jack Wempe finally has a website to support his run against Ken Willard, and Don Weiss is fighting the good fight, with Harry McDonald lending a hand.

Help them out, and do your part for the fight against ignorance.

Update: Don Weiss link fixed.

Kansas Guild of Bloggers

2006-08-14T15:43:00.000-05:00

Blog Meridian answers yes to the question "You're setting up the KGB carnival here again?"

Enjoy.

More oxygen: Creationism, gender, and the future of America

2006-08-14T12:50:00.000-05:00

A semi-regular theme of TfK's coverage of polling on evolution is the effect of gender on views of evolution. A Pew poll a year ago found that women were much less likely than men to accept evolution, even when they controlled for education, religion, age, and income.

Which is why I was surprised that the major study of views of evolution published in last week's Science found no such effect. Gender does have an influence on religion, but when you control for those sorts of causal interactions (using more sophisticated techniques than I expect Pew attempted), the pure effect of gender is almost non-existent. Men are significantly more likely to accept evolution in a statistical sense, but the difference is so small as to be practically unimportant.

The big headline of course is that America ranked at #34 out of 35 countries in understanding and acceptance of evolutionary biology. While education in general was important in explaining people's views of evolution, how well people were informed about basic principles of genetics was much more important. People who correctly chose which of these statements were true or false were more likely to understand evolution, while educational attainment had essentially no direct effect (other than increasing someone's chance of getting these statements right:

Ordinary tomatoes do not have genes, whereas genetically modified tomatoes do.
Genetically modified animals are always larger than ordinary animals.
Cloning is a form of reproduction in which offspring result from the union of sperm and egg.
Today it is not possible to transfer genes from humans to animals.
If someone eats a genetically modified fruit, there is a risk that a person’s genes might be modified too.
All plants and animals have DNA.
Today it is not possible to transfer genes from animals to plants.
Humans have somewhat less than half of the DNA in common with chimpanzees.
It is possible to extract stem cells from human embryos without destroying the embryos.
All humans share exactly the same DNA.

See how you do with those.

And think about what this means. It isn't enough just to provide a lot of education. You have to get key concepts across. People can be highly educated without understanding biology, or without understanding math, history, or anything at all.

William Kirwan, Chancellor of Maryland's university system, has an important piece in today's Post about the role of higher education in improving over-all educational achievement. One point he makes is absolutely vital:

higher education must become more engaged in improving primary and secondary school performance. Colleges and universities need to encourage more students to pursue teaching careers and, in partnership with local school districts, better prepare prospective teachers with the content knowledge and pedagogy skills to succeed.

Teachers who went to college 20 years ago (a reasonable mid-point) never had a class on genetically modified organisms. They never talked about stem cells. Cloning was online in their college books if they read a lot of sci-fi. Their experience with these important topics in a rapidly changing field will be minimal, and that will trickle down to their students. I attribute a lot of modern weakness in understanding of evolution to limitations on its teaching two generations ago for this same reason. Students who were taught that evolution was poorly tested in the '50s would only partly integrate the important advances that happened in the '70s in their teaching, so the teachers today who learned from the first group of students will be decades behind the times, and will still have misconceptions accreted from their childhoods.

This is, as Kirwan says "a national security crisis," and Kirwan is right that "if our country doesn't take immediate action, it could be devastating for the future of the United States." Evolution is a canary in the coal mine, and it shows that our nation's science classes need more oxygen.

On taking national security seriously

2006-08-13T22:25:00.000-05:00

As cooler heads have pointed out, the recently announced plot to blow up airliners coming into the US is not only not a new idea, it had actually been implemented before. That it's been 12 years since Bojinka was discovered and disrupted and there's still no working plan for blocking people from carrying a bomb onto a plane short of having folks dump out their water bottles says all that must be said about the current state of our national security apparatus.

Luckily, Congress and the Bushes are on the case:

As the British terror plot was unfolding, the Bush administration quietly tried to take away $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new explosives detection technology. Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of Homeland Security Department steps that have left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a "rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course," Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.

When DHS was established, legitimate concerns were raised about the merits of creating a brand new and more complex bureaucracy when a series of smaller, more focused organizations already existed to be reformed. We've spent plenty of money trying to figure out the best way to integrate the Coast Guard and the FAA's security operations into the same organization as the ATF and immigration, but that money might just have been better spent on equipment and personnel to screen every container entering America's ports, or installing the detectors at airports that would actually detect explosive liquids in luggage.

Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.

The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.

The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.

But that isn't my concern. If we lived in an age where the Vice-President and a discredited Senator didn't accuse the people of Connecticut of aiding and abetting al Qaeda by exercising their democratic prerogative, we might be able to have that discussion.

But we do have Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman making those comments, which makes reports like this more vital to discuss:

NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner.

"Sooner" must be a British euphemism for "right after the repudiation of George Bush's favorite Democrat." It's just a bit too … convenient. If they're prepared to interfere in when a different nation arrests terrorism suspects within its own borders for what appear to be political reasons, why should we be surprised that the Department of Homeland Security is collapsing under its own weight.

I've said before that this administration doesn't believe in government big, small, or good. All they want and all they can achieve is bad government. We can't judge any of their policies in any other light. DHS may be a great idea, but this administration will undermine any attempt at getting this right. We need a new Congress and a new President, but in the mean time, we need a level of skepticism in the public response to the jokers in charge.

Crazy Connie, the gift that keeps on giving

2006-08-11T16:40:00.000-05:00

The Capital-Journal reports on Connie Morris's future plans:

"Rest," said Morris, when asked what her plans were after her loss. She denied rumors she was preparing to stage a write-in campaign in November.

"Nothing to it," she said.

Sort of like ID?

A Christian News and Media Agency quotes the erstwhile Board of Ed. member saying that "the 'lying liberal media' defeated her":

"The media assassinated me," Morris contends. "They did everything they could to ruin my character, my reputation. I wish I could go through all the stories to tell you how they were either blatant lies or gross misinterpretations of the facts," she says.

Needless to say, this is a bit rich. Morris didn't get beaten by the media, she got beaten by Sally Cauble, a truly lovely person. And Morris got some negative media attention when she used taxpayer money to travel to Florida for a conference on magnet schools, and a visit with her family. The problem was that she has no magnet schools, nor plans for magnet schools, in her district, and stayed in a hotel room that cost more per night than her constituents might spend on housing in a month.

Besides which she has written a book about her childhood adventures with sex, drugs and, well, more sex. Media stories that reported the contents of her own autobiography can hardly be criticized as attempts at hurting her reputation.

Guess who she says is:

slandering people and harming their families and their reputation and their business and their communities and their state. It's a shame. It's a shame, and I feel bad for them when they face God on Judgment Day.

I happen to think that her publicly funded newsletter in which she attacked her colleagues on the Board, and her disrespect for the scientific experts who wrote the standards she hacked to bits both should make her afraid of what will happen on that Day.

Picking on IDolators

2006-08-11T12:41:00.000-05:00

A while back I pointed out a Dembski post about the Wedge, in which he dismissed it as old news. To my great surprise, my comment there wasn't instantly deleted, and an IDolator tried to address it. Hilarity ensued.

My question had been about the scientific content of ID, whether anyone could defend the claim that (in the Wedge's terms) it was "without solid scholarship, research and argument" and the project had become "just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade." Scott, a moderator on Billy's forums, wouldn't have admitted such a thing, but I think improvius got it. Scott tried to dodge the question by arguing about what evolutionary predictions are. I offered a suggestion, and Scott's rambling lead him to slip up. Lest this dialog disappear, I will immortalize it here:

My favorite parts of the Wedge Document are the parts where (7 years ago) the authors explained that “Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.” They then set 5 year objectives: “Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion); One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows;An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US; Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities; Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view; Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences”

How’s that all going?

Comment by jgrr — August 7, 2006 @ 10:32 am

…

Not sure since ID proponents never recognized the Wedge document as the gospel. Despite what anti-ID\’ers have tried to make it. But hey, \”any port in a storm\” eh?
Unrelated note: How\’s the evidence going which supports the Darwinian claim that NS + RM can produce novel cell, tissue, or body plans?

You want 7 years to answer that? I should probably give you more time.

Comment by Scott — August 7, 2006 @ 12:50 pm

…

Well, Scott, I guess you weren’t who I was asking then. Since the author of this blog is mentioned in the Wedge Document as an author and key component of the strategy, I’m curious about his assessment. Especially since “behind the times” is his own critique of anyone referring to the Wedge.

As for a new cell type, check out the work of Lynn Margulis in the ’70s and ’80s on the endosymbiotic hypothesis, and various examples of endosymbiosis at work. I suppose it really isn’t RM or NS, but it sure is within the mainstream of evolutionary biology.

Comment by jgrr — August 7, 2006 @ 5:13 pm

…

"As for a new cell type, check out the work of Lynn Margulis in the ’70s and ’80s on the endosymbiotic hypothesis, and various examples of endosymbiosis at work. I suppose it really isn’t RM or NS, but it sure is within the mainstream of evolutionary biology."

*BUZZ* wrong. Want to try again by providing a paper which details confirmed evidence of how non-teleological Darwinian mechanisms have produced novel cells, tissue or body plans?

Think before you answer, or it will likely be your last answer at this blog.

Comment by Scott — August 7, 2006 @ 7:59 pm

Are you saying that a cell with mitochondria wasn’t novel? The endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria is well documented and if you don’t think that qualifies as a “non-teleological Darwinian mechanism” then it falls on you to explain why. The link I provided shows that the mechanism operates in the wild in a way that appears to be non-teleological, and is consistent with what I and Lynn Margulis understand as “Darwinian.”

Or are you saying that a Hatena with an eyespot (inherited from an endosymbiotic Nephroselmis) isn’t novel? Or just denying the link to the origins of mitochondria and the eukaryotes (a “novel cell type” if ever there was one)? Can we compromise and call it a novel body plan at least?

On the other hand, 7 [actually 10, 7 since the document leaked] years ago the DI promised 100 publications and 30 books. Surely one of those 130 books and papers has a credible ID explanation for the origins of “novel cell types,” etc. Perhaps you could point me toward the ID experiments that have tested an ID hypothesis about that explanation. Not just what it isn’t, but what it is, please.

Comment by jgrr — August 7, 2006 @ 9:22 pm

jgrr: The core argument for the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria is that mitochondria look like they share a common ancestor with bacteria [Standard Darwinian reasoning there]. You’ll be interested to know that this is hardly a Darwinian prediction: “Evolution was supposed to proceed in small steps, not in symbiotic leaps. Just as neo-Darwinianists originally resisted lateral gene transfer, they also recoiled from endosymbiosis.” Some things to note: endosymbiosis currently accounts for the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts, not eukarya. Also, mitochondria of higher organisms may appear similar in shape and size to bacteria, this is often not true among protozoa. I believe it’s clear that mitochondria are derived prokaryotic systems, but the issues is with the mechanism for said derivation. The mechanism must account for two important facts:

1. Mitochondria are monophyletic. In other words, the mitochondria from various protozoa, plants, animals, and fungi are all derived from the same stem population of mitochondria that were once free-living bacteria. The significance of this is that explanations that paint with a broad brush are suspect. Citing a laundry list of common cellular and molecular events (phagocytosis, modern examples of endosymbiosis between protozoa and bacteria, mechanisms of gene transfer, etc.) left to themselves would lead us to expect a polyphyletic origin of mitochondria. The monophyletic nature of mitochondria suggest there was something unusual about the transformation.

2. Mitochondria are not just similar to bacteria, they nest with a bacterial crown group - the Rickettsia type alpha-Proteobacteria. Since alpha-proteobacteria branch late in bacterial phylogeny, and Rickettsia are one of the twigs in this late-branching group, it stands to reason that extensive bacterial evolution and divergence occurred prior to the endosymbiotic event. Since the endosymbiotic event likely occurred long after the last universal common ancestor, this raises the specter of bringing together two very different genetic control systems. How one would subsume much of the other is a challenging line of thinking.

Finally, there is another twist to the story. The standard story has some primitive eukaryote engulfing a Rickettsia-like bacteria, spawning cells with mitochondria. Since mitochondria are widespread among eukarya, this is thought to have happened first. Then some eukaryotes with mitochondria engulfed cyanobacteria to form the chloroplasts. It would be nice if this scenario matched bacterial phylogeny. But cyanobacteria were around long before alpha-proteobacteria appeared. What’s more, cyanobacteria even carry out aerobic respiration. So what’s so special about Rickettsia-like alpha-proteobacteria? The standard endosymbiotic theory would be much more strongly supported if mitochondria and chloroplasts nested together and diverged very early off the bacterial tree.

So, you have hardly demonstrated incontrovertible evidence that Darwinian mechanisms have driven endosymbiotic change. My question was very specific. And it remains a more feasible explanation that quantum level programming by a designing intelligence unfolds biological novelty at given intervals [which may or may not be taking cues from the environment for the unfolding]. No primitive notions about natural mechanisms which are based on the pressuposition that the cell is a useless blob of protoplasm, are going to be accepted by me.

The DI promised 100 publications and 30 books? Hmmm. Here is one fantastic book which presents a hypothesis for the origins for novel cell types: [link to Behe's Darwin's Black Box]

Some peer-reviewed papers:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1026
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Davison_PrescribedEvolution_110804.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.pdf

Enjoy and learn.

Now, want to try at producing papers featuring tested NeoDarwinian hypotheses which demonstrate how it was blind natural mechanisms [NS + RM] which produced sufficient CSI to generate biological novelty, sans any intelligent programming? Wishful speculation, unwarranted extrapolations, & hand-waving Just-So stories will not be accepted.

Please don’t make me hold my breath on this one.

Comment by Scott — August 8, 2006 @ 8:24 am

Actually, Behe is pretty clear in saying that he doesn’t propose a mechanism, so that’s probably not a good example.

Comment by improvius — August 8, 2006 @ 8:46 am

At least someone gets it.

My final comment, which asked for a page reference where Behe offered a mechanism for the origin of eukaryotes never appeared. My request for a peer-reviewed paper describing how "quantum level programming by a designing intelligence" could produce endosymbiosis was also, alas left on the cutting room floor. As did my pointing out that it's entirely unsurprising in evolutionary terms that mitochondria are monophyletic as are chloroplasts. I understand that it seems silly from a design perspective that two oxygen handling organelles don't share their "designs," but that's hardly my problem. And given that eukaryotes emerged relatively recently in the history of life, it isn't at all problematic for the ancestor of mitochondria to come from a derived bacterium, rather than a more basal clade.

But the fine sycophants in Dembski-land will never hear that side, because they choose not to listen.

This is why ID doesn't belong in science classes. It isn't in labs yet, and it isn't in labs yet because there isn't even a prediction to test or a hypothesis to work with. It's all rhetoric, "an attempt to indoctrinate, rather than persuade."

Cowardly carpetbagger sets a poor example for the kids

2006-08-10T13:19:00.000-05:00

The Parsons Sun reports that BoE loser Brad Patzer is going back to Idaho. Setting an example of how to be a gracious loser, Patzer hasn't been returning the paper's calls. Rather than standing by the children of Caney, where he can be close to mom-in-law and ex-BoE member Iris Van Meter, Patzer is off to an alternative school back in Idaho, a state he only left last summer.

Local school superintendent Fulton explains that they'll have to scramble to find a qualified high school math teacher in 7 days, but "Kids are resilient and so are we."

Clearly, more resilient than Brad Patzer. I'm sure he doesn't think it matters, since, as his website points out: "Parents are a child's most important teacher." Who cares that the children of Caney Valley won't have an experienced math teacher? They have parents.

Or maybe Caney Valley just isn't doing enough to encourage their best and brightest. As he explains elsewhere:

Teacher Shortages: In our free market system, a shortage of teachers indicates the need to provide increased incentives for people to become (and remain) teachers. I support enhancing the incentives and environment necessary to encourage our best and brightest to become and remain teachers.

Why, I'm sure the Idaho schools just happened to start calling on August 2nd, just in case he wanted to ditch his school once he lost the election.

“Runnin' Out of Fools” by Isaac Hayes from the album To Be Continued (1970, 5:52).

How western Kansas became K-State country, and how we can make it evolution country

2006-08-10T12:59:00.001-05:00

KU Country? | LJWorld.com:

Craig Miner’s latest book, “Next Year Country: Dust to Dust in Western Kansas, 1890-1940,” was featured in Monday’s Journal-World. In the book, Miner, a history professor at Wichita State University, chronicles the peaks and valleys of western Kansas, where harsh weather often spelled the difference between success and failure for the agricultural economy.

While compiling the history, Miner turned up several clues about why residents of the western two-thirds of the state have a good feeling about K-State. The school set up experiment stations across the area to test crop varieties and develop new hybrids that were resistant to pests and drought.

K-State, the railroads and the local Farm Bureaus took information on the road, traveling to different cities giving lectures and sharing information about better agriculture techniques for men and home economics for women.

I see nothing to suggest that a similar strategy, reaching out to the more distant communities and showing the value of science and evolutionary biology to people in rural Kansas couldn't bring the western part of the state as firmly onto the side of Darwin as they are of the Wildcats.

Ohio HOPE

2006-08-10T12:59:00.000-05:00

A few days ago we mentioned a new group in Ohio that will be helping promote pro-science candidates for the Ohio Board of Ed, and especially helping to bust "Ohio's answer to Connie Morris." Well, HOPE has webpage now, so you can click over there and help support their important work.

Red Alert!

2006-08-10T11:26:00.000-05:00

Cal Thomas issues the alert that the Taliban wing has captured Democratic Party! The White House is prepared to invade any country to recapture the Democratic Party from the extremists who, if Cal Thomas is to be believed, hate small puppies. How
Oh, and apparently some people were planning to smuggle parts of a bomb onto a British plane. As a result, you can no longer carry liquids onto aircraft. Hurrah! That water bottle you bring to prevent dehydration? Banned. The bottle of wine you bought in Europe? Not coming back with you. The remote control for your car? Verboten. But, of course, medicine, baby formula, laptops, cell phones, and PDAs are still allowed, so someone could still sneak a bomb through.

This type of attack was attempted once before, so these new precautions were either considered and rejected before (presumably as not useful) or the counter-terrorist thinkers never considered this type of attack, even after it had been attempted. I'm voting for the first option, and have to say that security theatre may be worse than no security at all. It ties up security personnel on nonsense, leaves holes that terrorists can drive trucks (or at least bottles of explosives) through, and makes everyone else's life worse.

This incident also exposes the petty triviality of the attempt to link the White House/Lieberman position on Iraq to any sort of defense against terrorism. As Ivo Daalder points out,

At the core of the administrations’ war on terror are two strategies, neither of which appear to be particularly relevant in this particular case. One is the notion that we can best win the war on the offense — that should “fight them over there so we don’t need to fight them over here.” That’s what the Iraq War, and Bush’s support for Israel’s fight against Hizbollah, are all about. …

What appears to have cracked this case is not a war strategy or military offensive, but good intelligence, skilled detective work, and months of careful surveillance — the kind of traditional law enforcement strategies and defensive measures that Bush and his administration have always shunned.

This apparent success also undermines the second core element of the administration’s war on terror — the notion that effective counter-terrorism action requires ignoring established procedures and the rule of law. As the Brits have shown, there is no need to subvert the law, or civic liberties, to conduct effective counter-terrorism operations. And when the UK government found that some laws (e.g., on the duration of detention) might interfere with effective investigations and actions, it has sought to change the law through established parliamentary procedures rather than to ignore it as Bush has been wont to do.

So long as our soldiers are dying in Iraq, and our intelligence focus is on protecting them there, our analysts aren't watching the networks for evidence of these sorts of attacks at home. This is very much a zero-sum game, since senior Arab linguists keep getting fired or quitting under pressure. There's only so much data to analyze, and so much time and so many people to analyze it.

Pulling our National Guard back home to patrol our airports, to search cargo containers, and letting the NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA and other groups get back to finding the terrorist cells that might try to infiltrate this country, or that already have, would make us all safer. The people of Connecticut know it, and I hope we have a Congress that can recognize this simple truth after the next election.

There are none so blind as those who will not see: Corkins wears a blindfold

2006-08-09T13:13:00.000-05:00

While moderates see incompetent Commish of Edumacashun Bob Corkins ouster as imminent:

“He’s an at-will employee of the board. When he loses six votes, he’s unemployed,” said Wagnon, the longest-serving member at 10 years.

Corkins discounted the departure talk.

“You can’t tell me who’s going to be sitting on the board in January. That’s speculation and I’m not going there,” he said.

Someone get him to sit in on a civics class. When people win elections, they get to sit on the board they were elected to. The Board next year will be Wagnon, Rupe, Gamble, Waugh, Shaver/Runyan, Cauble/Cruz, Weiss/Bacon, Wempe/Willard, Martin and Abrams. That's between 6 and 8 votes to hire a new Commish.

A logistical nightmare for science

2006-08-09T11:39:00.000-05:00

The L.A. Times explores the consequences of the Bush stem cell limits:

For biologist Meri Firpo, the controversy over human embryonic stem cells boils down to pens.

In one of her laboratories — the one that gets government money to study federally approved stem cells — researchers are required to use Paper Mate Flexgrips.

Just across the hall is a nearly identical laboratory set up with private funds so she can study new embryonic stem cell lines that do not have President Bush's seal of approval. Firpo requires lab workers there to use Uni-balls to make sure no federally funded pen finds its way into forbidden territory.

It's an admittedly peculiar situation, but Firpo, a professor at the University of Minnesota, said she was not taking any chances. A willful violation of federal policy could make her liable for criminal and civil penalties. Even a mistake might imperil federal grants for her lab — and for the rest of the university.

Bush's embryonic stem cell policy, which now restricts federal support to research involving about 20 cell lines, has created a logistical nightmare for science.

The article goes on to describe the various ways that researchers are trying to figure out how to navigate the unspecified consequences of the Bush stem cell policy. I'm sure bioethicists are still trying to figure out the moral reasoning that justifies it (all embryos after some arbitrary date are life, those before that date weren't?).

We've seen that the approved stem cells have various problems and may be developing more. No line of cells is immortal, and as the older lines age, they get more and more fragile.

Researchers in other countries will advance this science, and will do so without the oversight and ethical guidelines established by the NIH. Meanwhile, researchers here will either build two separate labs or simply do as much as possible with the President's lines and then twiddle their thumbs.

Point-Counterpoint

2006-08-09T11:33:00.000-05:00

The Times, and the Republican party, see the Lamont victory as a referendum on Iraq policy. While I don't fully agree, I think that if it is, it bodes ill for the Republicans. The Times sez:

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, is planning to give a speech in Columbus, Ohio this morning in which he will use Mr. Lamont’s victory to portray Democrats as a party weak on national defense, and his affiliation with blogs to present the Democrats as captive to the extreme wing of the party, Republican aides said.

I suspect that the American people are coming to see the "stay the course" silliness coming from the White House as increasingly weak. How else to explain that 60% of the public backs the redeployment plan that Lamont espouses? How else to explain that 57% of Americans want a timetable for withdrawal. Ms. TfK's thesis on the use of signaling in international crises shows that setting deadlines shows strength. I think the public recognizes that the administration's fear of deadlines in Iraq is a sign of their weakness, and our nation's weakness, in that fight.

Meanwhile, Rahm Emanuel, head of the Democratic House campaign, said of the Lamont win:

This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means. This is not about the war. It’s blind loyalty to Bush.

Smart Republican incumbents should have started running away from Bush a long time ago. His approval rating is negative in most states and most districts, and it isn't getting better. Unfortunately, putting distance between the President and themselves can be hard for some House members.

It'll be interesting to see whether Jim Ryun's ties to the Delay-Abramoff money machine is more damaging to him than his close relationship with the unpopular George W. Bush.

In which I starve the oligarchs who run the New York Times

2006-08-08T22:57:00.000-05:00

Thomas Franks' commentary on the Kansas election is behind the Times Select paywall. A daring raid by TfK's special commando unit managed to rescue it for your edification:

The Culture Crusade of Kansas

The nation breathed a sigh of relief last week after the conservative majority on the Kansas school board, world famous for its war on the theory of evolution, went down to defeat in Republican primary elections. Conservative candidates for several state government posts foundered as well (but others won). It seemed as though moderation had finally returned to this middlemost of American places. Even better: perhaps the country itself had turned the corner in its long and frustrating war over culture.

I was as pleased as anyone else to hear the news. Could the conservative uprising in my home state finally have run its course? Fourteen years ago, the armies of the right came pouring out of Kansas’ evangelical churches to protest abortion and all the other liberal plagues upon the culture, and they’ve had a big role in the state’s Republican Party ever since. But it must be difficult to stay angry that long, especially when the crusade you signed up for is now a hairsplitting fight that your leaders have picked with the biology professors of the entire world. Could the faction’s rank and file simply have given up, grown disgusted with the absurdity that their grand cause has become?

Perhaps, but I think it is far too soon to write the obituary for the godly radicals. Their faction may have chosen lousy candidates this time around, and their public appeal may have dissipated thanks to the preposterous issues (evolution, stem-cell research) against which their leaders have lately been hurling themselves, but the movement is deeply ingrained in Kansas culture. The conservatives will undoubtedly be back.

The culture war will remain with us, both in Kansas and in the nation, because it is larger than any of its leaders, larger than its legions of citizen activists, larger even than the particular causes in which these forces are enlisted. Seen from the streets of Wichita, the rightist rebellion of Kansas seems to fulfill that most romantic of American political traditions: the uprising of the little guy.

To the faithful, theirs is a war against “elites,” and, with striking regularity, that means a war against the professions. The anti-abortion movement, for example, dwells obsessively on the villainy of the medical establishment. The uproar over the liberal media, a popular delusion going on 40, is a veiled reaction to the professionalization of journalism. The war on judges, now enjoying a new vogue, is a response to an imagined “grab for legislative power” (as one current Kansas campaign mailing puts it) by unelected representatives of the legal profession. And the attack on evolution, the most ill-conceived thrust of them all, is a direct shot at the authority of science and, by extension, at the education system, the very foundation of professional expertise.

Sometimes this is right out in the open. At one point in Kansas’ endless slugfest over curriculum, the conservative-dominated school board appointed a state schools chief with virtually no experience in education. Moderates erupted in fury. Returning their fire, one member of the Kansas Senate declared that the mere fact that “the elitists in Kansas today” — meaning, apparently, “education insiders” and prominent suburban lawyers — opposed this fellow made him “the perfect man for this job.”

When I caught up with the various Republican personalities, at a candidate forum in Independence, what struck me was the feebleness of the moderate response to this kind of onslaught. Again and again I saw Cons play the populist card — railing against the National Education Association, suggesting their opponents belonged in the wealthy suburbs of Kansas City, alleging epic voter fraud right here in Kansas — and then heard the Mods, dressed in neat professional attire, simply dismiss the criticism out of hand. C’mon, you know me. Now, let’s get out there and put up some yard signs.

That the moderate Republicans succeeded this time around is testimony more to the sheer fatuity of the conservative issues than to the strength of their own message. But the pseudo-populist offensive is hardly going to cease. It is, after all, the prevailing rhetorical mode of the national Republican Party, from the commander in chief down to the lowliest Internet troll. They talk this way because it works. Since its opening shots in the 1960’s, the culture war has turned the politics of this country upside down — and with distinctly unpopulist results.

That it has now gone far enough to discomfit Bob Dole Republicans in Kansas as well as liberal Democrats from Massachusetts is merely the price of success. Until the day its opponents learn to confront it directly, we will all bleed with Kansas.

Thomas Frank is the author, most recently, of What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. He will be a guest columnist during August.

Lamont wins!

2006-08-08T22:40:00.000-05:00

Or should it be "Lieberman loses"? After all, a former vice-presidential nominee doesn't get beaten by a no-name challenger in his party's primary. He loses. And Joe's problem is that he lost touch.

I think I've only blogged about the Connecticut senate race once, and then only to point out that the narrative being presented of the race was badly flawed, that the Joementum wasn't flagging because of policy positions but because Lieberman lost touch with his base in Connecticut and had rhetorically abandoned his party too often.

I didn't write about Connecticut because I don't live there, I never have, and I don't feel any great interest in the details of its politics. I don't feel passionately about Joe Lieberman, and I don't know anything about Lamont. It appears that in most cases, we'll be trading 6 of one for a half-dozen of the other. Joe isn't Zell Miller. And Lamont isn't Ted Kennedy. Both are good on most policy issues.

The difference is that Lamont recognizes that the Democrats are currently the opposition party. Lieberman seems to think it's enough to engender good will without ever cashing in any chits.

People call him a Fox News Democrat, and treat it as an obviously bad thing. But one might envision a Fox News Democrat who would criticize his own party, then criticize the Republican Party, and point to a better middle path. Consider John McCain. He is what we might call a Daily Show Republican. In appearing and criticizing silliness of the worst sort from the right, he lets people believe he's not a conservative, while at the same time he advances various and sundry conservative proposals. He has successfully used this tactic to rehabilitate the image of the Republican party in many people's eyes. Lieberman is an Alan Colmes Democrat, one too wishy-washy to ruffle a Fox News feather, and too foolish to be able to use his appearances on Fox to improve his party's image, or really his own.

This race wasn't won by bloggers. It wasn't won by liberal activists. It was won by the voters of Connecticut, people who decided that their respected and well-known representative in Congress wasn't cutting it. There will be those who decry that event, but I intend to celebrate it. I love to see democracy in action, and that's what happened tonight. A senator who'd been out of state and out of touch too long was reminded that his constituency isn't New Jersey's young Republicans, nor the national viewership of Fox News, but the people who vote in Connecticut.

Running as an Independent now is just anti-democratic and crass. He deserved respect up to now, but rejecting the will of the people costs him even that small figleaf.

Learning nothing

2006-08-08T15:57:00.000-05:00

Senator Talent, having learned nothing from Floyd Landis' example, vows campaign "on steroids":

Enduring the 90-degree heat, U.S. Sen. Jim Talent stopped at a Lee's Summit voting locale this afternoon and vowed to run an even better grass-roots campaign this fall than he did four years ago.

In fact, Talent vowed a neighbor-to-neighbor effort "on steroids."

Will no international oversight body test his urine?

Mac Pro

2006-08-07T17:45:00.000-05:00

Those of you thinking of buying one of the shmancy new Mac Pros should do it through the links below. You'll get your fast new computer for less than it would cost to get the same power from Dell, and I'll get a cut.

Win-win!

On to Ohio

2006-08-07T15:29:00.000-05:00

At The Thumb, Richard Hoppe reminds us that there are still creationists on Ohio's Board of Ed to be ousted. Fortunately, a group called Help Ohio Public Education – HOPE – has organized to help find candidates. He also urges people to write to the Akron Beacon Journal (email link).

Kansans who've seen the problems that come with a creationist Board should share their insights with our friends in the Buckeye State. Even if you don't live in Ohio, you may have a connection to the area, and you should mention that in your letters. Don't be afraid to rework letters you sent to your local papers outside of Ohio.

The local creationist is Deborah Owens Fink, one of two people who've been pushing the Board toward creationism. Hoppe describes Fink as "Ohio's answer to Connie Morris."

Update: Added HOPE's website.

One of these things…, or the post-modernist right

2006-08-07T11:30:00.000-05:00

Neal McCluskey and Matt Yglesias have been going back and forth about the upshot of the victory of science in last week's election. McCluskey, of the libertarian and right-leaning Cato Institute, argued that the creationism wars can be won by having everyone agree to disagree:

Thankfully, there is a way to end this death match, but it will require that both combatants do something that so far they’ve seemed unwilling to consider. Rather than exchanging blows in perpetuity, they could agree to let each other have what they want. They could cease forcing all people to support a single system of government-created and government-run schools, and implement school choice, giving parents control over their children’s education by letting them pick schools that share their values.

He also sets up an awkward framing, one that will be more clearly discussed later, in saying "Kansas children, parents, and other citizens … [are] fighting because they have to. They all have to support one system of public education, and they all, rightfully, want their beliefs and morals respected." I'm not sure how I'd express the dispute, nor would I treat the dispute as comparable to a prize fight.

Matt Yglesias points out that parents might have choice, but children still would not have some sort of liberty, and also argues:

The other angle is that thinking about these kind of cases tends to undermine the argument that voucherization would generate dramatic improvements in school quality. Introducing voucherization would mean that (at least in areas with dense enough populations to support robust competition) that customer satisfaction would go way up. But what many customers (i.e., parents) want, as we see here, is to make their kids' education quite bad.

McCluskey replies to the first argument:

Yglesias argues that whether it’s parents or government that decides what children will be taught, kids will have no choice in the matter. The question to him, then, is “who is likely to teach most children the right stuff?” If it’s government, then there’s no need for choice.

That sounds reasonable enough. That is, until you consider how incredibly hard it often is to know, and to get people to agree on, what constitutes “the right stuff.” Creationists, after all, are just as sure that they are right about Darwin as evolutionists think themselves to be.

Of course, in education, Darwin is just the beginning: Is phonics-based instruction the right or wrong way to teach reading? Should American history be taught in a “traditional” way that focuses on the nation’s great achievements, or is it right to focus on the country’s flaws? What amount of time should students spend studying fine art instead of, say, physics? Is it wrong for a student newspaper to run an article critical of the school’s principal?

As the title says, one of these things is not like the other. The third paragraph discusses styles of teaching. Phonics works for some kids, not for others. Some students would benefit more from an emphasis on physics others from a focus on art. Some schools allow greater latitude for in school disputes, some less. Even in the American history case, the same content is being covered.

Those aren't analogous to offering a biology class, an earth science class, and an astronomy class in one school and a creationism class in the other. If one school offered an American History course in which America and the Constitution were actually established by Jesus in 2004, and nothing existed anywhere before then, that would be the rough equivalent of teaching creationism, while a course that discusses what happened in 1776, and in the 17th century, the Civil War, the World Wars, Manifest Destiny, the rise of America as a world power, etc. would be equivalent to a proper biology class.

How many people would sign up for the first history class? None, because no one wants their kids lied to. And teaching creationism as science is a lie. Not just because it's a lie to say that there's no evidence for common descent. Because creationism is an unscientific approach. Scientists don't come into a problem insisting that they already know the answer, and forcing evidence into that framework. That's apologetics, it's creationism, and it isn't science.

Creationism is a faith, and as such cannot be falsified. An omnipotent God certainly could have created the universe last Thursday with the semblance of billions of years of history and could have created life's modern diversity and the fossil evidence to be exactly what it would look like if evolution happened. That claim is, by its nature, untestable and unfalsifiable. Invoking that mechanism is unfalsifiable and unscientific.

It's true, as McCluskey claims, that creationists are fighting about their beliefs and morals. The problem is that science class isn't where you teach beliefs and it isn't Sunday school. Moral teachings can and should come up in every class, but the metaphysics of morals don't belong on the syllabus. And that's what creationists want to discuss.

When McCluskey says "Creationists, after all, are just as sure that they are right about Darwin as evolutionists think themselves to be," I suppose he may be right. The difference is that, in a science class, what I am sure about doesn't matter nearly as much as why I'm sure. Creationists are sure because they have had a personal revelation. God, they insist, has assured them that they are right. This is, as I said earlier, unfalsifiable. Even if it were true, it still wouldn't be science. That God gave them a revelation cannot be verified, and since other people seem to have had very different revelations, we can all be a bit skeptical about the claim.

Evolution is based on a set of hypotheses about the natural world. We can test these hypotheses. If we find that the hypotheses produce bogus predictions, we have to get new hypotheses. That's science. Evolution has produced countless hypotheses and they have been found to produce accurate predictions time and time again.

Here's one simple example. Most mammals can synthesize vitamin C, and they use the same set of genes to do it. Evolution and common descent allow us to predict that, while humans are known not to produce vitamin C (you've heard of scurvy, right?) humans ought to still have the genes in some non-functional form. And given that we know what genes are close to the vitamin C genes in other mammals, we know where it ought to be. And that's where we find the non-functional vitamin C genes in humans. We can then make some predictions. We know that the primates in general share a lot of adaptations to frugivory (eating fruit). Color vision, tree-climbing, etc. all help locate and get to ripe fruit in primates from Africa to the Pacific and the Americas. Fruit is high in vitamin C (again, consider scurvy). Frugivorous species that can't synthesize vitamin C will be unharmed, and since it's possible to OD on vitamin C, might even be better off. This would suggest that humans shouldn't be the only primates who can't synthesize vitamin C.

When we test that prediction, we find that many primates also have a defective gene. The same gene is there, and it is non-functional because of similar mutations. Lemurs and tarsiers, groups that are considered less closely related to humans and other apes for independent reasons, have an active vitamin C gene. Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, gibbons and apes all lack a functional vitamin C gene. This all is consistent with predictions you'd make from common descent. That's science. It isn't that God couldn't have done the same thing, it's that you couldn't predict that this set of phenomena would happen based on creationism. It isn't science.

The problem with this, compared to arguments over phonics, is that the two sides are talking about different things. Science advocates want science to be taught as science. Non-science is all well and good, but should not be taught in science class. Creationists want their theology and morality promoted in school. Science class is a convenient vector for transmitting their faith, and they would rather pervert it for that purpose than let science be science.

What are the odds

2006-08-07T10:56:00.000-05:00

In response to a Dembski-ish post on the Wedge Document, I left a comment saying (I forgot to cut-n-paste, so the details may differ):

My favorite part of the Wedge document, written 7 years ago, is where it says "Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade."

Also where it sets these 5 year objectives: "Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion); One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows; An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US; Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities; Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view; Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences"

How's that going?

We'll see if the comment stays online.

Given that they don't have anywhere near those goals after an extra two years, I suspect that the gang of sycophants at Dembski's place will allow that comment to disappear silently, or will insist that Lehigh University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary are "major universities." And somehow the 38 items on their list of peer reviewed papers will turn into 130 (100 papers, 30 books). One or two backers in the UK or Israel will transform into "movements."

As Arlo Guthrie explains in “Alice's Restaurant Massacre”:

You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him.
And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization.
And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

And that's what it is , the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the guitar.

Maybe the DI just needs its own song. Any suggestions?

Our excellent Attorney General

2006-08-06T13:11:00.000-05:00

Campaigning to replace Phill Kline, Paul Morrison questions Kline's judgment and experience, but notes that the fight will be tough:

"There's great power in incumbency, even if the incumbent is a complete doofus. This is going to be a dogfight." …

"Most people who know Phill Kline don't like him very well," he said. "The more they get to know him, the less they like him."

Efforts to contact Kline or his spokesperson on Saturday were unsuccessful. …

Morrison said in his speech that Kline had used "incredibly poor judgment" in some of his decisions.

He questioned Kline's hiring of Bryan Brown as head of the state's consumer affairs protection division. Brown was arrested a dozen times for his anti-abortion activities and has refused to pay a $61,000 civil fine.

Morrison also criticized Kline's decision to hire, as a driver and personal assistant, a nephew who was on probation at the time for possession of marijuana and who once had his driver's license suspended for a year for refusing to submit to a breath test after a car wreck.

Remember the name Paul Morrison come November.

More on Fight Club

2006-08-06T12:49:00.000-05:00

A few weeks back, there was a fascinating back and forth over morality and Fight Club. Lyn picks up some points I raised in very interesting ways. She offers a syllogism which, the more I tried to revise it into clearer logical form, the less meaningful it became. She offered:

We do good things because they are good.
We have an awareness of what is good.
Without this awareness, we would not do good things.

The problem is that the conclusion really ought to be something like "without this awareness, we would do some things that aren't good," not the more general statement that we would not do any good things.
I decided to flip the syllogism around and it became correct (for our purposes "good" and "evil" will be taken not as pure negations of each other, but as being identifiable on their own, consider it an integration of Nietzsche's slave morality and master morality):

A person who does not know good from evil will do things that are evil.
We don't do things that are evil.
We know good from evil.

One can put various group names instead of "we." Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Christians all substitute in just fine (better yet "some atheists," "some Christians," "some Jews," "some Muslims"). That point leads more naturally to the point I made, that the religion that generates a person's morality is less important than whether that morality works in practice. While I wouldn't necessarily say (as she paraphrases me) "the issue of the existence of God is neither here nor there," I think she got the gist of my argument. Whatever the origins of the awareness of what is good, we have that awareness. I can derive pretty much the same moral system from almost any theistic tradition, from non-theistic religious tradition, from game theoretic considerations in a social framework, and from philosophers from Plato to Rawls. There seems to be something essentially true about how we understand good. Which of those is the "true" basis for something being good is less important than that it is actually good.

In a pluralistic society, it's especially more important to focus on the merits of particular behavior than to focus on the metaphysical origins of a particular moral rule. Some things will be generally agreed to be evil, regardless of someone's metaphysic. Others will be generally regarded as good. Things that are in dispute should not be legislated, and ought to engender a certain skepticism about absolute claims. Abortion, gay marriage and drug policy all seem to be areas where metaphysics collide, and where legislation is fraught with complexity.

Lyn says that her "contention is that this awareness [of good] is from God." Which is fine. Lots of people think that. They do differ about which God they think provided that awareness. She rejects lots of gods which provide moral teachings, and yet she's moral. She writes that "atheists, whether they admit it or not, are acting in accordance with a practical belief that God exists. They are practical theists by their actions." I disagree. Lyn is no more a closet Buddhist because her moral actions match Buddha's teachings than an atheist is a closet theist.

Simple behavior that matches the Golden Rule can be found in other primates, in dogs, and in other social animals. Maybe those are all practical theists too, but I'm inclined to think that the morality we have is the one that works, and if we didn't have that morality, our society would have collapsed long ago. If God handed down a morality that matches the one that works, that certainly confirms the infinite wisdom of the Deity. But that the morality came from God is not itself a good argument for the goodness of morality.

After all, (following Plato's Euthyphro) if something issuing from God itself makes it good, we wind up with "good" being arbitrary. If "good" is not arbitrary, then God must be seeking to conform to some more abstract sense of the good, and we ought to judge ourselves against that same source, rather than going through the middleman.

We can take this further than Plato did because we have a pluralistic society. Let's just assume that by the universal, absolute moral standard I assert exists, action X is good. Among the many fascinating properties of X: it is entirely consistent with traditional Jewish teachings, Christian teachings, Islamic teachings, and Buddhist teachings. Charitable giving is one example that would work – not killing, not stealing, telling truth all would be others.

Let us also assume that Lyn is right, that we do good things because, deep down inside, our closet Christian is pushing us the right way. Is action X when performed by a Buddhist who never heard of Christianity, who acts to serve Buddha's teachings, good? What about when a pre-Christian Jew performs action X to satisfy the teachings of Torah? Or a hypothetical atheist who has no inner Christian, acting out of an interest in bettering society and the world? A lunatic who performs action X because the manhole cover told him to? I say that all have done something good, but the standard Lyn offers is ambiguous. If good is ultimately defined as doing what the true God commands, are apparently good works really good when performed by someone who derives morality from source that is unworthy?

I think that there is something inherent about good, that action X is good by its nature, not by the ontology of the actor's morality. My previous post suggested that the really scary people are the ones who rely wholly on religious commandments. The movie review I was responding to claimed "Quite honestly, if I didn't believe in God, I would join Tyler Durden in his philosophy," and blow things up. Someone who roots their morality like that could hear voices in his head and just give in. Someone who roots a morality in an internalized sense of good and evil has tools to resist the voices in his head. And also tools, like Huck Finn, to say "All right then, I'll go to hell."

Republican two-step: Bush gives Roberts cover on delayed intel report

2006-08-06T12:17:00.000-05:00

As ever more questions are raised about how many elections Senator Roberts will delay the second part of the report on misuse of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion, we find Senator Roberts blaming the President:

The Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee lashed out at the White House on Thursday, criticizing attempts by the Bush administration to keep secret parts of a report on the role Iraqi exiles played in building the case for war against Iraq.

The chairman, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, said his committee had completed the first two parts of its investigation of prewar intelligence. But he chastised the White House for efforts to classify most of the part that examines intelligence provided to the Bush administration by the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group.

“I have been disappointed by this administration’s unwillingness to declassify material contained in these reports, material which I believe better informs the public, but that does not — I repeat, does not — jeopardize intelligence operations, sources and methods,” Mr. Roberts said in a statement issued Thursday.

The reticence to release the report, and reports of struggles over how specific the report should be and whether it should make any specific recommendations have left the committee and the report in limbo. Last spring, the Senate Democratic leadership stopped work in to call attention to the delay. Given the ongoing tension in the region, having the statements issued by our leaders be accurate and honest is still of great importance, and this report is relevant for our progress forward, not just for assigning blame for the quagmire that is the Iraqi occupation.

Oops: Bush approved stem cells don't work

2006-08-05T11:57:00.000-05:00

Gov't-approved neural stem cells carry abnormal gene expression:

Neural stem cells grown from one of the federally approved human embryonic stem cell lines proved to be inferior to neural stem cells derived from fetal tissue donated for research, a UCLA study has found.

Researchers from the Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine at UCLA coaxed cells from the federally approved line to differentiate into neural stem cells, a process that might one day be used to grow replacement cells to treat such debilitating diseases as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. However, the neural stem cells expressed a lower level of a metabolic gene called CPT 1A, a condition that causes hypoglycemia in humans.

Stem cells derived from donated embryos had normal gene expression, so the problem is not methodological. There's a decent chance that every one of the federally approved stem cell lines has some genetic disorder, and arbitrarily restricting research to those lines, given their many problems, is simply cruel.

Manatee in the Hudson

2006-08-05T11:48:00.000-05:00

Via sphere and the Poughkeepsie Journal, we learn that a manatee has moved its way up from Florida and into the Hudson River. This is the first known manatee in the River itself, though in 1995 a manatee swam into the Hudson River's estuary and then out into Long Island Sound.
The image here is from Philadelphia's Channel 6 News, which photographed the manatee drinking from a dock hose in Barnegat, New Jersey in late July.

This follows a decision by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to reclassify manatees from endangered to merely threatened. A petition for the federal government to relist the species is also pending. Manatees are slow-growing, slowly reproducing animals that are easily killed and injured by motorboats. Pollution that kills the vegetation they feed on has also contributed to their low populations.

Why this individual swam so far north isn't clear. The manatee that reached Rhode Island was airlifted back to Florida, and the following year it migrated to the Chesapeake Bay when the weather got too warm. As the norther waters cooled, it returned to Florida. Shorter migrations than that are common, usually within a single river system, and now often to the warm water outlets from power plants.

The Paranoid IDolators

2006-08-04T22:11:00.000-05:00

At Billy D's blog, Denyse "Buy my book" O'Leary rambles about liberalism and how even Kansas isn’t in Kansas any more.

The actual course of her claims are almost impossible to decipher, but seems to run something like this:

"Materialism" is bad. "Darwinism" is bad, because it's "materialist." Liberals are really bad, because they like "Darwinism" and are therefore supporters of "materialism." Newspapers are really, really bad because they are "liberal" and promote "Darwinism," which means they promote "materialism." The MSM is going down because Denyse O'Leary and the conservative commentariat are breathing down its neck. ID is about to win because…

I don't know. It's a stream of consciousness rant, only slightly more coherent than Mel Gibson's presentation on the complexities of Middle Eastern politics to the Malibu Sheriff's department. The bizarrest claim is this:

most American Christians/theists/karmics/perennial philosophy types have unintentionally but fully accommodated to materialism. The Christians isolate a little tiny bit of reality called “the Word of God,” or “Scripture,” and announced that it and it alone is divinely inspired … Of course, if there is anything to ID, all of nature must be top down, as George Gilder proposes, not bottom up. In other words, either mind is at the top or matter is. Or, as physicist James Jeans put it, the universe is either a great thought or a great machine (he plumped for the former). So, to accommodate top down thinking, many people who are not hostile to ID must reorient to the whole of reality.

This is comparable to a classic Even Steph/ven sketch from the Daily Show in which Stephen Colbert explained "It's not my logic, it's God's logic, as written in the Bible, every word of which is true, and we know every word is true because the Bible says that the Bible is true, and if you remember from earlier in this sentence, every word of the Bible is true. Now, are you following me here, or are you some mindless zealot."

O'Leary is convinced that ID is true. Not just that, but everyone secretly knows it. And so they are forced to reconfigure reality in order to accommodate a claim they've unconsciously absorbed. It isn't even worth considering what happens "if there is [no]thing to ID." That we don't then have to randomly wipe various parts of science out of school curricula and textbooks.

Speaking of which, I join Drs. Myers and Lynch in wondering where about a recent claim that "Discovery actually funds a great deal of primary research." This research should be trumpeted from rooftops, if indeed it exists and produces results. Then someone could write a textbook based on that research, and teach it in science classes. And the DI could stop having to explain how there really is all this research but they can't tell anyone about it just yet, on accounta it being so s3krit an' all.

Playing games with people's lives

2006-08-04T10:35:00.000-05:00

The New England Journal of Medicine explores:

the ACCESS Act, a bill introduced this past November by Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kans.). Under the proposal, a drug could obtain tier 1 approval on the basis of phase 1 testing [usually consisting of only a few hundred patients and providing little if any guidance on side effects] and preclinical evidence — from testing in animals, case histories, pharmacologic studies, or computer modeling — that it "may be effective against a life-threatening condition." A drug with tier 1 approval could be marketed for seriously ill patients who had exhausted other treatment options, if they waived the right to sue the manufacturer and permitted collection of their clinical data. Tier 2 approval would correspond to today's accelerated approval, and tier 3 approval to full approval.

The bill has alarmed the clinical research community and large health-advocacy groups. Only 11 percent of drugs — and only 6 percent of cancer drugs — that enter clinical testing are ultimately approved; the rest either prove to be too toxic or do not work. If the bill became law, "the market would be flooded with drugs and we wouldn't have any idea which ones were effective. It would ultimately be very bad for patients," says Colin Begg, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and a member of the board of the Society for Clinical Trials, which opposes the bill. Although the bill theoretically covers only "seriously ill or dying patients who have run out of options," warns Begg, "it's not at all clear that things would stop there."

Cancer-related clinical trials cannot accommodate all the patients who want experimental medications, but instead of permitting access after phase 1 testing, a better solution would be to expand treatment IND programs for later-phase drugs, says Bruce Chabner, clinical director of the Cancer Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. "Even safety is not resolved" by the end of phase 1, Chabner says. "I don't have a right to fly somebody's experimental airplane, so why should I have the right to some drug that a company has dreamed up?"

Rather than allowing untested medications to be marketed, "we should be promoting and making clinical cancer research normative and part of how we treat cancer," suggests Ellen Stovall, president of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship. Only about 5 percent of adults with cancer enroll in clinical trials, Stovall notes, partly because many community oncologists do not encourage participation and because databases of trials are confusing and incomplete. Yet stories like that of Abigail Burroughs resonate with the public. And "public opinion could pass a bad bill," notes Stovall.

Another thing we could do to improve the chances of curing cancer would be to allow broader funding of research on stem cells. But, of course, Brownback has done all he can to block such an expansion. I presume that this bill is his attempt at penance for hanging sick people out to dry, but it does so poorly. Giving patients unapproved drugs would complicate their existing treatments, expose them to unknown side effects, and undermine existing tests for efficacy.

The existing system of drug testing has worked quite well for us, keeping dangerous treatments off the market and making safe drugs available. While a few high profile cases exist where a drug slipped through based on faulty reporting (Vioxx), the infrequency of that result is a testament to the hard work the FDA does. People I know who have worked with drug companies preparing for an FDA hearing are always impressed with the level of preparation and care they have to go through to get approval.

That protects us all. Undermining the system hurts everyone. If Senator Brownback wants to improve access to medicine, he should start by giving Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices, then work on improving production of and access to generic drugs. If he wants to improve the clinical testing system (and there are plenty of ways it could be improved) why not offer to help fund clinical trials of drugs in exchange for shorter patents or other price breaks for consumers. That would improve the quality of the testing process by taking the testers off of the manufacturers' payrolls and also make quality drugs available at less cost.

Classy bastard

2006-08-03T15:46:00.000-05:00

The staff of incumbent senator Jim Talent decided to go after the McCaskill campaign for a filing that got lost in the mail. There's a receipt showing that the filing was sent, so there's not really an issue, but the Talent gang decided to make the competence of Ms. McCaskill and her staff an issue. Unfortunately, the staffer responsible for the filing died after having sent the filing, so the whole thing looks a tad crude.

Jim Talent: unpopular senator, insenstive prick.

About Lieberman

2006-08-03T15:43:00.000-05:00

Apparently a majority of the primary voters in Connecticut are blogofascists. I point this out because I don't tremendously care about the Lieberman primary, but I hate to see attempts at democracy being dismissed.

Mike the Mad Biologist catches an aide to anti-environment Congresscritter Richard Pombo saying:

Connecticut should have its statehood taken away from it. The foolishness of its pampered residents should be demonstrated to others by a government program to bulldoze the entire state, salt the land and construct a windfarm to supply NYC with electricity. And its residents should be relocated to Guantanamo Bay where they can take a number behind the 3 who hung themselves this weekend, since they seem so intent on suicide.

And while he seems to have been responding to and anti-drilling editorial, I expect that the failure of Joementum was also on his mind.

Meanwhile, the former Democratic nominee for VP is bringing in Young Republicans to canvass for him. And claiming he's always been a critic of the way the occupation of Iraq has progressed. Except, no one can quite locate that criticism. Atrios reminds us of these hard words, and their instant retractions:

After his AFL-CIO speech, I asked the Senator, "If you believe that winning this war is so crucial, why haven't you been tougher on the Bush Administration's inept prosecution of it?" Lieberman replied, mildly, that he had criticized the Bush Administration in the past. And then he did a curious thing. "I think we may have wasted the first year in Iraq," he offered, then retreated, "Well, that may be a little hard ... Maybe I should say we lost opportunities," and then, noticing that I was about to splutter with indignation, he retracted his retraction. "No, we wasted it." To say the least!

I think the New York Times got it right when they endorsed Lamont and said:

there is a reason that while other Democrats supported the war, [Lieberman] has become the only target. In his effort to appear above the partisan fray, he has become one of the Bush administration’s most useful allies as the president tries to turn the war on terror into an excuse for radical changes in how this country operates.

That's the problem, not the war itself. Lieberman's attitude and the way he's used the power he has. This isn't a right/left argument – Lieberman will be glad to tell you how he's voted against the right on key individual issues. But as Mark Schmitt points out in Beyond Checklist Liberalism, that's not what's at issue. While Lieberman can press the individual interest groups' buttons:

it’s not working. Why? Two reasons: One of course is that Iraq, and the constellation of foreign policy and security failures it represents really is huge. And while Democrats can accept a fairly wide range of viewpoints, roughly from Biden’s make-it-work to Murtha’s get-out-now, only Lieberman’s stay-the-course is ridiculous. It’s pretty difficult to look at ANWR and Iraq and conclude that a good position on ANWR more than offsets a bad one on Iraq. (Especially if there’s no reason to think that Ned Lamont has a different position on ANWR or the other three buttons.)

The second reason is that Lamont supporters actually aren’t ideologues. They aren’t looking for the party to be more liberal on traditional dimensions. They’re looking for it to be more of a party. They want to put issues on the table that don’t have an interest group behind them - like Lieberman’s support for the bankruptcy bill -- because they are part of a broader vision. And I think that’s what blows the mind of the traditional Dems.

Lieberman was catapulted to prominence in the national Democratic mind by Al Gore. His influence stretches beyond Connecticut. And he's used that prominence and influence to bash his own party. Not to disagree with policy and work with the party to change minds, but to knock the people he ought to be trying to convince, and ought also to be listening to. He hasn't used whatever good will he's generated across the aisle to accomplish anything. He isn't representing the interests of Connecticut. And if that's the case, he deserves to lose, and Ned Lamont deserves to win.

This is a good thing. It moves past interest group politics toward a politics that's driven by principles, and if those principles support particular interest groups' activities, swell.

Priorities (Big Cats edition)

2006-08-03T09:13:00.000-05:00

Jim Ryun is worried.

You'd think that with an expanding war in the Middle East that the United States and its allies seem to be losing on every front, an energy policy that's crushing us economically while encouraging the trends that have made this the hottest summer on record, wages stagnating, a recession on the horizon, and an election in a few months, that Ryun would have lots to worry about.

But he's above all that, preferring to spend time criminalizing contact with exotic felines. Apparently, a young girl was killed by a tiger, so we need a federal law forbidding anyone from touching cougars or tigers or lions. Even cubs.

The USDA already had regulations that forbade the situation where the girl was hurt. A new law won't change things. Giving the USDA the resources to ensure that the cats are properly cared for and that the cats and their visitors are kept safe from one another would be a better use of time.

It just wouldn't give Congressman Ryun a chance to grandstand. Apparently his obsession with shoe tariffs and with tinkering with the language of the oaths of allegiance and of renunciation of citizenship just wasn't enough.

Help Nancy Boyda sort out our national priorities.

Perspective

2006-08-02T22:41:00.000-05:00

So I've been feeling pretty good. Sure, I've got a creationist infestation, but it seems relatively contained. And I've been sitting back from that particular sort of arguing, so it's nice to stretch the old muscles.

It feels good to win, and I've spent the day pretty much basking in the glow. It's a great victory for Kansas, for science, and of course, for children. There's still a fight in November, of course, but we can all afford to catch our breath.

But then we have to dig back in. When the election is over, I expect that donations to Kansas Citizens for Science, to the Kansas Alliance for Education, and to the MAINstream Coalition will all slow to a trickle. And that's a problem.

The biggest two most unexpected results last night were Harry McDonald's loss to John Bacon and Sally Cauble's victory over Connie Morris.

Harry lost by 1,900 votes out of 20,000 cast, and David Oliphant took 2,146 votes in a pro-science, anti-immigrant campaign. If those votes went to Harry, or if 2000 more science supporters made it to the polls, we'd be guaranteed 7 moderates on the Board next year.

In the big 5th, Sally Cauble won with 2,000 more votes than the kooky incumbent, out of 25,000 cast. If Connie had done a little more, called in a few more favors from friendly pastors, wrangled a few more radio ads out of the Discovery Institute, or been slightly less nefarious in her handling of the people's money, we'd be guaranteed nothing more than a tied Board, one that couldn't roll back the science standards.

Two thousand people is a pittance. If the weather were a little cooler, 2,000 more people might have turned out. If it were raining, 2,000 fewer might have. With 4,000 more votes, we'd have won the race in the 7th district. With 3,500 fewer, we'd have lost in the 9th, the place where the pro-science candidate got the best percentage.

After 1999, people forgot how important the work of groups like KCFS can be. And I wonder whether KCFS itself didn't relax a bit. My sense as an outsider was that the group was playing catch-up when a creationist Board was elected. That could have been a result of too little funding or too vague a mission in the absence of a creationist Board. I couldn't say, but I hope to do some interviews to suss that out a bit more clearly.

The fight for school boards is a holding action, one that helps maintain the status quo. But the status quo sucks.

In NSF surveys of public knowledge of science and the scientific method, a quarter of Americans think the Sun rotates the Earth, half of Americans don't know that electrons are smaller than atoms, and one in 5 don't know that the center of the Earth is very hot. They ask a question about probability and a couple questions about how science is practiced, including a question about the use of controls in experiments and a request for a general description of a scientific study. The National Science Foundation reports that "39% of Americans surveyed in 2004 correctly answered all three questions about the nature of scientific inquiry, 61% did not. This lack of understanding may explain why a substantial portion of the population believes in various forms of pseudoscience."

While creationism is not counted as one of the forms of pseudoscience, fully three quarters of the population believes in one of the ten categories they do count: "extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a 'spirit-being' to temporarily assume control of a body."

Majorities of Americans consistently reject the scientific evidence of evolution and of the big bang, despite evidence that they are familiar with the content of the theories. Whether they reject them on principle or simply haven't been exposed to the evidence for them is unclear.

This is a fight that can't just happen in elementary and high schools, and not just in states where and when creationism pops up. Parents have to be better informed, since science changes fast and parents have to be able to support and help their kids.

I hope you'll all give your money, but more importantly your expertise and time to your local science advocates. Many states have a "______ Citizens for Science" and if yours doesn't, maybe you should start one! Get in touch and I'll help you along. Start a Cafe Scientifique, start a book club to discuss science books or popular science magazines. Talk to your friends and your co-workers not just about evolution, but about how science works. Just because you aren't a scientist doesn't mean you can't help out. Scientists, to be frank, suck at organizing. Help them arrange a place to talk informally to the public, help make sure people show up, make sure the conversation doesn't get to abstract or technical. Work with public officials to celebrate your local scientific heritage, whether it be meteorites, butterflies or beaches.

Remember, the standards in Kansas didn't just attack evolution and biology, they redefined science, and the stated goals of the Discovery Institute are to "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God," and to force "the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science."

Today it's Kansas and evolution. Tomorrow it could be your neighborhood, and it could be any science. We won't beat this by holding it back and worrying only about school kids, we'll beat it by reaching out to the public and continuing to educate and inform everyone.

A reminder

2006-08-02T13:39:00.000-05:00

School is about to start, and if you buy your new computer through the links here, TfK gets a cut to support our ongoing efforts.

I'd be talking up Apple computers anyway, since I've been a Mac user forever.

These Apples run Windows, run OS X, have built-in video chat capability, run any software you need. You can even load Linux on them.

The DI responds?

2006-08-02T12:14:00.000-05:00

Paul Nelson issues the first response to last night from DI-land, A Short Fable About Kansas:

Once upon a time, there were a whole bunch of people who thought that what really mattered in thinking hard about design and evolution were state science standards. And school board elections.

Along came a 15 year old kid who loved science, read a lot, thought for herself, and generally saw the adults around her as missing the point. "As if," she said to the cat sleeping at her feet.

Then she smiled and went back to her web browsing.

The End.

See, someone who thinks IDC is science might have expected her to go out, conduct research, publish papers and perhaps contribute something to demonstrate that whatever it is she and her cat think is right actually is. But that isn't the Discovery Institute's style. Her solution was to be blithely dismissive without giving any compelling basis, then to surf the web for a while.

There are many things that describes, but "discovery" isn't one of them. Nor "science."

I suppose this may be Nelson's criticism of the DI for focusing on science standards and elections rather than actually funding and conducting research, but I doubt that that's his angle. I think he's trying to take away our fun.

Fame!

2006-08-02T09:04:00.000-05:00

First, a big shout out to John Scopes the day before his birthday. I'm told that scientists have detected a drop in seismic activity near his grave now that he's stopped spinning.

Thanks also to DarkSyde at Daily Kos, the Daou Report and frickin' MSNBC.

Apparently when I said:

The Board is back in moderate hands no matter what. The night is, on balance, a victory. It'd be nice to further marginalize the extremists by winning the remaining races in November, but we've got a majority that will implement the science standards recommended by the scientists, educators and parents of the science standards committee.

I struck a chord, since everyone quoted that. Good for them, I was proud of that, and prouder of what came next:

The Board can focus on bigger issues. They can dig into ways to address the special challenges of rural districts, and to find solutions to the problems faced by the students in poorer urban districts. Real challenges, not fake controversy. Helping kids, not fighting culture wars.

That's what tonight was about, and the kids won. This wasn't Dover rejecting a few municipal officials. It's a whole state turning against the divisiveness of the IDolators. Congratulations, Kansas!

This isn't over, but let's just bask in this for a day or two.

If you're feeling generous, send some money to Don Weiss. His district in suburban Kansas City is still a great pickup opportunity, and we can cement last night's victories, and provide a buffer against elections when everyone forgets the silliness that comes from electing extremists to run the schools.

Final tallies: Science wins in Kansas

2006-08-01T23:13:00.000-05:00

For the Board of Ed:

Waugh won re-election. There's no Republican challenge, so that seat remains safe.

Cauble appears to have beat Morris! Only 68% of the precincts have reported (with several urban centers that will back Cauble experiencing technical problems), but the trend seems to be holding. If so (keynehore) a lightning rod on the conservative side got burned. Apparently it doesn't cut it to badmouth your colleagues and use government money to fund a Florida vacation. Tim Cruz will still duke it out, but I expect that western Kansas will be a stretch for a Democrat, especially given that Ms. Cauble has a background in education. The debate will be fun to watch, but the fireworks will be elsewhere.

Shaver beat Patzer. I wish her a restful few days off before returning to what should be a great race against Kent Runyan. Runyan is a great guy with tons of experience and I'll be following that race closely. It'll be nice to see a serious race fought on the basis of substance, not wedge issues.

Willard beat Viola. Viola tried hard and came close. Jack Wempe is a great guy, and I hope he puts up a web page one of these days.

And in the most heartbreaking race of the night, Harry McDonald lost to John Bacon. McDonald is the former President of Kansas Citizens for Science, a former school teacher and a really, really great guy. He seemed truly dejected when we spoke last. He raised the most money of anyone in any of the races, he put together a great organization and had lots of help from the pro-science PACs. It just wasn't enough to bend the conservatives in Johnson County. He's pledged his support to Don Weiss, who is also a great guy. Heck, he reads TfK, how can he be bad?

The Board is back in moderate hands no matter what. The night is, on balance, a victory. It'd be nice to further marginalize the extremists by winning the remaining races in November, but we've got a majority that will implement the science standards recommended by the scientists, educators and parents of the science standards committee. The Board can focus on bigger issues. They can dig into ways to address the special challenges of rural districts, and to find solutions to the problems faced by the students in poorer urban districts. Real challenges, not fake controversy. Helping kids, not fighting culture wars.

That's what tonight was about, and the kids won. This wasn't Dover rejecting a few municipal officials. It's a whole state turning against the divisiveness of the IDolators. Congratulations, Kansas!

Election update

2006-08-01T22:07:00.000-05:00

I realize I forgot to predict the winner in the race to get beaten by Dennis Moore. With 70 of 590 precincts reporting, Chuck Ahner is ahead by 250 votes (27%), and while I'm not calling any winners with so few votes cast, I'd guess that that's how the race will play out.

In the gubernatorial race, Jim Barnett is ahead of Canfield by 12% (~6000 votes) with about a quarter of precincts reporting, and looks likely to win.

Ron Thornburgh retains his huge lead over Kay "why should women vote?" O'Connor, so let's call that race. Let's give Sandy Praeger the Insurance Commissioner race while we're at it.

On the Board of Ed, results on the web are lagging the rumor mill.

Janet Waugh is clearly in a tight race. With 87 of 190 precincts reporting, the race is very close, with only 340 votes separating them Waugh from her stealth challenger. The word on the street is that the race has been called for her though, so that's encouraging.

With 24 of 300 precincts reporting, Harry McDonald and John Bacon are neck-and-neck, with the pro-science McDonald ahead by only 45 votes. David Oliphant is looking like a potential spoiler right now, sapping 16% on a doomed bid. I spoke with Harry, and he sounded pretty down on his prospects, though he won't concede until all the votes are in.

The 5th District is also too close to call. With 162 of 609 precincts in, Sally Cauble is down by only 36 votes. She tells us to watch Ford, Finney and Scott counties, and that she won't feel confident until the last vote is counted.

In the 9th, Jana Shaver is up by 2200 votes, with 9700 counted from 194 of 428 precincts. I expect she'll be feeling good during the time off she tells TfK she's planning to take no matter what happens. Astute readers will recall that I've said that this would be a sleeper race, and I'm feeling good about that prediction. The Star is said to be ready to call this race for Shaver.

In the 7th District, Donna Viola is down 7% (800 votes) to Ken Willard. Even with the votes kooky artist M.T. Liggett siphoned off, she'd still be well behind with 203 of 463 precincts reporting. I was hoping for a surprise there, but it doesn't seem to have panned out.

Results open thread

2006-08-01T20:18:00.000-05:00

According to the Secretary of State, with a fraction of precincts reporting, the governor's race is between Barnett and Jennison. Ron Thornburgh is sweeping the race for Secretary of State (though one must consider the source), and Sandy Praeger is ahead in the Insurance Commissioner race.

Donna Viola is ahead by 114 votes (24%) in the 7th district, Jana Shaver is up 89 votes (30%) in the 9th, Harry McDonald is up 16 votes (29%) in the 3rd, and the 5th district is basically 50-50. No report is out yet from the 1st.

This is based on partial results from 10 counties.

Low turnout

2006-08-01T19:00:00.000-05:00

The Secretary of State's office tells TfK that turnout was close to the 23% predicted a few days ago. That's based on calls to Kansas City, Wichita and western Kansas.

Results will be available at the Secretary of State's office as they come in.

In related news, Texans for Better Science Education has sent out an email endorsing the conservatives as "Conservative Christian 'Good Guys.'" They argue that:

The Darwinian "thought police" have resorted to propaganda, distortions, outright lies, and recently, trying to confuse voters into voting for the wrong candidate. (A recent Kansas City Star article even implied that those conservative Christians who support "intelligent design" are supporting an atheistic view of science!) Why would the Darwinists resort to such deception and confusion and why would the KCStar print it? Answer: Because they know they are wrong and can not win against the truth—just as this same group refused to debate or even provide scientific witnesses for their dogmatic view of "evolution is all there is in the world".

They have even brought in their 'big guns' and heeded advice from, of all places, Berkeley California, Northeastern "blue state" liberals, and enlisted the more liberal newspapers' help.

Here are the facts:

1. The current conservative KSBE has passed voluntary science standards for local independent school districts to use. These standards, much like the Texas ones, encourage critical thinking on biologic evolution and other issues, and encourage teaching weaknesses of evolution along with strengths.

2. The challengers have pledged to repeal these "teach the controversy" standards – for most of them this is the only reason they are running.

3. The newspapers are calling the challengers "moderates"…as in being "moderate" like Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy or the ACLU would be called moderate – all of whom hold similar views on these issues.

4. The position of the science standards—that of a thorough and critical examination of both strengths and weaknesses of evolution, is one supported by the vast majority of Americans— typically over 80% of your neighbors—including those who describe themselves as evolutionists, support teaching the controversy. Very few, typically less than 20% and often only 10% of people prefer a Godless evolution taught in science classes, and guess what the majority of those people are, religiously speaking?

5. Those who are distorting things now by saying they are for better science, did not even show up at the Kansas science hearings, knowing in advance that well-prepared critics of evolution would be there (and were).

6. The current Kansas science standards have never been challenged in court.

7. The current Kansas standards do not require creation science or even intelligent design theory to be taught.

8. The current Kansas standards do encourage teaching weaknesses of evolution along with the strengths. This would include exposing such scientific frauds as Piltdown man, Haeckel's embryos, peppered moths, and other hoaxes and bad science. It could also expose students to such concepts as:

The irreducible complexity of biologic systems
The absence of meaningful transitional forms in the fossil record
The fact that mutations are harmful
The origin of both the molecular structure and of the information itself contained in the DNA molecule is completely unexplained by worshippers of Charles Darwin.
Not all 'common ancestor' trees of life diagrams match each other as they should if they are true. Those based on how things look—their morphology, such as humans and apes having arms, legs, etc—do not match trees of life based on molecular clues, amino acid sequences or even DNA.
The difference between variation within a species (like hair color, eye color, or finch beak size, sometimes erroneously called "micro-evolution"), and the generation of new kinds of plants or animals or new features, more properly called "macro-evolution", (which has not been observed).

9. The current Kansas standards do not reduce or eliminate teaching evolution. In stark contrast, the gist of the standards could be paraphrased as "teach more, not less evolution, and let the fittest theory survive". What they do seek to eliminate is the propaganda-like monopoly the teaching of naturalistic-evolution-only-and-as-fact has on the government-run school system.

10. The Darwinists are fighting in both political parties. They cannot tolerate teaching kids that they didn't evolve from apes. They hardly get along with anyone outside the ACLU, the most liberal Democrats, the communist party (literally), and of course, atheist groups.

11. The conservatives have also pushed through conservative Christian reforms on things such as sex education, history curriculum, charter schools, and a general focus on back to the basics. The so-called moderates cannot tolerate parents having power over what their kids are taught or in breaking the monopoly the ACLU and the NEA have had over the schools.

12. Intelligent design does not promote atheism. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. While many conservative Christians view this as more compatible with their beliefs than a godless "molecules-to-man" evolution, ID theory does not take an explicit position on who or what the intelligent cause is—just that scientific evidence is best explained by intelligent causes rather than by undirected random chance processes. Atheists do not believe that ID is compatible with their beliefs.

I hope you all did your part to oust these sorts of liars.

Good thinkin'

2006-08-01T14:30:00.000-05:00

Ed Brayton notes that:

ABC, in a stunningly obvious move, has pulled the plug on a forthcoming Mel Gibson-directed miniseries on the holocaust.

That a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite was producing such a series is unfortunate. Though I suppose it may explain why it would have been a mini-series. After a few hours, fictional Germans genteelly worrying about the few unfortunate Jews who happen to die in fictionally humane and clean work camps would get tedious. As would their regular insistence that they would never use the showers or other enclosed spaces to gas anyone.

ABC claims he never sent them a script, but maybe that was his little joke.

When asked to comment, Gibson replied: "F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. …Are you a Jew?" He then asked "What are you looking at, nougat knickers?"

No news

2006-08-01T13:35:00.000-05:00

I've been checking with various and sundry people and the word is that turnout is light. Maybe all the conservatives are bored and staying away from the primary because the Republicans are putting the "goober" back in gubernatorial politics, but I wouldn't count on it.

There's no exit polling or anything, so we won't know anything for sure until the counts start coming in around 8.

The only way you can find out how things are going is to go to a polling place, vote, and ask the nice people how turnout is.

Then leave a comment here so we can all share.

The eyes of a nation are on us today

2006-08-01T00:12:00.000-05:00

The Times covers the Board of Ed battle with a typically "he said, she said" approach, as in this unedited passage:

Harry E. McDonald, a retired biology teacher and self-described moderate Republican who has been going door to door for votes in his district near Olathe, said the board might have kept overt religious references out of the standards, “but methinks they doth protest too much.”

“They say science can’t answer this, therefore God,” Mr. McDonald said.

Connie Morris, a conservative Republican running for re-election, said the board had merely authorized scientifically valid criticism of evolution. Ms. Morris, a retired teacher and author, said she did not believe in evolution.

“It’s a nice bedtime story,” she said. “Science doesn’t back it up.”

You'd think that the next sentence might be "Dr. Leonard Krishtalka of the University of Kansas' world-renowned Natural History Museum disagrees." But, alas, no. The absurd claim is allowed to stand unchallenged. And John Calvert is quoted extensively without any input from the non-profits working on behalf of science. If we're going to do the balanced thing, let's do it. If we aren't going to, let's get balance from people who aren't personally invested in the election.

At least a regular commenter here got some press:

“There are so many more important issues in Kansas right now,” said Cheryl Shepherd-Adams, a science teacher. “The issue is definitely a wedge issue, and I don’t want to see our community divided.”

Go vote!

Endorsements, predictions, and get out and vote!

2006-07-31T23:50:00.000-05:00

Not that you care, but here's who I want people to vote for, and who I think will win:

Governor: Who cares? The candidates are indistinguishable, so write in JustCara. Barnett will probably win, though his tactics leave much to be desired.

Sec. of State: Ron Thornburgh beats his anti-suffragette opponent. Hallelujah.

Sec. of Insurance: Sandy Praeger should fend off her conservative opponent. Help her do it.

Board of Ed.: Endorsements go to Janet Waugh, Harry McDonald, Sally Cauble, Donna Viola, and Jana Shaver (in order of district number).

Turnout will be key, and none of these candidates has a lock. I think Waugh will win, and I expect McDonald has a good shot. The suburban and urban areas they'd represent are relatively easy to get the vote out in. The more rural districts will be tougher, but I'd say that Jana Shaver has an edge given that there's no incumbent. I think Sally Cauble's race against Connie Morris will be down to the wire. And while I desperately want Viola to win, I haven't seen enough from her campaign to feel much confidence.

House races: I haven't followed these closely. There are quite a few contested primaries. Part of me wants moderates to win so that the legislature won't be populated by nutballs, but the rest of me thinks that Democratic opponents will do better against conservatives in many of those districts, and I'd rather elect Democrats than moderate Republicans, at least on average. I'll predict that moderates will do better than usual.

Post your predictions and endorsements in other races in the comments.

Pre-Primary polling

2006-07-31T23:40:00.000-05:00

J.D points to the third SurveyUSA Poll on the Kansas electorate. Not much change on the most interesting issue, support for ID candidates remains decent, though my constant refrain about the poorly worded question persists. There are no candidates who oppose teaching alternatives to evolution on principle, some just want theories taught in science class to have scientific content. Independent support for ID candidates dropped noticeably (though with a 10.6% margin of error for the subsample, who really knows?) while other groups just seemed to drift.

Support for safe sex remains a strong issue, with 2/3 of voters preferring candidates who won't hide information from kids. Interestingly, Republican preferences flip-flopped, with a plurality now favoring abstinence only after two months of support for comprehensive sex-ed. Apparently someone's getting a memo around. Independents compensated by moving heavily toward comprehensive sex ed.

As far as what will drive people's votes for governor, economic issues still lead the pack and moral issues and character continue to trade places, with moral issues edging out character. Republicans follow that general trend, Democrats are consolidating on economic issues, while Independents are finding less clarity, with all four options too close to distinguish. Economic issues had been the clear leader, but now are only one point above "other." Moderates are seeing a similar shift. That should worry team Sebelius, since having those moderates on the same wavelength as Democrats made outreach easier. I expect this is just a result of election-season browbeating about abortion, and will settle down once the campaign starts in earnest.

A funding cut now ties with "other" as the best way to fund schools, with consolidation falling out of the running. That trend is the same among Republicans. Democrats still favor "other" with cutting funding close behind. Support for raising taxes ticked up, making this a trickier minefield for Democrats. Independents have been shifting away from "other" and to cutting funding, with consolidation and tax hikes holding at low support.

Education funding has taken the lead of issues that will determine people's votes. Interest in health care is falling (which is a shame, the issue needs to be addressed), while concern about abortion regulations is rising. Predictably, the latter is driven largely by Republicans, and moderate concern about abortion remains miniscule.

These results only inform us marginally about the primaries today. There's almost no light between the major candidates for the Republican nomination for Governor, and the Board of Education election will not hinge on the question SUSA asked about evolution (because it's framed wrong). The sex ed question is better phrased, and seems to give some comfort to the moderate candidates.

Here's hoping.

The creationist standards are about ID

2006-07-31T13:53:00.000-05:00

I know this result isn't terribly surprising to regular readers here, but everyone is pointing to Bill Dembski's research assistant's comments at Billy's blog:

My hope is that ID will be taught properly in Kansas. Having been born and raised there I would love to claim to be from the first state to teach ID.

Other commenters try to gently prod Borofsky away from those claims, trying to get him onto the bandwagon of "it's just about teaching evolution more betterer," but he stood his ground:

It [the standards] really is ID in disguise. The entire purpose behind all of this is to shift it into schools…at least that is the hope/fear among some science teachers in the area. The problem is, if you are not going to be dogmatic in Darwinism that means you inevitably have to point out a fault or at least an alternative to Darwinism. So far, the only plausible theory is ID.

If one is to challenge Darwin, then one must use ID. To challenge Darwin is to challenge natural selection/spontaneous first cause…which is what the Kansas board is attempting to do. When you do that, you have to invoke the idea of ID.

Comment by Joel Borofsky -- July 30, 2006 @ 9:04 pm

That IDC is not, in fact, plausible isn't even a problem at this point. What this does is set Bill Dembski, ID's toothless bulldog, against John Calvert, Kansas science's toothless gadfly. Calvert has spent a lot of money on pamphlets and radio ads about how the new standards aren't creationist and everyone who opposes him is bad. But like so many of his claims, those are lies, and no scientist had to raise a finger to show it, though that hasn't stopped us from trying.

The agenda of the anti-science candidates has been and is to get creationism and their twisted theology into the schools. They set the stage with their standards this year, and if they have two more years they can push those standards further and find ways to punish schools that don't move their direction.

That's what's at stake tomorrow. So vote, get your friends to vote, and offer a ride to anyone who you think might forget to vote. It's about turnout now. Will people come out of their shells and stand up for honesty in science classes, or will they let religious authoritarians cement their hold on our children's minds?

People who don't watch the news shouldn't complain about it

2006-07-31T11:07:00.000-05:00

Pew polled people's use of the media and I found the result in the image here surprising:

Republicans, more than Democrats or Independents, are tuning out news from Iraq. Everyone is recoiling a little bit from the Lovecraftian horror we've unleashed there. Most groups have also paid less attention to the goings-on in Washington, with the exception of liberal Democrats, who remain unchanged.

When we or the Bush Administration talk about the "reality-based community," this is what we're talking about. I follow the news because I have a stake in what my nation does and in what happens in my world. And for whatever reason, Democrats and Independents tend to share that desire for accurate knowledge. In contrast, the Republican base is solving the disconnect between empirical evidence and their hopes and expectations by closing their eyes. Catching up on reading fiction (insert Ann Coulter comment here). Maybe doing some more gardening. Anything to avoid confronting the mess that their favorite guy has made of this world since they re-elected him.

This is why I get peeved about the strain of right-wing criticism that claims that the media is responsible for what's wrong in Iraq. Conservatives have preferred to wrap themselves in the happy-happy world of their own spin, and what journalists do is not harm the occupation, but force them to re-evaluate the status of it. People who aren't paying attention to the news from Iraq do not get to complain about how that news is covered.

I remain the King

2006-07-31T10:19:00.000-05:00

Frankly, the rest of you should be embarrassed. Except for Bill.

What do they think about evolution?

2006-07-31T00:31:00.000-05:00

The World's Fair points us to Weekend America's review of opinion on evolution in Kansas (RealAudio).

Laura Ziegler interviews a neighbor who says: "There's not a shred of evidence that Darwin was a scientist, and if a teacher wants to tell a kid to read a Bible and believe in God, fine!"

My brain hurts.

That Darwin was a scientist is fairly readily demonstrated, but also irrelevant. The evidence for evolution rests on the data, not on who Darwin was or what he did 150 years ago. A lot happened in between, and it's all supported the framework that Darwin established.

Vote on Tuesday!

Compare and Contrast: On conservative modes of thought

2006-07-30T21:36:00.000-05:00

There was much rightful concern when conservative columnist John Podhoretz posed some truly bizarre hypotheticals:

What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?

The fairly unavoidable conclusion of this paragraph, and the whole piece's obsession with the horrors of niceness, is that we (and Israel) ought to ramp up the brutality. Slaughter all the fighting-age men. At the same time, a commenter here was advocating the use of tactical nuclear weapons in southern Lebanon, an equally genocidal policy.

Instapundit, who I don't read regularly, decided to balance Podhoretz's genocidal meanderings against a piece by Josh Marshall, claiming some manner of equivalence. Marshall was understandably peeved because he never advocated genocide in Iraq. The column in question makes the fairly scholarly point that the successful transition of Germany and Japan from bitter enemies to close friends derived in part from the thoroughness of their national defeat. He concluded:

And thus our problem. If everything goes according to plan, the loss of civilian life in Iraq will be minimal. Certainly, we all hope so. We’d be even happier if most of the Iraqi army simply laid down its arms when our ground troops march on Baghdad. In addition to our humanitarian interest in shedding as little blood as possible, a low death toll is key to convincing Iraqis and the rest of the Arab world that we are liberators, not conquerors or destroyers. In short, it’s key to making our invasion seem like a good thing.

But that’s the catch. Occupying armies will always keep things under control in the short-term. But the sort of transformation we engineered in the former Axis powers required a far greater pliancy, one which allowed us not only to disarm these countries but rewrite their textbooks, reorient their politics, and do much more.

Doing that in a foreign country may require a mauling of the civilian population that we are rightly unwilling to undertake.

Marshall opposed the war in Iraq, and was always critical of the planning of the war. And this column was one line of that argument. I don't see how one can read this as advocating anything close to killing all the Sunni men between 15 and 35. To me, it's clear that he is pointing out how predictions that Iraq would turn into a pro-Western (pro-Israeli) state with a politic as tied to America as Germany and Japan were fantasy. He was suggesting that the success possible was dramatically smaller than the success war advocates were predicting.

And that prediction was validated when the new Iraqi Prime Minister chose to single out Israel but not Hezbollah for criticism. That event marked a failure of those predictions. We may have created democracy in Iraq, but Syria and Iran are democracies, too. We were promised a new kind of democracy, and it didn't materialize.

I said before that I don't see how someone could read Marshall and JPod as saying anything even similar, but that's false. I do see how it can happen. I understand because I think I understand creationists. They apply a flawed sort of logic in which rejecting a conclusion on principle counts as falsifying an argument. For instance, they say that since evolution doesn't involve God, evolution therefore rejects the notion of God, and since they reject anything that rejects God, evolution must be wrong. They refuse to re-analyze any of the intermediate logic.

Instapundit is similarly resistant to any logic that might reject the prudence of our warplanning, so he refuses to interpret the argument in a supported the war, and supported the idea that this would all work out to bring pro-Western, pro-Israeli democracy to Iraq (and the rest of the region). He made and quoted others making comparisons to Germany and Japan. The idea that Marshall was making a contrast escaped him in reading the column in question, and so he misunderstood the logic. The argument is: our occupation can't bring a pro-Western democracy to Iraq unless we engage in atrocious attacks against civilians. Marshall meant that our occupation won't bring the democracy in question. Insty, assuming that such a democracy was the only possible or acceptable result of war, seems to have concluded that the argument was in favor of disproportionate attacks. At the time, he responded to the post by asserting that Marshall "thinks it ['people dying'] has a valuable pedagogical function."

That Marshall was rejecting that logical path and instead rejecting the premise of occupation planning that insisted a smooth transition of the sort observed in Germany and Japan still seems to escape the Instapundit three years later.

And that would be OK if the same mindset hadn't infected the people setting Iraq policy.

The lesser of two evils

2006-07-30T10:32:00.000-05:00

In addition to the all important Board of Education primaries on Tuesday, Republicans will decide who will wind up getting spanked by Governor Sebelius in November.

Since none of the candidates have any name recognition or traction, things are getting ugly:

In recent days, the Barnett campaign has launched a radio ad accusing the Canfield campaign of lying about Barnett's positions. The Canfield campaign responded with a statement accusing Barnett of lying about Canfield lying about Barnett's positions. And the Barnett campaign issued a statement Saturday accusing Canfield of lying about Barnett lying about Canfield lying about Barnett's positions.

The skirmish could work to the advantage of Jennison, who has stayed out of it.

Jennison said that win or lose, he doesn't want any bruised feelings going into a tough race with Sebelius.

"I think we'll have to have everyone in the Republican Party to win (in November)," he said. "I won't comment about the other candidates. I haven't, and I think it will serve us well after Tuesday."

These are classic schoolyard personalities. Barnett and Canfield whine to everyone about how mean the other guy is, while Jennison tries desperately to believe that everyone will just get along.

It'd be cute if these weren't grown men who think they're qualified to run a state.

AAAS writes to Kansas

2006-07-30T08:53:00.000-05:00

In the Wichita Eagle's opinion page, AAAS board chair Omenn and chief executive Leshner write that there is "No conflict between science and religion":

In the climate of turmoil that now surrounds how biology and evolution are taught in public schools, a troubling distortion has become common: The issues are wrongly cast as a conflict between science and religion, as if they were two rival football teams.

With a crucial State Board of Education election just days away, and with the long-term future of Kansas children at stake, it's important to avoid such misunderstanding.

Science has no inherent conflict with religion and no interest in trying to undermine faith.

Science seeks natural explanations of the natural world, focusing on how the Earth and life developed over millions of years. Religion deals with questions of the supernatural and the ultimate meanings of life, totally different domains. Many scientists are religious, and thousands of U.S. clerical leaders from every denomination have testified that they see no conflict between faith and evolution.

Certainly some scientists do publicly reject religion, and some religious figures encourage mistrust of science. But if extremists dominate the discussion, misunderstanding thrives, to the detriment of everyone.

…

What's needed is a commitment to mutual respect. Religion is a personal matter, and it should be taught in the home and in churches and synagogues.

But science classrooms are where we cultivate the mind-set of discovery and where we prepare the workers of tomorrow. Those classrooms must be reserved for science.

Rather than confuse students, we need to teach science better than ever to inspire a new generation and secure our nation's future.

Go vote on Tuesday!

Volunteer Opportunity or Turnout is Key

2006-07-29T21:40:00.000-05:00

As the Secretary of State predicts low turnout for Tuesday's election, it's important to think about what that will mean. In 2004 there were less than 38,000 votes cast for the two candidates for the Republican nomination that Kathy Martin ultimately won (thus seizing a creationist majority). This is an off-year without an exciting race at the top of the ballot, so turnout will be lower. Getting a few people to remember to vote next Tuesday could easily swing the tide.

First, that means that Kansas readers better get themselves to the polls. Nothing is more important than voting. Anyone who is registered as a Republican or who is unaffiliated may vote in a Republican primary, and I think anyone at all can vote in Democratic primaries (the only one at the State Board of Education level or higher is the race in the first district, where you should vote Waugh). Unaffiliated voters will have to declare a registration at the polls, but I'm assured by people I trust that this can be legally done. Poll workers may not know it, so be prepared to fight over it.

The second critical thing to do is make sure that your friends understand the issues at hand and vote. Talk to people tomorrow, Monday and Tuesday. Let them know that, if they live in a district that's voting, they can change how people view Kansas and can secure better schools. Check what district you're in at this handy page. Odd numbered Board districts are up for election this year.

On top of that, you can help reach out to people who you didn't know before through Kansas Families United for Public Education and the Mainstream Coalition. The groups are doing a calling party Sunday night at 6:30 on to remind people in Janet Waugh's district to vote. The event is at:

5530 Noland Rd.
Shawnee, KS
(Just east of Pflumm between Johnson Dr. and 55th St.)
Contact KFUPE for more information, including some things you can do if you can't make the party but want to make some calls.

There will also be GOTV at Mainstream for Waugh and for Harry McDonald in the Third District (against Bacon).

I haven't heard about organized activities in other districts, but that shouldn't stop you. Get some friends together and call some local retirement homes, offer to shuttle people to the polling places. The 5th District is huge, and Sally Cauble will win or lose based on how many people actually show up at the polls. Connie Morris and her creationist gang will have vans running all day, getting core conservative voters to the polls, and if you want to turn that back, now is the time to take matters into your own hands. Get the rest of the voters to the polls.

The same is true in the 9th district, where Brad Patzer will tap into the network that snuck his mother-in-law through the primaries undetected. Jana Shaver is truly a great candidate, and I'd love to see her bring southeastern Kansas back to the bright side. If you live down there or know people down there, make some polite calls to encourage people to go and vote.

Random Ten

2006-07-28T14:25:00.000-05:00

This random ten is brought to you by Quicksilver. It rocks.

“Follow the Light” by Dungeon Family from the album Even In Darkness (2001, 4:24).
“Lily of the West” by Bob Dylan from the album Dylan (1973, 3:47).
“Sweet Adeline” by Elliott Smith from the album XO (1998, 3:15).
“Eilidh” by Ian Carr / Karen Tweed from the album Fyace (1997, 5:39).
“What God Wants, Part 1” by Roger Waters from the album Amused To Death (1992, 6:00).
“Trumpets and Violins” by Suburban Kids With Biblical Names (2:44).
“Whistle Down the Wind (For Tom Jans)” by Tom Waits from the album Bone Machine (1992, 4:35).
“On The Verge” by Le Tigre from the album This Island (2004, 3:31).
“Trouble Me” by 10,000 Maniacs from the album Blind Man's Zoo (1989, 3:14).
“I Am A Lonesome Hobo” by Bob Dylan from the album John Wesley Harding (1968, 3:24).

Average iTunes rating: 3.7 stars

"Don't look so surprised, it's only dogma," the alien prophet cried.

Our long nightmare…

2006-07-28T14:07:00.000-05:00

…is over:

The Kansas Supreme Court today dismissed the landmark school finance case, saying the Legislature had fixed inequities in the state’s system for funding public schools.

The decision to dismiss the case outright is odd. It seems like the better choice would be to remand the case to the lower court for re-hearing in light of the new law, since that's what will happen either way.

“It’s like the court decided to evade making a decision instead of making one,” said John Martellaro, with Kansas Families United for Public Education. “By not ruling on the constitutionality of (SB) 549, they have invited the parties to drag this all the way through the courts again, which is disappointing.

“I had hoped for greater resolution than what we got,” he said.

I guess it doesn't matter much if the case is heard under a new name or reheard as an extension of its old self. The schools will be funded for the time being, and the system is better than it was. It's not clear that it's good enough, but that's a discussion for another day.

In the short term, the legs have been cut out from under the critics of the court, especially the Republican gubernatorial candidates.

The schools are facing other nightmares though, and next Tuesday will help determine what happens to them. Boot out the conservatives. Give money, be sure to vote (early voting has started, so you can vote in person at your county courthouse now if you prefer), and please, please, please help your local candidates get out the vote. Turnout will be crucial.

Oops: Israel bombing civilians makes Hezbollah look good

2006-07-28T11:02:00.000-05:00

Tide of Arab Opinion Turns to Support for Hezbollah - New York Times:

At the onset of the Lebanese crisis, Arab governments, starting with Saudi Arabia, slammed Hezbollah for recklessly provoking a war, providing what the United States and Israel took as a wink and a nod to continue the fight.

Now, with hundreds of Lebanese dead and Hezbollah holding out against the vaunted Israeli military for more than two weeks, the tide of public opinion across the Arab world is surging behind the organization, transforming the Shiite group’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, into a folk hero and forcing a change in official statements.

This isn't surprising. It's what many people thought would be an inevitable consequence of the particular policies that Israel chose to pursue.

And the ever entertaining Anthony Bourdain describes his time in Beirut as the bombs fell:

We watch the city we'd barely begun to know -- and yet already started to love -- destroyed, seemingly (from where we're sitting) without sense or reason.

We all deserve better.

Missing the point

2006-07-28T11:00:00.000-05:00

Kansas City Star reports that the State school board’s actions fire up its foes, and quotes Connie Morris saying:

"There are a lot of good people out there who are very frustrated with what’s going on in the public schools,"

But she seems not to realize that she is what people are frustrated with.

Sebelius interview

2006-07-28T00:23:00.000-05:00

DoubleSpeak with Matthew and Peter Slutsky interviews Governor Kathleen Sebelius, among other randomness. Skip to about minute 5.

Asked how Democrats can win in even Red states, her answer is simple: take responsibility and get results.

Getting results is a theme for her, avoiding the insider silliness of Washington in order to improve people's lives.

She's optimistic about getting a majority of Democratic governors and taking back at least one House of Congress.

More than any of the details, though, what shines through is her thoughtfulness. Smart answers that get past posturing to the substance of the issues Kansas and America faces. There's a reason her name keeps floating around as a nominee for higher office. She isn't just another ambitious politician.

You heard it here first, bombing Lebanon drives the people to Hezbollah

2006-07-27T16:49:00.000-05:00

Via ThinkProgress, former Deputy to Colin Powell and Iraq hawk Armitage says:

if I thought that this air campaign would work, and would eliminate Nasrullah and the leadership of Hezbollah, I think it would all be fine. But I fear that you can’t do this from the sky, and that you’re going to end up empowering Hezbollah, and perhaps introducing an element into the body politic in Lebanon that will take some great period of time to recover from.

This has been my concern all along as well, and I'm still waiting for someone to explain what I (and Armitage) have missed.

Most representative

2006-07-27T15:44:00.000-05:00

The idea of choosing one state as an exemplar of all 50 is, of course, stupid. But we have the asinine system where some states cast their primary votes before others, and therefore get to knock out candidates before they reach other states. These states are effectively representing dozens of states which have late primaries.

Someone or other will therefore be fascinated to learn that Wisconsin is the most representative state. Close behind come Missouri, Kansas, Indiana, and Ohio.

We can quibble about the logic of these choices, but I think it's worth taking this at face value for a moment. The methods and data chosen is left unclear, and we can question whether measures of central tendency should be the only basis for assessing each state.

But the thing that I find notable is that the states where most of the political analysts from either party live and work are far down the list. The concerns in DC, Virginia, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, or California are pretty far from those of Kansas, Missouri, or Ohio.

If any candidate for DNC chair had proposed moving DNC HQ to Columbus, Ohio, or to Wichita, KS, I'd have gone door-to-door to back him. The Wichita Eagle or the Columbus Post-Dispatch tell different stories than the Post or the Times (of either Washington or New York). Too many of the wonks out there get caught up in the latest Beltway trends and lose track of what people actually discuss at dinner tables.

That's why I think John Edwards will continue to be a force to be reckoned with come 2008, and why I'm so pleased with the direction Howard Dean has taken the DNC. Edwards has focused on poverty and on working to improve labor conditions and economic rights for all Americans. He's traveled to places that aren't necessarily great places to mine for votes, but that do put him in touch with important concerns.

And Dean has focussed on getting staff out into the field in all 50 states. Yes, they are carrying the DNC's message to the grassroots, which is nice, but they are also listening to people's concerns and bringing them back to people who are setting the direction. It's not quite moving those people out to Ohio, but it's a step in the right direction.

The other thing that's notable is that the 5 top states are largely swing states. Wisconsin tends to wind up Democratic, but needs serious campaign work. Missouri tends to go for Republican presidential candidates, but is always a battle. Ohio is a constant battleground. Indiana and Kansas are both Republican, but both have prominent Democratic leaders (Sebelius, Bayh). And Kansas is in the midst of a shift back to Democratic power.

How representative is that? Does it signal a Democratic shift in other states? Does the Republican tilt of those 5 suggest a national tilt? I'm inclined to think not, and that Kansas and Indiana are not terribly similar to the national demography. But I'm hopeful that people will be inspired to work on states like Kansas, and that the shift we're seeing here will spread.

So come on and chickity-check yo self before you wreck yo self: Western Kansas does the dozens

2006-07-27T09:52:00.000-05:00

A campaigner for the 5 conservative BoE candidates stepped up for a game of the dozens. Yo moderates are so lazy, she explained…:

“I don’t think we’re going to lose any seats,” she said. “As we’ve seen before, I think conservative voters are motivated; moderates aren’t.”

The muthafrickin' Scientific American stepped up and got up in her face. John Rennie said to those moderates, "Kansas, Undo the Damage":

If you are a voting citizen of Kansas, then next Tuesday, August 1 is a day when you have an important opportunity to stand up for good science education. You need to vote in the primary election and help to defeat the members of the State Board of Education who have inflicted embarrassing creationist nonsense on your home's science curriculum standards.

As for the IDolators, Rennie was all like, Yo theory so stanky…:

the I.D. movement doesn't have the intellectual honesty or sincerity to posit an actual theory of intelligent design.

And if they want to meet down by the creek tomorrow afternoon, bring a posse. Because moderates are waking up. Kansas is tired of the silliness.

And the toughest race to win will probably be in the big 5th district. Connie Morris has big money and a lot of established connections. Sally Cauble is great, but she's short on cash. She raised money from 220 people in her district, compared to Morris' 21. She really can win, but it won't be easy.

She's running hard, meeting with local school officials, with parents, with teachers and with students. She's hearing their concerns, and wants to fix things.

During her campaign stops, she said three major issues surfaced.

The first was the No Child Left Behind mandates.

"It started out as a great theory but lacks common sense," Cauble said. "It is unrealistic to think by 2014 we will have 100 percent efficiency and then have Adequate Yearly Progress attached to that. It's unrealistic."

Another common theme along the trail was a teacher shortage in math and science.

"Private industry can pay $5,000 to $10,000 more as a starting salary in those fields," Cauble said. "I think we need to set up a committee of teachers, administrators and the public and have a serious discussion about teacher salaries in the State of Kansas and have some research done that the public would support."

Cauble believed teacher salaries were relatively low, but there were a number of factors contributing to the reduced pay.

Another major issue Cauble encountered was the national image of the state in relation to the education in Kansas.

Issues like the science standards have contributed to a negative view of the state's educational system, according to Cauble.

"The science standards are poorly written," Cauble said. "My opponent says Intelligent Design was left out of the standards. If that's true, why am I getting so many calls about Intelligent Design? There are no guidelines for locals, therefore, they can interpret them any way they wish."

That's right, yo incumbent so stupid…

The address you should already have sent your check to is:

Cauble for Common Sense
P.O. Box 1085
Liberal, KS 67905

“Check Yo Self” by Ice Cube from the album Greatest Hits (2001, 4:15).

Rebuilding KC

2006-07-27T09:46:00.000-05:00

Tony examines the fantasyland than is a new KC downtown.

The unhinged religious right

2006-07-27T00:39:00.000-05:00

EvolutionBlog documents the ways in which religious authoritarians are driven by "delusional misdirected rage."

Unpopular Senators

2006-07-26T22:29:00.000-05:00

SurveyUSA polled approval for all 100 US Senators, and Roberts is moving up. He's the 37th most popular, and has a 57% approval rating. Brownback remains in the doldrums at 67.

Roberts saw noticeable improvement among Independents and Democrats, though both groups continue to dislike him. Moderates are the only ideological group that has really shifted. Brownback saw his disapproval spike among independents, but everyone else seems to be just drifting. He regained some ground among conservatives (who disapproved of his immigration stance).

I find the Roberts numbers confusing. His name hasn't been in the news much, so there's no reason for people to be changing their minds.

The problem with atheists

2006-07-26T12:49:00.000-05:00

Pharyngula links to an ESPN story in which Fort Riley's own Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich explains that atheists just won't let the needless deaths of their families go:

"But there [have] been numerous unfortunate cases of fratricide, and the parents have basically said, 'OK, it was an unfortunate accident.' And they let it go. So this is — I don't know, these people have a hard time letting it go. It may be because of their religious beliefs."

Kauzlarich, now a battalion commanding officer at Fort Riley in Kansas, further suggested the Tillman family's unhappiness with the findings of past investigations might be because of the absence of a Christian faith in their lives.

He also explains that people without faith in God are also going to lack faith in the political system. Horrors.

Birthdays!

2006-07-26T11:36:00.000-05:00

Happy Birthday to me!
And also to Mick Jagger.

August 1 is TfK's birthday. We may have a special present to announce for TfK's anniversary. Stay tuned.

You are always welcome to pick gifts for me or TfK from the Amazon.com wish list.

Krebs at the JCCC

2006-07-26T11:34:00.000-05:00

Audio and the powerpoint slides from the speech Jack Krebs gave at Johnson County Community College is online. Enjoy!

More BoE filings

2006-07-25T20:11:00.000-05:00

I attached these comments to an update on my previous post on campaign filings, but wanted to be sure everyone saw it.

The last of the reports are online, and I added them to the tables in the previous post.

Sally Cauble is raising money nicely, though not quite at Connie Morris's level. It's a big district and she still needs your help, as does Tim Cruz, who will face whoever wins that primary. Cauble has $9,288 on hand, compared to Morris' $13,320. Connie has the most cash on hand of any incumbent, and has name recognition and an organization in place. This is a big race to win, and while Cauble has raised a lot of money, she needs more to clinch this thing.

Ken Willard dominated the fundraising in his district, and while I wish one of his opponents was showing signs of kicking him out, I won't hold my breath. I'm reluctantly suggesting that people focus their attention elsewhere, and hope things swing around in time for the general election.

Brad Patzer has more cash on hand than Jana Shaver does, $4,732 to $1,214, and he outspent Shaver roughly $17,000 to $14,000. I really think that race may surprise a lot of people and turn very competitive. I really like both candidates, though I've spent more time with Runyan and confess that I'm a fan. In any event, I won't have to pick a favorite there unless Shaver wins, and I badly want to have a choice between the better of two excellent candidates. So sent Jana some dough! Push her over the top!

How to tell "white nationalists" from "white supremacists"

2006-07-25T10:48:00.000-05:00

The editor of the racist VDare.com explains that white nationalists are different from white supremacists becasue:

They brush their teeth.

This has been today's edition of the field guide to racial extremists.

Dance Like a Monkey

2006-07-25T09:05:00.000-05:00

After a 30 year hiatus, the New York Dolls are back with a new album, and it rocks.

The video for "Dance Like a Monkey" features such excellent things as His Noodliness the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Dick Cheney on a shotgun rampage, and Pat Robertson marrying a gorilla. Plus much discussion of how evolution is obsolete.

The upshot is, you really ought to dance like a monkey.

Why was I not told?

2006-07-25T08:28:00.000-05:00

The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) has a blog. These people are fricking geniuses. I'll personally fight anyone who badmouths the organization. Ever.

Check out a post about mountain lions in Kansas, especially relevant to the discussion here.

Kansas filings

2006-07-24T23:15:00.000-05:00

The big story of the Kansas election finance filings was, of course, Phill Kline getting trounced 2-1 by Paul Morrison. Democratic challenger Paul Morrison raised $659,635, for $764,839 on hand. Incumbent Kline, who had big GOP names in stumping for him, raised less than half, only $315,506, for $418,491 on hand. What looked likely to be the big money race is shaping up as a lop-sided rout.

In the gubernatorial race, Kathleen Sebelius is raking in the cash. She raised $1,018,850, for $2,079,854 on hand.

Compare those numbers to the cash raised and cash-on-hand for the supposedly serious challengers:

Candidate	Cash raised	Cash on hand
Jim Barnett	237,503	194,213
Ken Canfield	196,233	6,536
Robin Jennison	112,680	56,736
Tom Pickell	15,750	5,026

Barely pulling a tenth of what the incumbent has bodes ill for all involved. Pickell, the barely serious moderate in the race, barely deserves to be in the table.

But the results we all want are the school board fundraising.

First, the conservative incumbents, plus the conservative challenger to the one moderate incumbent up for re-election. Filings for Brad Patzer and Ken Willard are not yet online:

Candidate	Cash raised	Cash on hand
Connie Morris	19,440	13,320
John Bacon	6,218	8,087
Jesse Hall	12,830	9,426
Ken Willard	12,077	9,656
Brad Patzer	21,560	4,732

Noteworthy things include prominent contributions from John Calvert and his wife to Jesse Hall, and John Bacon's lackluster fundraising and even more lackluster spending. He invested $300 in the race since the new year. Even if he has left-over campaign material from 4 years ago, that's a pretty weak outlay. But he hasn't raised enough money to be spending much more.

And now the challengers (and incumbent Waugh). Cauble's filings were not available yet. In looking at these, consider that Kansas primaries are in 1 week, and the primary is often the most important race. Beat Patzer, Morris, Bacon, or Willard in the primary, and the victor will probably sail to victory. But a Democrat will have to fight uphill against an incumbent Republican in a general election. Help these people win now!:

Candidate	Opposing	Cash raised	Cash on hand
Janet Waugh (D)	Hall	4,397	4,316
Harry McDonald (R)	Bacon	30,403	7,712
Don Weiss (D)	Bacon	4,229	4,280
Sally Cauble (R)	Morris	16,636	9,288
Tim Cruz (D)	Morris	7,851	2,908
Donna Viola (R)	Willard	3,995	1,711
Jack Wempe (D)	Willard	2,685	1,744
Jana Shaver (R)	Patzer	15,4479	1,214
Kent Runyan (D)	Patzer	11,533	2,325

Note that Jesse Hall has already outraised the incumbent. Now, it might be that Waugh was letting people who had opposition raise money first, but she clearly needs help if we're to keep the only incumbent moderate up for re-election. The only election that matters will be this primary, so give generously now and you won't hear about that race ever again.

Connie Morris is a whack-job, and deserves to lose catastrophically, not just for saying foolish things about evolution, but for trying to scam money out of the people's coffers for a trip to Florida. Sally Cauble and Tim Cruz are both great candidates, and wherever you live, now is the time to send a contribution of up to $500 to each of them. Make it $10 if that's what you have on hand, but please, now is the time.

Kent Runyan and Jana Shaver are both the real deal, experienced educators with good ideas and a sense of what Kansas education is like. But they both need your help. Especially Shaver, who has mere days before taking on the son-in-law of stealthy Iris Van Meter. Twelve hundred dollars isn't enough, so give now!

And Jack Wempe and Donna Viola clearly are in desperate need of financial help.

Given these numbers, I think Harry McDonald (former president of Kansas Citizens for Science) can probably take care of himself until August 1, primary day. Bacon has no money on hand and barely campaigned, which hopefully means he's handed the nomination to McDonald. But that doesn't mean we should stop sending money into that race. Don Weiss is a great guy running a strong campaign and he'll be there no matter what happens, giving the 3rd district a serious debate.

And maybe it's just coincidence, but I see a lot more money raised by candidates who take contributions online. And Don Weiss seemed to be the only one with substantial contributions from out of state, contributions from 5 people amounting to $525. Harry McDonald had some contributions from McDonalds in California, but not much beyond that.

In other words, all those people out there who've been wringing their hands about the outcome of this election have not been stepping up for the people who need help. And that's a problem. If you wonder how a creationist school board gets elected in Kansas: here it is. The religious authoritarians vote with their wallets, and then they vote in primaries. The only way to get the Board back to sanity is to do the same. Those of you who can't vote next Tuesday or who don't have a race in your district need to do your part.

I know I have readers from across the country who want to help bring Kansas back to this side of the Enlightenment. This is your chance.

Updated: The last of the reports are online, so I've added them to the post.

Cauble is raising money nicely, though not quite at Connie Morris's level. It's a big district and she still needs your help, as does Tim Cruz, who will face whoever wins that primary.

Ken Willard dominated the fundraising in his district, and while I wish one of his opponents was showing signs of kicking him out, I won't hold my breath.

Brad Patzer has more cash on hand than Jana Shaver does. I really think that race may surprise a lot of people and turn into a very competitive race. I really like both candidates, though I've spent more time with Runyan and confess that I'm a fan. In any event, I won't have to pick a favorite there unless Shaver wins, and I badly want to have a choice between the better of two excellent candidates. So sent Jana some dough!

Update 2: A keen-eyed reader noticed an error in a table. Harry McDonald doesn't have $28,000 on hand, he has $7,700 on hand, which is still pretty good. He's outspending Bacon heavily, which is excellent news.

Getting the right answer

2006-07-24T12:33:00.000-05:00

The 'Thumb takes Peggy Noonan to task for writing:

how sad and frustrating it is that the world’s greatest scientists cannot gather, discuss the question of global warming, pore over all the data from every angle, study meteorological patterns and temperature histories, and come to a believable conclusion on these questions: Is global warming real or not?

And fails to point out in a prominent way that this is precisely what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change exists to do. Scientists come together with the explicit goal of summarizing the science of climate change without advocating for policy positions. They publish regular reports describing what is and isn't known. And they draw conclusions based on the best available research.

And that research shows that most of the warming of the last 50 years is caused by humans, and that the factors driving that change would continue to put upward pressure on temperatures if left unchanged.

The problem is not that scientists haven't done it. They got the answer, and as far as anyone can show, they got the correct answer. The problem is that the conclusion the science has reached is not what Nooners considers the "right answer." So she's still holding out for the conference of People who Agree with Peggy to get together and ratify her political preferences. And that simply will not happen. Not how science is done.

In science, the right answer is the one that best matches the data. And prudent non-scientists or non-specialists are wise to follow that practice as well, letting their policy proposals follow from the data.

Peggy's problem, like so many we've faced in recent years, is that she reached her conclusion before examining the data, and now must flail wildly in search of justifications.

We saw the same thing before 9/11. The incoming Bush administration cast its eyes across the globe, searching for its foreign policy focus. The settled on China well before they started getting their briefings from outgoing officials, and chose not to refocus on al Qaeda and transnational terrorism. They heard warnings through the year of 2001, and heard them get louder. But faced with a choice of shifting focus as events changed or sticking to the plan, they pushed ahead on their China agenda.

Don Rumsfeld came into office with a theory about how a new, light American army could work. And in Afghanistan it seemed to work (though the leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban did slip away, and the Taliban is taking back towns here and there). So when his generals told him to send 300-400,000 troops to Iraq for the conquest and subsequent occupation, he blew them off. The force of half the recommended size did fine at invading (and no one doubted they would), but was unable to squelch the resistance during the occupation, and now the military cannot take and hold cities, so we get the debacle that is modern Iraq, along with thousands of dead American soldiers and tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.

For this administration and its closest supporters, the right answer is what they thought beforehand. For the real world, the right answer is what matches the evidence. It's deeply unfortunate that the latter is ruled by the former.

Gubernatorial debate

2006-07-24T09:57:00.000-05:00

My persistent complain (and clearly the Eagle's) about the Republican candidates for governor is that they seem uninterested in differentiating themselves. If you didn't know beforehand what the ideological gradient was, it would be impossible to figure out which was which from almost anything they say. So I was hoping for clarity in the Journal World's report that the 3 GOP candidates clash in televised forum. The heat comes from the segment where the candidates could ask each other questions:

Canfield, of Overland Park, questioned Barnett’s support earlier in his legislative career for a tax increase.

…

Barnett asked Jennison to explain his support of expanded casinos, and Canfield asked Jennison why he supported embryonic stem cell research. Barnett and Canfield said they opposed both expansion of gambling and embryonic stem cell research.

…

Barnett also questioned Canfield’s $1 billion bond proposal to provide venture capital, saying that would deepen the state’s debt. Canfield said those funds would be raised privately, although when he rolled out the proposal, he had said it would be a combination of private and public funds.

Meanwhile, Jennison’s questions to his fellow candidates were big softballs — one asking Canfield to answer why it would be better to have a Republican governor, and one asking Barnett to give examples of Sebelius’ “lack of leadership.”

So Jennison is looking for some sort of appointment from the winner, and the attempts by the other candidates to distinguish themselves hinge on taxes, science and gambling. Bear in mind that in recent years, the legislature has only considered two ways of raising funds: taxes or increased gambling. Other ways exist, but most require some sort of investment, which means raising money. And if you oppose raising taxes or increasing gambling, you're opposing any sort of response to rising educational costs, increasing costs from Medicaid, road maintenance, or any response to unexpected disasters or opportunities.

Pseudointellectual history

2006-07-22T23:27:00.000-05:00

Hilzoy (among many others) points out an hilarious set of comics. Not hilarious in a "wow that's well-written comedy" way, but in a "you really don't know what you're talking about" way. This leads to an interesting discussion of ways that Kant is misunderstood. For instance, apparently Woodstock is supposed to have been some sort of monument to Kant, because (as hilzoy points out):

we all know how firmly Kant supported wild sex orgies, continual wallowings in mud and feces, and not needing food and water.

Kant, who may have died a virgin, and certainly lived a life of compulsive repetition. Kant, the fan of the municipal brass band.

Your government at work

2006-07-22T07:23:00.000-05:00

The Eagle's blog reports that:

“The lobbying community can come by my office any time,” Tiahrt said.

Popular Governor

2006-07-22T00:27:00.000-05:00

SurveyUSA has their latest poll of all 50 Governor's approval ratings, and once again, Kathleen Sebelius is in the top tier.

She slid from #10 down to #15, reflecting a reversal of a two month upward trend. Both approval and disapproval ticked up among Independents, while approval dipped among Democrats and Republicans, though 57% of Republicans continue to approve (down from 60%).

Conservative approval dropped below disapproval for the first time since last November, while moderate approval remained higher at 69% than liberal approval. Both dipped slightly.

Approval increased in western Kansas, but declined in Wichita and the east.

Sebelius maintains a huge approval rating and her losses are mostly among groups whose votes were not in doubt. Moderates are unlikely to abandon her given their high approval of her work and general disapproval of the opposing candidates.

Not the half of it: Hezbollah, Lebanon, and bombing infrastructure

2006-07-22T00:10:00.000-05:00

Just to show that I don't always disagree with j.d., I'll say that his take on israel vs. hezbollah is fairly sound (though I question the prudence of using PJ Media as a reliable source of news). I would like to add to his accurate assessment that:

It seems to me that Israel could have enlisted the existing (and relatively improved) Lebanese government’s help in identifying Hezbollah targets. I don’t think Israel picked the most effective method to do that. Instead, that government will be weaker with the country’s wider infrastructure in tatters — perhaps it will even be toppled by a Hezbollah that is energized by finally having some Jews to fight.

Not only did Israel err in not getting Lebanon to help strike at Hezbollah targets (a dubious proposition given that the political wing has a major presence in the Lebanese parliament), but they actively undermined the ability of the Lebanese to help them identify targets or strike at them by destroying the roads and airports.

Furthermore, they drove the public right into Hezbollah's arms and weakened anti-Hezbollah groups and parties. You must remember that Hezbollah, like Hamas, is not just an armed group. To understand them as such is a fundamental and critical error that many people make. Both groups do, of course, have armed wings which carry out brutal and deplorable acts of violence, but both groups also provide a range of social services to their communities. Since neither Israel nor her neighbors show any interest in the social conditions the Palestinians live in, these transnational groups have been the only entities providing the services that a government is expected to provide. The same is true of parts of Lebanon torn by years of civil war and the occasional Israeli incursion.

Hezbollah doesn't just build rockets and bunkers. They build schools, hospitals, homes. They supply food in tough times, they provide medicine and other vital aid. That's why Hezbollah is in the Lebanese parliament, and why Hamas now controls the Palestinian government. Because they have both shown that they can actually operate as a government.

Israel bombed infrastructure and induced the sort of crisis where people turn to government. And Israel has steadfastly blocked the Lebanese government from bringing in the support the civilian population needs. That leaves only Hezbollah to provide those services.

How does that affect the power balance? How does that make Israel look good? How does it make Hezbollah's opponents look good? How does it weaken Hezbollah? How, indeed, does it fail to strengthen them? In what way has Israel promoted any positive outcome?

It's not just about Hezbollah having Jews to fight, they've been at that for a while. It's about having a public that supports them in that fight. Israel has taken disproportionate actions which have pissed off potential allies. These are just some of the reasons that various people, including yer's truly, think Israel's actions are stupid.

Add that air-only campaigns don't work, and Israel knows what follows a ground invasion, and you see that the entire exercise is hare-brained.

Good question

2006-07-21T23:25:00.000-05:00

Blue Girl, Red State ask Why Do We Teach Science Backward?
Why do we teach biology, then chemistry, then physics? Why not teach the relatively simple Newtonian physics, then use that to build a basis for teaching chemistry, and use the resulting knowledge to make sense of biology?

Is it something to do with getting to physics after students have had a taste of calculus? Because I doubt that matters much, and could give a valuable preview of what calculus can do down the road.

KCFS vs. IDnet

2006-07-21T10:21:00.000-05:00

In addition to dueling speaking tours, the two groups fighting over science in the schools will square off on "On the Record," a local PBS public affairs program. Jack Krebs, president of KCFS and John Calvert, who has been lying about Krebs on his tour and in his literature, will be discussing the issues on Friday (I think that means today, not next week). Check your local station for times.

In addition, the KCFS speaking tour has added sites. The complete list so far is:

Monday, July 24, 7-9 PM, at Johnson County Community Center, Carlsen Center, Room 211, College Blvd. & Quivira, Overland Park, Kansas

Thursday, July 27, 7-9 PM, at Hutchinson Community College & Area Vocational School, Shears Technology Center, 1300 N. Plum, Hutchinson, Kansas

NEW - Friday, July 28, 7-9 PM, at St. Thomas Episcopal Church, 710 N Main St, Garden City, Kansas

NEW - Saturday, July 29, 1-3 PM, at xxx, Tomanek Hall, Room 106, Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kansas

Monday, July 31, 7-9 PM at Kansas City Kansas Community College - Performing Arts Center, 7250 State Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas.

And don't forget that, as RSR noted, the Intelligent Design Network is currently "delinquent." For shame.

FEC filings

2006-07-20T23:58:00.000-05:00

Congressional candidates filed their disclosure forms recently, and the results are intriguing.

In the big race in the Kansas 2nd, incumbent Jim Ryun raised $206,862.54 since March, for $592,042.54 total. He has $421,896.71 in the bank. Challenger Nancy Boyda has raised $173,012.70 for $246,939.93 total. She has $160,980.15 on hand. The difference reflects their different views of government.

While certain small donations didn't have to be reported individually, most of the money raised was reported. Boyda reported $126,300 and Ryun reported $200,308. Of that money, Boyda got $23,000 in PAC contributions, mostly from union groups that represent major industries in the area. The remainder came from individuals.

Ryun reported $137,377 from PACs, but only $62,931 from individuals. While it's clear that the financial services industry wants Ryun to stay on the committee that oversees their work, the public is voting with their wallets, and the tide is in Boyda's favor.

Of course, to overcome the interests of the banks, conservative PACs and special interests, we all have to step up our own contributions. Give to Nancy, and put Josh Rosenau as your 20/20 team leader.

Dennis Moore raised $280,315.27 since March, for a total of $1,269,335 raised this cycle. He has $543,888,78 on hand. Maynard Ahner raised a whopping $22,316.12 since March, and has raised a total of $59,111.79. Throw in the $100,000 loan he gave his campaign, and he has $157,459.78 on hand. Scott Schwab raised $25,145, for a total of $42,605 raised, and has only $15,887 on hand. The astoundingly verbose Thomas Scherer didn't file electronically, so we don't know if he beat last quarter's fundraising success of $20.
The other campaigns in Kansas are shaping up as cakewalks for incumbents. John Doll in the big 1st has $7,264 on hand, having raised a little over $3,000 since March. Jerry Moran has nearly $700,000 in the bank. It's a shame, because Doll is a great guy and would really make a great congressman.

Making it up

2006-07-20T09:10:00.000-05:00

KSMeadowlark sez "Planned Parenthood Federation labels Roberts, Alito, Kline, Others: “Terrorists”," so we click through to what is alleged to be a list of "terrorists" and "extremists" and find that it is a list of "anti-choice extremists, political hardliners, and people in the news." Kline is listed, and rightly so.

The word "terrorist" does appear on the same page, but as a link to a series of articles about people who build bombs, shoot people, and mail anthrax threats. These people are generally referred to as terrorists, and rightly so.

KSM, in contrast, is wrong to make things up by claiming that Phill "the extra L is for li-tuh-gai-shun" Kline was called a terrorist.

Unpopular President

2006-07-20T09:05:00.000-05:00

In SurveyUSA's - 50 State Presidential Approval poll, there are only three states in which a majority approves of the President, and only 4 in which a plurality approves. Kansas ranks 13th, with approval of 45% and disapproval of 52%. There are only seven states in which majorities do not disapprove of his handling of the job.

Kansas was the 13th highest net approval last month as well, and the president's numbers are basically unchanged. Approval among Republicans climbed a bit, and Democratic approval jumped even more. Independents, however, fled the President, going from 51% disapproval to 74%. Approval among Independents dropped from 41% to 24%.

There were weaker trends among ideologies, with moderates flat, conservatives increasing their approval and liberals decreasing it.

Stem Cells

2006-07-19T23:19:00.000-05:00

First, let it be known that Sam Brownback is a strange, strange man.

Second, let it be know that George Bush hates people with diabetes. Clearly, frozen clumps of cells are worth more to him than real, live people with diseases. Nothing else can explain his veto of HR 810.

Third, the vetoed bill will return to the House, where a swing of a little over a dozen votes could reverse his monstrously silly decision. Wherever you live, call your Representative and ask that he or she support HR 810 when it comes back to the House floor.

And call your Senators. If it makes it through the House, it'll run into the bizarre politics of the Senate, and it's important to lay the groundwork now.

Fourth, vote! This issue will swing some races, and you should work to see that it swings yours toward science.

Update: Never mind. The House failed to override.