The "reDiscovery Institute", taking ID parody to whole new levels.

And following a link from Respectful Insolence, we have the reDiscovery Institute, heaping upon the ID-based Discovery Institute all of the scorn it so richly deserves.

So ... what are you reading?

Currently, a toss-up about whether to crack Paul Krugman's "The Great Unraveling", or go gutter with Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them". Decisions, decisions ...

And if you're needing another blog for the bookmarks, I'm really liking Jim Kunstler's Clusterfuck Nation.

Interesting comparisons from the so-called liberal media.

Fun with Google:

"w. david hager" sodomy: 207 hits.
"neil horsley" sex mule: 23 hits.
"bill clinton" blowjob: 52,300 hits.

Yup, you can see where the real story is here.

Shut up, Lou. Just shut the fuck up, OK?

Oh, good. Now CNN's Lou Dobbs is suddenly an expert on biological evolution. Jesus, what a wanker.

It's just as well Danny Boy is on his way out.

Following this link from Eschaton, we have that pathetic excuse for a (mercifully departing) ombudsman, the New York Times' Daniel Okrent, who defended serial bullshit artist William Safire by suggesting that, hey, Safire wrote things he thought to be true, and so does (NYT op-ed writer) Paul Krugman so, gee, whatcha gonna do?

Over here, TwoGlasses nails this ridiculous comparison as the "Equivalence Dodge," but I'm more interested in what Krugman himself thinks about having his reputation tarnished by association by his paper's own ombudsman. Krugman could, naturally, take the high road and ignore it, secure in the knowledge that Okrent will shortly be nothing but a bad memory at the Times.

Or he might take pen to paper and drop a short note to Okrent, perhaps:

Dear Dan:

Paul here. Just read the Salon interview, where you defended Bill by drawing a parallel with his writing and mine. Truth be told, I found that kind of grating since I'm an award-winning economist and Princeton professor who works very hard to get my facts straight, while Bill is a Republican hack. So you can see where that kind of comparison might leave me a little miffed.

It might be that you just spouted off without thinking about it and, if that's the case, we can just let bygones be bygones and forget about it. But if, before you head out at the end of the month, you make that kind of comparison again, I will drag you out of your office down to the sidewalk, drop you to your knees with one swift boot to the nads, and kick you in the kidneys until you piss blood for being that kind of asshole. Do we understand each other? Good.

Anyway, best of luck in the new job and say hi to the wife and kids for me.

Yours truly,
Paul

Sadly, you and I both know that won't happen as Krugman is just a little too much of a gentleman and a scholar. Unlike either of Okrent or Safire, who fail badly on both counts.

BACK OFF! I've got AmericaBlog and I'm not afraid to use it!

It's become almost a ritual to watch John Aravosis over at AmericaBlog, in the midst of his typical, hyper-kinetic reporting, occasionally seize on some topic like a rabid wolverine and, within days, stomp the living bejeezus out of someone who so richly deserves it.

He did it to Jeff Gannon, he did it to Microsoft and, as we speak, one of his blogger colleagues -- Joe in DC -- is warming up the keyboard for what is clearly going to be a smackdown of the anti-gay National Council on Family Relations, to which one can only think -- those poor fuckers, they have no idea of the freight train bearing down on them.

Having John take an interest in you is like having Mike Wallace and a cameraman suddenly show up at your front door -- you just know that your life is about to turn to crap and there's nothing you can do about it.

AmericaBlog: the left's very own "nuclear option".

If it's war you want ...

... no problem, buddy. Following a link from over at Hairy Fish Nuts, we have ... Kitten War! ... with that site's purveyor inordinately proud of his little hairball here.

Ha! I laugh at your puny contribution, I see your one cute kitten and raise you a pair here and here -- the twins Clarence and Elliott. Look upon them and know that you have been bested.

Yeah, we here at CC HQ don't take losing well. But you knew that already.

Update: And, not surprisingly, the cutest kittens on the planet are laying a beating on the opposition. I'm such a proud daddy. Hard to believe they're actually brothers, isn't it?

Li'l Scottie and his new favourite word of the day: "protocols".

Shorter Scottie: "Why would we want to tell the president about this? The grownups had everything under control."

A solution in search of a problem: Creation science and Intelligent Design.

[Disclaimer: I'm sure countless others have expressed the following thoughts far more cogently than I'm about to do. But they're not here at the moment. So tough.]

Imagine, if you will, that you're a working astronomer or cosmologist, and a stranger shows up at your office door one day with a new "theory" of planetary dynamics. He's quite adamant that there's no truth to this sun-centered, elliptical orbit nonsense, no sir. He's firmly convinced that the Earth is at the centre of it all and that the planets orbit in aesthetically-pleasing perfect circles, within an outermost shell of fixed stars. What would you say? Well, you have a number of choices.

Given that this is kind of your field and you're aware of its history, you could dismiss him pretty quickly, pointing out that that's what people used to believe until observations and empirical evidence proved that it just wasn't so. In other words, with your expertise, you'd know that he was wrong.

If, however, you weren't an expert in the field, another option would be to entertain his suggestions and set about doing some experiments which would, of course, ultimately prove that the gentleman was, in fact, full of it. But there's a third possibility.

If you were relatively knowledgeable in the field, you could reject this person's claims by simply pointing out that they didn't solve anything currently unsolved. Put another way, the current theory involving a heliocentric system with elliptical orbits that behaves according to the laws of gravitation seems to work perfectly well, which means there's just no need to be entertaining alternative theories. In short, the gentleman has presented you with a solution for which there is no corresponding problem to be solved, and that's more than enough to tell him to get lost.

The above is one of the hallmarks of science: theories are generally advanced to solve currently-unsolved issues, or improve on existing theories in some way. There's little value in a theory that's proposed just because someone wants to propose a new theory. Very few people are going to be willing to invest any time in examining a new "theory" that is nothing more than an unnecessary "alternative" to an existing theory, and it's for just that reason that there's no real reason to give such theories "equal time" in, say, public school science classes. If they don't explain anything, or don't answer any questions, then, quite simply, they have no scientific value and are therefore worthless.

As another example, say someone proposed an "alternative" to the current atomic theory. Would anyone take him seriously? Unless this alternative shed new light on something, probably not. What would be the point? Once again, science doesn't have a lot of time for solutions to non-problems. And is this starting to sound familiar?

Welcome to creation science, which is pretty much the poster child for solutions in search of something to be a solution for. As it stands now, the proposal of a very old earth, combined with biological evolution, seems to be working just fine, thank you, as an explanation for the biological diversity of life and things like geology and so forth. It all seems to fit and all these different areas of science appear to be pleasantly consistent which makes this, for now, an acceptable explanation for, well, damned near everything.

The standard Biblically-based creation scientists, of course, are adamant that they have an alternative to all of this, but it's not at all clear why anyone needs an alternative, given that mainstream science is, again, doing nicely, thank you very much, which makes the creationist demand for things like "equal time" more than a little baffling since they seem determined to present their alternative for which there is absolutely no obvious need.

Put another way, one can reject the notion of creation science not so much because it's wrong, but because it is utterly, totally and completely unnecessary. It solves nothing and is therefore worth exactly as much. Which brings us, finally, to Intelligent Design.

To give the IDers credit, they have at least proposed that ID solves an allegedly unsolved problem -- that of apparent, unnatural complexity. Fair enough, but that doesn't give them the right to ask for equal time. Rather, they have to establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this problem actually exists before they start trying to show that they have the answer, and this is something that they haven't done yet.

The proponents of ID are desperately trying to get their nonsense into the classrooms with the claim that, "We think there's a problem." Unfortunately, that's not good enough. What they need to say to be taken seriously is, "We can prove there's a problem, and here's our solution to it." However, since they still haven't nailed down part one, there's absolutely no need to take them seriously regarding part two.

Hey, look! Evolution in action!

Following a link from CathiefromCanada, we have real, live evidence for evolution. See? This is what happens when you don't have to waste massive amounts of time arguing with wingnuts. You get to do research and discover things. What a concept.

Iraq: "Mission accomplished", indeed.

Yup, everything going swimmingly, democracy on the march, and life is good. Well, OK, maybe not for these guys.

More GOP family values.

Via Eschaton, we learn that sodomy is a bad thing only if gays or Democrats do it. Oh, and extra-marital affairs. Apparently, they're all right, too, GOP-wise.

UPDATE: And, hey, while we're at it, let's throw Bush's U.N. ambassador nominee John Bolton into the mix. This is so easy, I almost feel guilty.

EVEN MORE: And the incomparable James Wolcott does to Bolton what only James Wolcott can.

OK, this is amusing.

In honour of fellow Canuck Steve Nash's recent NBA MVP award, look what happens when you Google on the combination of "Steve Nash" and "Canadian". Heh.

"Queen" does Gomery ... sort of.

Freddie Mercury must be spinning in his grave.

The Students for Academic Freedom: giving "morons" a bad name.

Every so often, I like to pop by the web site of the Right-Wing Nutbars for College Fascism, just to see what intellectual atrocity they've come up with lately. And I was not disappointed, given a May 6 article by none other than David Limbaugh (he being the Limbaugh brother who is not the hillbilly heroin addict and "sanctity of marriage" proponent now working on his fourth wife).

Being that this piece is published at the SAF site, Limbaugh opens predictably, whining and snivelling about more academic left-wing bias:

If you want to get a real glimpse of the thought-tyranny of the academic Left, you should look at the case of Scott McConnell, who was recently expelled from Le Moyne College in Syracuse, N.Y., because his personal beliefs didn't fit within the school's indoctrination grid.

Oh, yawn. OK, what's this all about? Let's keep reading.

The Left, through an extraordinary process of self-deception, routinely congratulates itself for its enlightenment and open-mindedness, but the slightest scrutiny of its behavior in academia alone puts the lie to its claims. Sadly, the Left has even sunk its tentacles into Jesuit colleges like Le Moyne.

Um ... excuse me? So Limbaugh and the SAF have now taken to accusing Jesuit colleges of liberal bias? Jesus Christ (pun oh so intended), is there anyone these folks won't accuse of holding a grudge against conservatives? I just can't wait until they start to attack the Catholic Church. You know that's coming. But ... onward. This promises to get just plain weird.

So, given that McConnell was pursuing a masters in education at the college, what precisely was his crime? Praising Bush in an essay? Supporting the invasion of Iraq? Oh, here it is ...

Among McConnell's unforgivable sins were his audacious dissent from the university's dogma extolling multicultural education and his gross insubordination in asserting in a paper that "corporal punishment has a place in the classroom."

Oh ... so he's an aspiring teacher who just wants to beat kids when he thinks it's appropriate. Is that all? Well, for the life of me, I just don't see the problem. You have to think those Jesuits are kind of uptight if they can't see the value of a good beating every so often.

Seriously, this is a case that the SAF wants to hold up as an example of anti-conservative bias? An education grad student who thinks it's just ducky to slap kids around if he thinks they have it coming? What the fuck? Is this what the SAF has sunk to these days? I mean, was it just that they couldn't find any pedophile gym teachers to rally around or what?

The article is, of course, just one long piece of dishonest swill. At one point, Limbaugh quotes one David French, describing the college's action as: "This is one of the most brazen examples of censorship and summary expulsion for the expression of dissenting views I have ever seen."

What utter rubbish. As I read it, the college made no effort whatsoever to censor McConnell -- they just told him to take his child-beating attitude elsewhere. And one would think they have every right to not want their education program associated with someone who could conceivably be a legal liability. I mean, imagine the shitstorm that would erupt if McConnell, somewhere down the road, assaulted and injured one of his students and it came out that the college knew of his proclivities, didn't warn anyone and gave him his degree. Can you say "culpable"? Oh, yeah.

But here's the best part. You have to read all the way to the second-last paragraph to learn that Le Moyne College is, in fact, a private college. That's right: private, which means they can do whatever the fuck they want, which makes all of this conservative outrage so deliciously hypocritical because, as we all know, the right-wing wankers who are all up in arms about McConnell getting his ass booted out of a private college for whatever reason are exactly the same two-faced assholes who will defend the Boy Scouts' position on discriminating against anyone they want because the Scouts are (and you saw this coming, didn't you?) a "private" organization. If the hypocrisy was any deeper, you could dog paddle in it.

Of course, I didn't need to drag out the story this long. I could have just wailed on these idiots in a paragraph or two, like Steve Gilliard did over here. And as for the SAF, it's hard to know just how much lower they can sink. But I'll keep my eye on them, and let you know.

And about that missile defense system idea of yours ...

Well, let's face it ... it sucks.

PZ needs to mellow out just a little.

Over at Pharyngula, PZ gets a little angst going over a recent New York state Assembly Bill:

Assembly Bill 8036, introduced on May 3, 2005 and referred to the Committee on Education, would require that "all pupils in grades kindergarten through twelve in all public schools in the state ... receive instruction in both theories of intelligent design and evolution." It also charges New York's commissioner of education to assist in developing curricula and local boards of education to provide "appropriate training and curriculum materials ... to ensure that all aspects of the theories, along with any supportive data, are fully examined through such course of study."

To be honest, I don't find this all that disturbing. First of all, the bill has only a single sponsor who is clearly mad:

The bill's sole sponsor, Daniel L. Hooker (R), represents Assembly District 127, encompassing parts of Greene, Otsego, Delaware, Schoharie, Ulster, Columbia, and Chenango counties. Hooker also recently introduced bills that would, if enacted, permit the display of the Ten Commandments on public buildings and grounds (A08073), declassify sexual orientation from civil right status (A07916), and prohibit the solemnization of same-sex marriages (A07723).

So I really don't think this bill is going anywhere in a hurry. But there's a definite upside to this.

Look at the requirement to develop appropriate, ID-oriented curriculum. Does this have entertainment value or what? Does anyone remember the last time creationists were asked to come up with some official curriculum? Here, let me refresh your memory with this legal decision regarding the 1982 Arkansas creationism trial, particularly this delightful excerpt:

The testimony of Marianne Wilson was persuasive evidence that creation science is not science. Ms. Wilson is in charge of the science curriculum for Pulaski County Special School District, the largest school district in the State of Arkansas. Prior to the passage of Act 590, Larry Fisher, a science teacher in the District, using materials from the ICR, convinced the School Board that it should voluntarily adopt creation science as part of its science curriculum. The District Superintendent assigned Ms. Wilson the job of producing a creation science curriculum guide. Ms. Wilson's testimony about the project was particularly convincing because she obviously approached the assignment with an open mind and no preconceived notions about the subject. She had not heard of creation science until about a year ago and did not know its meaning before she began her research.

Ms. Wilson worked with a committee of science teachers appointed from the District. They reviewed practically all of the creationist literature. Ms. Wilson and the committee members reached the unanimous conclusion that creationism is not science; it is religion. They so reported to the Board. The Board ignored the recommendation and insisted that a curriculum guide be prepared.

In researching the subject, Ms. Wilson sought the assistance of Mr. Fisher who initiated the Board action and asked professors in the science departments of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and the University of Central Arkansas (30) for reference material and assistance, and attended a workshop conducted at Central Baptist College by Dr. Richard Bliss of the ICR staff. Act 590 became law during the course of her work so she used Section 4(a) as a format for her curriculum guide.

Ms. Wilson found all available creationists' materials unacceptable because they were permeated with religious references and reliance upon religious beliefs.

Sure, this was over 20 years ago but it's clear that these folks haven't learned anything as they implode spectacularly in Kansas as we speak.

So chill out, PZ. Don't fight this bill. Rather, let's encourage these folks enthusiastically to develop curriculum. I, for one, would love to see some ID-based lesson plans. Come on ... where's your sense of adventure?

(Thanks to Glenn Branch over at NCSE for the pointer to the legal judgment.)

North Carolina, lowering the bar again.

Oh, Christ. First, it's the dingbat minister who kicked out all the Democrats in his congregation, and now this:

WASHINGTON -- When Sheriff Carson Smith of Pender County, North Carolina, found out that Deborah Hobbs, a recently hired emergency dispatcher, was unmarried and "living in sin," he gave her a choice.

"She was given an ultimatum," said Jennifer Rudinger, executive-director of the North Carolina branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. "She could marry her boyfriend, move out of the house they were living in together or quit her job."

The sheriff was backed by the state's 200-year-old anti-cohabitation law, which declares starkly that "if any man and woman, not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together, they shall be guilty of a class-two misdemeanour."

Unwilling to have her boss decide on her living arrangements, Ms. Hobbs, who's 40, quit and went to the American Civil Liberties Union, which has helped her launch a constitutional challenge of the North Carolina law, where violators are subject to a fine of up to $1,000 (U.S.) and a sentence of up to 60 days in jail...

And you have to read some of the rationalization for this:

Lynn Wardle, a professor of family law at Brigham Young University, a Mormon institution in Utah, concedes that there is a good chance the courts will find the North Carolina statute unconstitutional, but he said that decision would be unfortunate for U.S. society.

"If people can get together for a night of sodomy, they might be able to live together without a criminal statute making it illegal. That's the logic."

He contends that unmarried cohabitation has been proven to lead to much higher rates of child and spousal abuse. "It's exhibit A for the kinds of relationships that have been proven to be socially detrimental, destructive and very problematic."

With that kind of stunning intellect, I expect to see Wardle analyzing Social Security and tax cuts on "Brainster" any day now.

Dear wankers: Please don't analyze Social Security any more. It hurts to watch.

And isn't this just adorable? Apparently, wankers get all up in your grill when you point out that, no, they have no clothes. Where to even start? Well, make sure you read the lead-up to this from my earlier article (including my tediously lengthy comments), then we'll get to work.

In his rebuttal to my earlier work, Pat starts out badly:

I'll avoid returning the nasty names he calls Tim Worstall and me, and get right to the point:

Ah, so name-calling is a bad thing, is it? Apparently, this is a new development -- more recent than when Pat wrote in an earlier piece:

This is what passes for deep thinking on the left: ... Atrios finds this incredibily smart and witty (and it probably is compared to most of what Atrios posts).

So, apparently, the rule is that snotty, personal put-downs are all right when ... um ... actually, I have no idea what the rule is here so I'll just suggest that Pat is being a hypocritical dick and carry on.

Now, as I took great pains to point out in my comments section way back when, the prime strategy from the right-wing wankersphere is to dwell -- nay, veritably obsess -- on the idea that Mr. $60K is getting, in their minds, a pretty good deal, while totally ignoring the fact that Mr. $1M is getting a way, way, way better deal. But as I pointed out in excruciating detail, you're not supposed to notice this.

"You're getting a good deal, that's right, a reeeeeeeally good deal ... Hey! Don't look over there, and pay no attention to the guy with the wheelbarrow full of cash, just look into my eyes and repeat after me ... goooood deeeeeal ..."

So how does Pat rationalize this? Let's see, shall we? Why, begosh and begorrah, he doesn't even try. Not a word, not a hint of the disparity in those two "deals". Shocked, shocked I am, that Pat weasels his way around the obvious. Not a word about the massive windfall going into Mr. $1M's pocket. Quelle surprise.

In a weird attempt at what appears to be a defense, Pat writes:

Look, Mr Cynic, here's a deal I'll offer you, since $6,500 is a larger value than $1,000. If you give me $1000 a year for the next 40 years, I'll give you $6,500 per year for the next three years after that. What's that? You'd be giving me $40,000 and I'd only be giving you $19,500? But I thought $6,500 was a larger value? Or is there another variable in this equation, like the number of years? Very few people have a longer retirement than their working life. And that "ignore entirely the possible returns on investing," is a classic dodge. Yes, if you assume that the person puts the money under the mattress, you can disprove that just about anything that takes into account the time value of money.

So Pat is offering me a "deal", is he? Let me think about this in terms of the deal that's being offered to Mr. $60K, in which he would get X dollars worth of tax cut every year, but would have to pay it back at six and a half times that rate upon retirement.

Hmmmm ... let me think ... no, no, you know what I'd prefer? I'd prefer the deal Mr. $1M got -- where I'd get X dollars worth of tax cut every year, and would have to pay that back at less than one-fifth that rate after I retire. That's the kind of deal I'd want.

But, amazingly, Pat doesn't put that deal on the table. Apparently, that kind of deal is only available to the really, really rich. Bummer.

You want a deal, Pat? I'll make you a deal. You stop analyzing Social Security and tax cuts, and I'll stop pointing out what a moron you are.

Deal?

BY THE WAY: I have absolutely no idea how to interpret this statement from Pat from that same posting:

I'd just like to see where [Canadian Cynic] gets the impression that the tax cut is being used as a defense of the reductions in SS benefits. Anybody? Bueller? There's no link from this remarkable statement, it's just stated as settled fact.

Nobody is using the tax cut to defend the Social Security benefit cuts, because they're completely unrelated.

What can this possibly mean? The entire defense of whacking a big chunk out of Mr. $60K's eventual SS benefits is that, with that $1000 per year tax cut, with careful investing, those people should be able to more than compensate for the SS cuts. This is, in fact, Pat's very own defense of the SS cuts. He defends this as a pretty good deal, precisely because of his analysis of the interrelationship between the tax cuts and the SS cuts. How much plainer can this be?

And yet, checking in brlefly from Planet Bizarro, Pat is adamant -- adamant, I tell you -- that these things have nothing in common. Nothing whatsoever. OK, if that's the case, then let's take Pat at his word and analyze the cuts in SS with no reference to tax cuts at all, shall we? Which means that, compared to the current situation, Mr. 60K will have his SS benefits just flat-out cut by $6,500 a year. It's that simple. If you, as Pat suggests, ignore the whole issue of the tax cuts, this is the effect of the Bush plan on Mr. 60K -- a whopping big decrease in his benefits.

So, does Pat still think this is a "good deal" for Mr. $60K? Probably not, but how is he going to defend it? By claiming that that SS cut is offset by the "tax cut"? The very tax cut that he just finished claiming has nothing to do with any of this?

Oh, please, Pat, try to explain this. Please, please, please. I can't wait.

Life, the universe and everything.

Via Pharyngula, answers to deep questions.