This week's exercise in futility

Local arch-conservative John Bambenek complained last week in his Daily Illini column that the university doesn't offer a course in intelligent design. Clearly, he says, this is because intelligent design is being stifled by closed-minded scientists who just won't give ID a fair shake and ban it “from the classroom with all the zealotry one would expect to find at a book burning." Squire, more on the ball that I am, caught this before I did, and responded to Bambenek's columnhere, here, here, and especially here. Bambenek stops by in the comments, but doesn't really make a coherent argument. His column drew one letter to the editor, then another one, and also sparked a post by another local blogger.

I’ve long been of the opinion that arguing with creationists is a waste of breath, since there is no refutation to their argument, no matter how correct, that will cause them to change their position. That’s because it’s based in emotion, not reason.

From some of the things I’ve seen Bambenek mention in his column and in other places, it seems he’s of the opinion that ID proponents have actual, scientific claims and theories that just aren’t getting considered by scientists. What he doesn’t know, or isn’t willing to admit, is that the entire Intelligent Design movement was invented by creationists -- not just to discredit evolution -- but to reframe science and the entire study of the natural world so that it is consistent with their view of God. Any discussion of ID is incomplete without understanding it. But for right now, I’m going to work under the assumption that Bambenek thinks ID proponents have some good, genuinely scientific ideas that aren’t getting the attention they deserve. His column is still wrong.

So, I’m going to turn the rest of this blog post to looking at what Bambenek wrote in his April 12 column:

Ward Churchill said in a recent appearance on Fox News that professors should be in the business of "challenging assumptions" and presenting "opposing points of view." He summed up what a university should be.

Right off the bat, a conservative invoking Ward Churchill immediately makes me wary. The guy is a bit of a kook, and is usually mentioned only by conservatives to paint liberals as anti-American.

In the intelligent design debate, we can clearly see that the University fails to live up to the ideal. Intelligent design is disregarded as "religious nonsense" and banned from the classroom with all the zealotry one would expect to find at a book burning. The charge? Challenging established orthodoxies.

Right there, Bambenek is wrong. Where has anyone suggested that intelligent design not be taught in schools because it "challenges established orthodoxies?" The problems with intelligent design are numerous and far-reaching, but the fact that it is unconventional is not one of them.

By denying intelligent design any space in the academy (at times with less than ethical means), they have declared that there are forbidden questions that may not be asked. The placement of restrictions on the question of how life began is the same behavior that fundamentalists visited upon science leading up to the Scopes Monkey Trial.

There's one accusation of unethical behavior on the part of scientists, but no explanation or description of what he's talking about. One thing he doesn't mention is the unethical behavior of evolution deniers, like lying about having a doctorate and cheating on your taxes. Note here that Bambenek is implying that evolution describes the "question of how life began."

Fundamentalists allowed no question of six-day Creationism. Decades later, the scientific community has returned the favor. They have come full circle and become what they hate.

Not content with simply ridiculing it out of the realm of inquiry, some have brought the force of law to bear with the ACLU. It is interesting to see the so-called defenders of liberty suggest that in order to protect freedom, free inquiry cannot be allowed. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. You know the drill.

I don't see anyone, including the ACLU, saying that research into intelligent design can't be allowed. There really isn't any, of course, but that's not the issue here. Bambenek's complaint in his column is that the university doesn't have a course teaching intelligent design. There's a significant difference between not allowing "free inquiry" and deciding what gets taught in a classroom to students. We don't have classes on theories that are incredibly controversial -- and that's a major understatement in this case -- regardless of the field of study.

The foes of intelligent design like to throw out the charge that it is not scientific. If by scientific you mean "capable of being confirmed or disproved by observation or experiment" then you would be correct. But you would also be stating that evolution as a theory of creation is not scientific. Evolution as a biological force is easily observed. Evolution as a theory of creation, however, is completely flaccid. The primordial soup theory is novel and interesting but, at best, it is a theory that fits the facts. It has never been observed or tested and cannot be. We have never seen life come from non-life. There is a strong metaphysical case to be made for that being the way it played out, but it's firmly in the realm of metaphysics, not science.

Again, Bambenek gets science fundamentally wrong. Science isn't always about direct observation. That would be great if it were always available. Sometimes, you have to infer your results from available data. That's how we know about things that haven't been directly observed, like the existence of the electron, continental drift, star formation, and the Revolutionary War.

I want to turn to Bambenek's criticism of "evolution as a theory of creation." Evolution says nothing about "creation." I'm going to assume good faith here, and assume Bambenek is simply confused about the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. Evolution is the gradual change in species over time. Abiogenesis is the about the generation of life from non-living matter. Make no mistake, they are completely different things. Creationists like to conflate the two because abiogenesis is, admittedly, a lot more sketchy than evolution. Note, however, there is no course at the university on abiogenesis, as far as I can find.

I'm glad that Bambenek concedes that "evolution as a biological force" is easily observed. That's all that evolution is, the gradual change of one species to another. Unfortunately for his argument, that’s exactly what Intelligent Design denies! ID proponents especially hold to the belief that that Homo sapiens did not evolve from other life forms, but was created in its current state. All the Australopithecines and other Homo species have nothing to do with us biologically, they say. The whole point of intelligent design is that species are static, and growth and change are not possible.

They argue that evolution is scientifically complete and therefore, by exclusion, eliminates intelligent design. The irony is that while they use this argument, science itself doesn't believe that it has all the facts on evolution. With the discovery of tiktaalik roseae - essentially a fish with feet - last week, scientists lavished accolades on finding one of the "missing links."

Why celebrate an established fact? When I search for a burrito, I don't shout "Eureka!" when I cross the threshold of Dos Reales. The answer is simple - there are gaps and limitations in what we know about where we came from. That is why we're still searching.

Sigh. Why was the discovery of Tiktaalik so lauded? Creationists are always complaining that the fossil record is too incomplete to show evolution from one species to another. So this is one more piece of evidence that shows a chain of development from early species to now. Unfortunately, it's an old chestnut that creationists complain about missing links not connecting gaps between species, then when one is found, they then complain that there are now two gaps!

Furthermore, Tiktaalik isn’t just a cool fossil. Science isn't about just going into the lab and measuring a bunch of voltages, and writing a paper about what you found. The real, fundamental power of science is that we can make predictions about what we don't know based on what we do know. Tiktaalik wasn't just a fossil that someone found, it was a fossil that was predicted, and then found. Someone said, "Based on what we know about X and Y, there should be a Z out there somewhere." And then someone went out and found Z. Tiktaalik isn't just a "fish with feet," it's a clear link -- one of the "transitional forms" that creationists are always saying don't exist -- between fish and four-legged animals. (More on Tiktaalik at The Lancelet.)

If Bambenek lived in a world where fundamentalist Christians vehemently denied that Mexico and Mexican food existed and said that Mexican restaurants were just a figment of Ronald McDonald's imagination, he might just yell "Eureka" when finding a burrito. We are fortunate, however to live in a world that flows with queso and salsa.

The underlying conflict is just another battle of the same war fought in many different fields in the modern experience. The two camps can be summarized as "man is made in the image and likeness of God" and "God is made in the image and likeness of man."

Instead of trying to search out the truth free of presuppositions, science chooses arguments and theories that make the assumption that God must not exist. Anything challenging that assumption is labeled heresy and discarded, quite unscientifically. That's why theories that aliens brought life to Earth are O.K. while intelligent design is not.

Now Bambenek starts getting metaphysical. I'm tempted to ask if God has an appendix and if so, what's it for? And why does he need platelets? But I won't.

Science does not “choose argument and theories that make the assumption that God must not exist." What science does is choose explanations that make sense without needing to turn to those that require the existence of God. Occam’s Razor says that the simplest explanation is likely to be the correct one; given two explanations, one that makes no claims about God, and one that does, the one that doesn’t say anything about God (but still adequately explains the data) is the one that we should use. When lightning strikes, we attribute it to well-understood electrostatics, not the righteous anger of the Lord.

Anyway, no one important seriously makes claims about panspermia that I'm aware of. Ironically, it's a valid theory, since it is theoretically testable. Imagine if (after inventing warp drive or something) we start visiting other planets, find life, and start measuring how similar it is to our own planet. Now, imagine measuring genetic drift, not between races and across continents, but between alien races and across star systems. It is something that would be testable. Intelligent design's concept of "Poof, let there be mankind..." well, I'm just not sure how you could test something like that.

Is there a class on intelligent design at the University? (I couldn't find one). If not, why not?

The intellectual mind is not served by denying any challenge to assumptions and rejecting opposing points of view without consideration. For those interested in learning more on intelligent design, please attend the talk on it at 7 p.m. on April 18 in the Lewis Lounge at Newman Hall.

Pity, I never noticed that bit about the talk until it was too late.

Actually, I assume that intelligent design is covered, at least briefly, in the many courses at the university that deal with evolution. It would be difficult to teach such a subject without at least mentioning it. It was covered in mine, and that was more than a few years ago. Just to give you an idea of the scale and importance of evolution, and how well-studied and fundamental it is to modern science, there are fourteen classes taught that deal with evolution in one form or another, and that's just in the Department of Animal Biology.

There isn't a class on intelligent design for the same reason there aren't classes in the Political Science department on World Politics and the Bible Codes, in the Economics department on Predicting the Stock Market through Astrology, or classes in the College of Medicine on The Flow of Qi Through the Human Body. We don't teach courses on things that are not accepted by the mainstream community. This is probably less true in the humanities, where it's harder to determine which things are "true" and which things aren't. But evolution isn't subjective like ethics or philosophy, it's actually a science. Why isn't Bambenek complaining about the lack of courses covering cold fusion or the hydrino?

I'm a grandfish!

My fish have had babies! From what I've read, platyfish often come from the fish store already pregnant. I assure you that, once they're here, they're always chaperoned when in the presence of fish of the opposite sex, so I know there certainly was nothing fishy going on in my tank.

Anyway, I now have two little baby fish. One is much bigger than the other; I figure they were born at different times. I'm not sure if they have the same mother, or if two have spawned at the same time. The bigger one is pretty much entirely orange and yellow in coloration at the moment. The smaller one is about the size of a grain of rice, and has the same black tail as the ones I got from Sailfin.

UPDATE: Just noticed a third, even tinier fish. Must be something in the water.

Getting my kicks

One thing I do like about traveling across the country is getting to see so much of it. Not just the geography (which is impressive in and of itself), but how different parts of the country are different; how they are the same.

Nevada has gambling. Lots of gambling. Gambling in an Arby's in a truckstop. Some of the casinos cater specifically to truckers, even. This isn't Las Vegas I'm talking about, either, but northern Nevada, like Reno and parts east. Hardly affluent areas. I couldn't help wondering if the gambling draws lots of money out of the local economy, or if those regions would be even worse off without it.

Avoiding the Sierras and their accompaning snowstorms means going south through Arizona, New Mexico, and some of Texas. That's the old Route 66. We're spoiled to the idea of the interstate highways, but it wasn't lonq ago that the idea of a single highway stretching from Chicago to Los Angeles was a new and significant undertaking. Only a few a decades before that, imagine being a trucker having to go all that way before such luxuries as well-maintained roads, radios, public bathrooms, air conditioned vehicles, and seat belts. Not too long before that, it was done by people in horse-drawn wagons. I'm glad I live now.

Two cents on immigration

... just not my two cents.

With all the immigration noise going on lately, it seems to me that this letter in the NY Times is the best and most succinct analysis I've seen:

The value of the illegal immigrant to our economy is his illegality. If you understand this fact, you understand the problem.

So long as he retains his illegal status, he can be paid less, denied health care and dismissed at will. This is what those corporations that employ undocumented workers value the most. And this is why a "guest worker" program will never succeed.

When today's illegals become tomorrow's federally recognized guest workers, the jig will be up. Because of their legitimate status, guest workers will have to be treated like human beings. This will not sit well with those employers who thrive on illegals today.

By adopting a "guest worker" program, we will be creating millions of legitimate workers, and those hard-pressed employers will be forced to seek out (and "invite" into our country) another illegal group willing to be paid less, denied health care and dismissed at will.

George Moss
Columbus, Ohio, April 10, 2006

"Forensic vagina inspectors"

This is positively chilling. The NY Times has a feature today, Pro-Life Nation, about abortion (or rather the lack of it) in El Salvador. The new South Dakota abortion law, subtitled "Let's see if we have enough Supreme Court judges under our belt to overturn Roe v. Wade," makes an exception for the life of the mother, but not for her health. It also doesn't criminalize getting an abortion, just providing one. El Salvador will put both the doctor and the woman in prison, possibly for up to 30 years. It not only makes no exception for the mother's health, but not even if the abortion is necessary to save her life. It's enshrined in Article I of their constitution.

Go read the article. It's an easy read, and it's important.

The array of exceptions that tend to exist even in countries where abortion is circumscribed — rape, incest, fetal malformation, life of the mother — don't apply in El Salvador... Abortion is now absolutely forbidden in every possible circumstance. No exceptions.

[El Salvador] has not only a total ban on abortion but also an active law-enforcement apparatus — the police, investigators, medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors and a special division of the prosecutor's office responsible for Crimes Against Minors and Women

The consequences for this are positively stunning. Not only does it mean that there is an active back-alley abortion trade, but women experiencing the inevitable complications are afraid to receive medical treatment because their doctors will report them to the police.

This insanity continues to the point where doctors can not even treat an ectopic pregnancy.

Unattended, the stuck fetus grows until the organ containing it ruptures. A simple operation can remove the fetus before the organ bursts. After a rupture, though, the situation can turn into a medical emergency.

According to Sara Valdés, the director of the Hospital de Maternidad, women coming to her hospital with ectopic pregnancies cannot be operated on until fetal death or a rupture of the fallopian tube... She described the hospital's practice. "Once we determine that they have an ectopic pregnancy, we make sure they stay in the hospital," she said. The women are sent to the dispensary, where they receive a daily ultrasound to check the fetus. "If it's dead, we can operate," she said. "Before that, we can't." If there is a persistent fetal heartbeat, then they have to wait for the fallopian tube to rupture.

I'm not upset at this because it's a peculiar law in an exotic country. I'm upset because this is what the Republican Party wants to turn our country into.

More traveling notes

• Rented a Jeep Grand Cherokee this time. Largest thing I've ever driven. Not overly comfortable. But at least I think there is now an oil well in Iraq that has my name on a little brass plaque in front of it.
• It has this GPS map system that guides you from place to place, much like having Google Maps or Mapquest constantly on. I could get used to something like this. Not sure how useful it would be in an area I was familliar with, but on a trip like this, where every place is new, it's quite useful.
• Fifteen miles to the gallon? Are you kidding me?
• $3.29 a gallon? Are youfucking kidding me?
• Berkeley: Fairly urban, crowded, and surprisingly dingy, especially a mile away from the campus. Not my first choice for someplace to live, especially at Bay Area prices.
• Last night I woke up and couldn't remember if I'd locked the car door or not. I hate that. I checked and, yes, it was unlocked. Fortunately I'd left the big, red "Steal Me" sign in the trunk. Now if only I could remember if I'd turned the coffee maker off before I left home...

Ugh, more traveling.

Back again. Sigh. The last for a while, I certainly hope.

But I came home to find a new, itty bitty fish in my tank. It looks like one of the plays had a baby. Possibly multiple babies. We won't discuss what happened to the little guy's brothers and sisters. Anyway, it's cute. Pictures coming soon. Does this mean I'm a grandfather or just a fish pimp?

UPDATE: Here is a photo of the baby.

Here's a prediction for ya

Matt notes that John McCain, probably in preparation for a 2008 Presidential run, is starting to pander to fundamentalist Christian voters. Frankly, I lost all respect for McCain after he started cozying up to the Bush II administration. This was after the Bush campaign, masterminded by Karl Rove,¹ ran a whisper campaign suggesting that McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter was the result of an interracial, adulterous affair he had with a black woman. I'm sorry; I realize that politics makes for strange bedfellows and all, but if anyone went after my family like that, they would be on my shit list never to get off it.

In the comments to Matt's post, prariebiker notes:

Giuliani is probably more electable than McCain. Most Rs are aware that McCain is merely a RINO² and there is a substantial amount of bad blood between him and the heavy donors who pulled all their support out from under him during the 2000 primary.

If Giuliani does get the nomination, then that will prove once and for all that the Republican claim to being the "moral values" party is just a load of bullshit. Gay rights and abortion have been the points that Republicans scream most vocally about. The many gay marriage initiatives on ballots in 2004 are probably what got the holier-than-thou Christian segement of the population fired up enough to come out and vote (and therefore vote for Bush) in 2004.

If Republicans abandon that part of their platform -- and mind you, from their point of view that now means condoning the murder of babies -- then they will be putting political expediency in front of their precious moral values. They will be proving themselves hypocrites.

Really, that's what the Republican party and the right-wing media machine are and have always been about: power. Getting power and maintaining power.

¹ That's speculation. The actual origin of the calls is and, barring some deathbed memoir, will always be unknown. But, come on, we all know who was behind it.

² Wow. If the anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-creationism McCain isn't a "real" Republican, Good Lord, who is?

I don't get Christians

On this last trip, I got to listen to the radio a lot. If I can get NPR (which is most anywhere), I'm pretty much content, since it's usually interesting, and they actually go into depth in their news stories. They also cover topics other than the latest missing pretty white woman. Then again, NPR is staffed with only America-hating, baby-eating liberals, not real people.

Occasionally, however, I channel surfed just to see what I could find. The two constants I could almost always get on the radio, no matter where I was, were NPR and some sort of Christian radio. I actually listened to the latter a bit now and then, feeling a bit like an anthropologist visiting an alien culture. I just don't get the need of people to have their believe so continuously and constantly reinforced. Is their faith really that weak? To have one segment of the media 24/7 focused on reminding me non-stop of just a single idea would bore me, frankly, and I don't understand why people listen to it. Are they afraid that they're going to forget that "Christ Jesus died for their sins"? Or that only by following the "right" rituals and by worshipping in this proscribed manner (no, not in that manner, that's a heresy) can they avoid the everlasting torture that they so richly deserve and that their God of infinite love will be more than happy to bring down upon them?

The notion that the Christian media is constanly pushing isn't a particuarly pleasant idea, either. To be continuously reminded that you are unspeakably loathsome, and that no matter how hard you try to be virtuous, you are still lower than the slime that grows in a polluted cesspool isn't all that nice. This satirical blog post pretty much sums it up perfectly: (via Pharyngula)

...by thinking those thoughts, you have chosen to be branded with hot metal and repeatedly, brutally sodomized. You have said, through your thoughts and actions, that you want to be chained down on a splintery rack, stretched, and shat upon by rabid livestock, while buzzards peck out your eyes. You said, "hey, mister. Would you mind putting me in an episode of twilight zone, where I slowly go into a psychological horror, despair and despondency, never to receive comfort from another human being? That would be great." Hey--that was you talking. Not me...

All you have to do is to agree with me, and your unforgiveable thought-crimes will be erased. Admit that your thoughts are vile, and that you are vile, and that you deserve to sit in a hot tub full of feces and vomit, and handed a large spoon, and you will escape the fate of someone peeling your skin off and forcing you into an iodone and lime juice shower.

It's a wonder that Christians have any self-esteem at all.

Maybe this isn't charitable of me. Maybe I'm making sweeping generalizations. But looking at it from my point of view as an outsider, this really is what Christianity, at its heart, seems to be.

I'm back ... but lazy

Details on the trip later

UPDATE: See below.

Isn't traveling fun?

So when the Nevada highway people saythat snow tires or chains are required, they really mean it. Going slow and in low gear really isn't an option. They will stop you and make you turn around. Now, if you're driving a rental car, snow tires are a bit problematic. (What to do, buy a set and then a new set of regular tires before returning the rental?) And then, when looking through the Nissan manual to find out exactly what tire chains actually are, only to find that the tires on the car are the wrong size to take tire chains... well, you can understand why I'm not in CA yet. And why I'm wondering how/if I'm going to get there at all.

UPDATE, 8:19: To make matters more fun, the interstate to the east is also closed. I can't go forward and I cant go backward. Excuse me while I go have a small nervous breakdown in my hotel room.

Travel notes

• It appears that Wisconsin has not yet discovered the joy of cellphones. Nor has most of Nevada.
• I'm amazed that is actually possible to make a cup of coffee taste like hot water.
• Surprisingly, McDonald's coffee isn't half bad.

Yay, traveling

I have to go out of town for a while, so there won't be much (i.e. any) posting while I'm gone.

Why Brokeback matters

Brokeback Mountain didn't win the Best Picture Oscar, and only came away with three of the eight for which it was nominated. Various bloggers have lamented the fact that the two main characters were played by straight actors, and that even the gay aspect of the film has been played down. Seriously, next time a Brokeback trailer comes on TV, just try to tell me that you could come away from that with an understanding of what the movie was about. (The online trailers seem to be less ambiguous.)

It bears asking, then, what two out, gay actors in Hollywood would be better to play Jake and Ennis? Chad Allen was probably off filming End of the Spear. Ian McKellan is too old for the part. Rupert Everett is too tall and too British. To be blunt, Nathan Lane or Harvey Fierstein really wouldn't be right for the part. Sean Hayes still won't talk. There just aren't many butch gay actors, and none with the decent name recognition that Ledger and Gyllenhaal bring with them.

Even though Brokeback didn't win Best Picture, it's probably the movie with the most buzz circling it. Yes, all the late night comedy show Brokeback-ing jokes probably didn't hurt. But there's no such thing as bad publicity, right?

Anyway, the biggest reason I think this movie is quite important, even in this day and age, is that I suspect there's a lot of Brokebacking going on. J.L King's book On the Down Low and stint on Oprah opened a whole can of worms about married, otherwise-"straight" men having sex with other men, then returning to their wives. If nothing else, Jim West's recent excapades have shown that the closet is alive and well even to this day. Dan Savage took West to task for being a very anti-gay Republican while still having sex with men in secret. The hypocrisy is, of course, reprehensible, but the closetedness is understandable. We don't yet live in an accepting, loving world and coming out is still an emotionally difficult and sometimes even physically dangerous act.

Dan Savage said in a New York Times editorial: (emphasis mine)

[Playing straight is] precisely what Jack and Ennis attempt to do in Brokeback Mountain... These gay cowboys try, as best they can, to quit one another. They marry women, start families. But their wives are crushed when they realize their husbands don't, and can't, ever really love them. "Brokeback Mountain" makes clear that it would have been better for all concerned if Jack and Ennis had lived in a world where they could simply be together...

If they don't think Chad Allen can play straight convincingly for 108 minutes, do they honestly imagine that gay men who aren't actors can play straight for a lifetime? And if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one?

Brokeback ends in the early 1980s, I think. Before AIDS, really. Before Matthew Shepard. Before that then-scandalous and now-ho-hum thirtysomething episode. Before anyone in rural Wyoming had ever heard of Stonewall, probably. Before Will and Grace, certainly.

I can't help but wonder how many real Jake and Ennis-es there have been. I wonder how many there still are now. And to any disapproving straight people that somehow find your way to my little blog, I must ask you: Would you want your daughter to marry one?

Oscars post-game wrapup

Just some thoughts.

• Yes, we know 2005 was a slow year for the movies. Please stop begging.
• Is this the first Oscar-winning song that contained the word "bitches?"
• I did not know that Sean Penn had a brother, let alone that he had died.
• Whenever the camera turns to people on these award shows, I always want to tell people, "You're not supposed to applaud yourself." Miss Manners would not approve.
• How cool is it that the Brokeback Mountain article at Wikipedia was updated only seconds after it won Best Adapted Screenplay?

A wikiwar

John Bambenek's article over at Wikipedia has been nominated for deletion. It's interesting to note that a number of those commenting on the deletion page (both for and against) are anons or virtually brand new editors.

UPDATE: Things did not go well for John.

Oscars pre-game

Tonight is the Oscars award show (or, as David has called it, the gay Superbowl). Someone on CNN just commented that the movies nominated for Best Picture aren't exactly blockbusters and so their nomination is somehow surprising. That of course, assumes that the most popular movie is the most entertaining, which implies that the more loud explosions that an action film has makes it more likely to win Best Picture.

Personally, I'm rooting for Brokeback Mountain, though I hear Crash might be the dark horse to bet on for this year. But are these movies doing "poorly?" One of the highest-grossing movies for 2005 was Return of the Sith, which cost about $105 million to make, and grossed $380m during the first five months after its release. Assuming an average theater cost of $7, that's about 54 million people that saw the movie. (These are US-only numbers, and ignore DVD sales.) Now, 380 million bucks isn't chump change, but that gives the studio about 3.6 return on it's investment (ROI).

On the other hand, Brokeback has grossed $72m but only cost $14m to make, giving it a ROI of 5.1. Crash did even better, costing $6.5m to make, and grossing $55m so far, for a whopping ROI of 8.5. Capote and Good Night and Good Luck didn't do as well, and Munich might actually count as a flop, being $30m in the hole.

The Right is, predictably, pushing the meme that Brokeback is getting so much buzz becuase it's just another step in the Insidious Plot to Queerify America, another one of the their favorite memes.

But in popular culture, things are getting worse... This gay cowboy movie -- and it's going to win, you know, a lot of awards all over -- and their -- the media is pushing this like crazy... Why? Because they want to mainstream homosexual conduct. That's the goal.

-- Bill O'Reilly on The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly

So, I haven't -- going to see it. Gay cowboy doesn't interest me. I am going to go see King Kong. I suspect the people who make these kind of movies, though -- like gay cowboy -- would go to see a movie called 'The Gay Gorilla'. But that's the difference between Hollywood and mainstream.

-- William A. Donohue on MSNBC's Scarborough Country

Hollywood may, in fact, want to give every Oscar it can find to the first gay cowboy movie. But I think most people do not want to go into a darkened room with a tub of popcorn and munch away watching two guys get it on. I just don't.

-- John Gibson on FOX's The Big Story with John Gibson

No, I didn't see the film and I'm not at all surprised that out of seven [Golden Globe] nominations Brokeback walked away with four -- and some might say that's an indication of what the Oscar ceremonies might look like later on this year... I think what we're witnessing, Larry, is the homosexualizing of America.

-- Janet Parshall on CNN's Larry King Live

On its opening weekend, Brokeback had the highest per-showing average gross of any film ever. So it's pretty clear that someone, somewhere is actually out seeing movies like this one. It seems to me, for the reasons above, that making movies like this is also good business sense.

(See also: Conservatives quick to opine on Brokeback Mountain's "agenda," slow to actually see film, over at Media Matters, which is where most of those quotes came from.)

God must love Sci-Fi Friday

I got home last night only to find the cable (and Internet) out. Completely dead. "Dammit, it's Sci-Fi Friday!" Then at 6:59, it came back on. Just in time for the Stargate into section, with Ben Browder in just a towel. Apparently there is something better for him to wear than the Farscape-brand leather pants.

Now it looks like Patrick Stewart is returning to the small screen.

The second is the highly anticipated thriller Eleventh Hour, a high concept new drama in which Stewart plays Professor Ian Hood, a physics professor serving as a Special Adviser to the British Government.

With his Special Branch bodyguard Rachel Young, played by Extras' Ashley Jensen, Hood investigates and tries to solve disasters caused by modern science. Each of the four episodes covers a scientific hot potato - cloning, disease control, global warming and finding a cure for cancer.

Hmm. Sounds like it could wind up a great deal like the X-Files.

Doctor Who has been picked up by the Sci-Fi channel. Not that I didn't download and watch them a year ago, but it's nice to see them getting some play. (Jack Barrowman grew up in Joliet, who knew?) Now if only we can get Sci-Fi to drop the stupid movies with the poorly CGI'd monster of the week and replace them with old Doctor Who episodes, I'd be happy.

Lastly via Pharyngula, comes this quiz. I'm happy with my results:

You scored as Serenity (Firefly). You like to live your own way and don't enjoy when anyone but a friend tries to tell you should do different. Now if only the Reavers would quit trying to skin you. Serenity (Firefly) 88% Babylon 5 (Babylon 5) 69% Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix) 69% Millennium Falcon (Star Wars) 63% Deep Space Nine (Star Trek) 50% SG-1 (Stargate) 44% Moya (Farscape) 44% Bebop (Cowboy Bebop) 38% Galactica (Battlestar: Galactica) 38% Andromeda Ascendant (Andromeda) 38% Enterprise D (Star Trek) 31% FBI's X-Files Division (The X-Files) 13% Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics) created with QuizFarm.com

What the hell is a lifestyle, anyway?

Matt over at It's Matt's World discusses a comment thread over at Illinipundit about Republicans, gays, gay Republicans, and marriage. Go read it; it's interesting.

The discussion over at IP started with a post from one of the IP guys decrying the reprehensible Judy-Topinka-is-friend-with-dirty-fags smear campaigning going on over at StopTopinka.com. Cut-and-paste, if you want. I'm not linking that so as not to raise their PageRank.

I just wanted to comment on the sort of language coming from the comment Matt links to. Not that there's anything particularly unusual in the comment itself; it is the standard boilerplate text of the Republican Christian Right:

I love all people regardless of who, what, when, where and what lifestyle they live. But it does NOT mean I have to agree with the lifestyle.

There's a blog post I've been meaning to finish about words that have lost all their meaning and have become code for something else. "Lifestyle" is pretty much the top of the list. When right-wing Christians complain about the "homosexual lifestyle," I just want to throw my hands up in exasperation. What exactly does that mean? It brings up mental images of Stepford-esque queers all sitting around in identical slacks and pink shirts, sitting around drinking tea, and discussing how to best recruit your sons* into their irresistible way of life.

Let's be honest. The "homosexual lifestyle" as Republicans use the term consists of the following: being gay. Period. That's it. There is no other behavior or action or trait that means you live the lifestyle. The term applies equally to both a boring suburban pair of white dads raising an otherwise-unadopted, mentally disabled, African-American teenager and to a cigar-smoking leatherdaddy busy spanking his naughty houseboy. So basically, "homosexual lifestyle" is code for "I don't like what you do with your dick.*"

I also don't get the idea of "agreeing" with the lifestyle. That's another word tossed about in these discussions, as well. It's not like there's not an open question to agree or disagree with. No one is asking for their consent. The word "agree" is used in this context as a substitute for "approve of." In other words, it's a way for conservative Christians to be self-righteous and be judgmental without feeling like they are being self-righteous and judgmental, which is not something good Christians are supposed to do.

This is just another example of something that Matt pointed out elsewhere. Namely, this is a situation where people make arguments that are primarily based in emotion, in favor of a position that has significant and tangible effects on someone else's life.

(*) Yes, I realize that the "homosexual lifestyle" technically covers lesbians as well as gay men, but it's the specter of two men together that seems to really disturb these people. It's no coincidence that the site mentioned above features a man in a tight, colorful bathing suit next to Topinka on its main page, and the prominently-displayed movie starts with two men holding hands. Homophobia is not about being gay, it's about enforcing traditional gender roles.

Murder for hire in South Dakota

South Dakota just passed a law banning all abortions, except if the mother will die unless she gets one. Now, the purpose of the law isn't actually to ban all abortions. The purpose of the law is to be challenged in court. It seems to be a given that, when the law is challenged in court it will lose. Then it can be taken to the Supreme Court, and right-wingers will be able to see if Judge Alito will be worth all the effort they went to to put him on the bench. So, the purpose of this law isn't to ban abortions in South Dakota, it's to over turn Roe v. Wade.

The bill contains no rape or incest provisions. That is, at least, logically consistent. If a blastocyst is an "innocent" human being, it can't be held responsible for how it was conceived.

However, I think that it's interesting that the bill only punishes abortion doctors. It makes providing an abortion a Class 5 felony, the second lowest class of felony, punishable of up to five years in prison and/or a $5,000 fine. It does not, however, criminalize getting an abortion. And that's not logically consistent. Any woman that paid someone to beat her two-year-old to death would be tried for murder, and rightly so. Why, then, does a mother that pays a doctor to kill her "unborn baby" get off scot-free? Undoubtedly, it's because the South Dakota legislature was queasy at the idea of a raped 12-year-old getting tried for murder.

I don't think this was really the intended purpose, but this bill also outlaws in vitro fertilization, where some fertilized embryos are usually discarded. In fact, it looks to me that abortion is a (fairly) minor felony, but IVF is first degree murder. South Dakota law defines first degree murder as:

Homicide is murder in the first degree if perpetrated ... with a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or of any other human being, including an unborn child

The new anti-abortion law defines an "unborn child" as "an individual living member of the species, homo sapiens, throughout the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth."

This law makes no distinction between an "unborn child" and an unborn child inside a pregnant woman. So it seems to me that a fertilized zygote in a petrie dish can be murdered. Oddly enough, that would be first degree murder, but an abortion is only a Class 5 felony.

If I were a fertility doctor in South Dakota, I would be very concerned right about now.

Protecting marriage

For various reasons, I'm reading The Family Secret: Domestic Violence In America by William Stacey and Anson Shupe. It's about their experiences with women in a shelter in Dallas in the early 1980s. Nothing in it really comes as any particular surprise, but I think I have a better understanding and deeper empathy for these women and children caught in truly desperate circumstances.

One section, however, I found very interesting. It's talking about the available options to battered women, and what steps the women went through to get help before finally winding up at the shelter. Police are often of no help (this was written in 1983, when domestic violence was probably taken less seriously than it is today). They note this about the clergy:

...women in Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and conservative Protestant churches (such as the Church of Christ, the Southern Baptist Church, and various fundamentalist denominations) are most likely to find their priests and ministers of little help. The kinds of family conflict that might lead to divorce or separation threaten these groups. Their clergy are likely to recall the admonitions of Saint Paul on controlling women and use them to justify telling the woman she must stay in the abusive home. Here women will probably be counseled by a minister to "try to be a better wife" or to "be more considerate of him" and "obey him." Leaving the abusive man, or divorcing him, will be branded desertion or a sin, shifting the blame to her.

In short, if she is a church-going battered woman her chances of getting meaningful ministerial help are better in churches of a more moderate-to-liberal persuasion such as Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, or Unitarian.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the churches that are likely to deride a woman for leaving an abusive husband are the same ones that are so vociferous about arguing against gay marriage. What I think is so telling about the passage above is that it shows these same conservative churches are willing to put the benefit of the institution above the welfare of the individuals inside that institution.

I don't think any rational person doubts that marriage provides benefits to individuals that aren't available to single people or unmarried couples. I have yet to see a rationally-based argument against equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. They all just use vague terms like "protection marriage" and "traditional marriage." But couching the fight in terms about equality and fairness isn't going to turn them to our side, because they are more interested in maintaining the illusion of what they think the institution should be rather than what it really is.

Some perspective on this President's Day

Thanks to our 24-hour cable news networks, we are better informed than ever.

This morning I turned on C-SPAN while I was eating breakfast. It's President's Day, so they were having a Presidential-themed morning. Several scholars that had written books about the history of the Presidency were on. There was some debate about what the worst Presidential decisions were in our history, and who the best and worst Presidents were. It was a lively discussion that stretched from Lincoln to Harding, to Carter.

Then, just briefly, I flipped over to CNN. They had 30 seconds of video of a 60-something-year-old woman that had just given birth. Then they cut to a story about a 30-pound housecat in China.

Thanks, CNN. What would we do without you?

A big story for our little town

It's one thing for the DI's cartoon story to get picked up my Malkin and other bloggers. It's another for it to get picked up by the NY Times.

TheSquire has another blog entry on the cartoons, and links to an interview where Acton claims the reason he was suspended was that the other editors are afraid for their lives:

[Interviewer]: No, but I mean, has anyone told you that's the reason they're upset, fear of reprisal?

[Gorton]: Well, not that specifically, but that has been voiced to me by quite a few people, yeah. I had a staff meeting on Monday, and pretty much my entire newsroom was there, and that was one of the major things that was brought up.

I'm really hoping that he's blowing this out of proportion. The editors actually, seriously, afraid for their lives because of this publication? This isn't the Middle East. Heck, it isn't even Demark, and the offices of the Danish paper that ran the cartoons hasn't even been bombed.

I still want to know why this major news story was run on the Op-Ed page.

Priorities, people

In looking for her posting on the DI's suspension of the Cartoon Two, I made the mistake of going over to Michelle Malkin's blog. The first thing I see is a blog entry comparing the publishing of the now-infamous Muhammed cartoons with the publishing of newly-released photos of the abuse that occured at Abu Ghraib. She's making accusations of hypocrisy in that there is controversy around the cartoons' publication, but not the Abu Ghraib photos. Seriously.

Let's see. One was, at best, terribly disrepectful of a major part of the world's population, and the other was concrete evidence of widespread and horrific abuse of prisoners, possibly condoned by senior officials in the American Army.

If you can't see the difference in the importance of these two things, go have your sense of proportion checked.

Happy VD

First of all, Happy Birthday to Jon. It must be nice when the whole world celebrates your birthday by giving chocolate to people.

And for the rest of you, planning to eat those chocolates, send flowers, and snuggle up tight for the evening, well, I hope you get the crabs.

Something is rotten in the, um, state of C-U

A quick summary for those of you that read this blog but aren't in C-U (i.e. Manya) or that don't have any significant ties to the University (i.e. David, Billy, and Jon): The Daily Illini published some of the infamous Danish Muhammad cartoons that are causing such a stir all over the world. This has caused some interesting discussion on the op-ed page, but also some friction in the op-ed staff itself. TheSquire has some interesting speculation here, and a followup here. Unfortunately, the DI's "Hey, ours isn't quite as crappy as the News-Gazette's" website has the editorial that introduced the cartoons, but not the images themselves in its archive. You can find a copy of them here.

Something about the op-ed explanations doesn't wash. It appears that two of the editors, the editor in chief and the opinions editor made the unilateral decision to run the cartoons, without informing the rest of the editorial staff. I don't know if that's true or not. I do want to say that I think the cartoons -- only because of the reaction they have spawned -- are themselves newsworthy. Some of them are quite innocent (I especially like the green one with the star and the one with the crescent halo), and I can't see how anyone would object to them. Some of them are flat-out racist. Some I can't figure out because they're in Danish.

Squire points out that the moral dimension to running these cartoons comes not from their newsworthiness, but from the motivations of those putting them in the paper. That's why I find the dissenting editorial by the Cartoon Two in today's DI so interesting. From that editorial:

The members of the editorial board are scared. They are scared of the unknown, scared of violence and scared to accept a principled action on our behalf, all while hiding under the guise of the journalistic "process," a process we believe has been upheld...

All editors present in the newsroom the night before publication learned of our decision to publish the cartoons. There were no objections. Not until they witnessed a backlash from the Muslim community, one that we were prepared for, did the board cower to their demands.

Are Gorton and Prochaska seriously suggesting that the other editors are afraid of a Middle-East-like violent reaction to the publication of these cartoons? It's interesting that their entire editorial is couched in language that calls their colleagues cowards. They are "scared of the unknown," they are "hiding under the guise" of the "process," and that they are "cowering" to the Muslim community's demands. This sort of "attack your opponent" arguing makes me very suspicious of their movies, but I won't speculate on them here, since I really don't know any of the individuals involved. (That I later found that Squire accuses Prochaska of being a "drinker of the neo-con kool aid" increases my suspicions.)

I just want to finish this by quoting from another article from today's DI:

Iran, a predominantly Shiite Muslim country, has seized on the caricatures as a means of rallying its people behind a government that is increasingly under fire from the West over its nuclear program.

Shiite Muslims do not ban representations of the prophet and some in Iran's provincial towns and villages even carry drawings said to be of Muhammad.

The protesting, rioting, and violence has never been about the cartoons. They were just an excuse. It's about the meme in the Middle East that the West is anti-Islam.

UPDATE: TheSquire points out that there's some good stuff about the DI controversy over at The Next Frontier. The Cartoon Two have been suspended from the paper during an investigation. My prediction: this will cease being about how the DI came to the decision to run the cartoons and the unilateral decision by the Two, and will become a "good conservative Christian vs. evil liberal Muslim university elite" soundbite.

UPDATE II: This just occured to me. If these cartoons were considered by the editors to be so newsworthy, why were they published on the Opinion page and not as a regular news article? Could it possibly have something to do with the EIC and the opinions editor having an easier time of getting them published without having to consult other members of staff? Just speculating...

Happy birthday, Charles Darwin

It's Darwin's 197th birthday today. I just thought I'd celebrate that by linking to a Catholic group that is offering a reward for people that can prove the Earth goes around the Sun. Why? Because they think the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Seriously. It's not a joke.

The basis for this group's geocentrism is that it must be true because the Bible says so. Which is basically the same evidence Intelligent Design creationists spout for their movement. In the mind of ridiculous Christians, scripture trumps reality, every time. That's what the whole evolution vs. ID debate boils down to: does science take observable reality as its touchstone, or one group's religious myths?

The whole idea of the Earth going around the Sun or vice versa is a mathematical convenience, of course. There is no stationary reference frame to measure movement against, a concept which the author of this challenge obviously doesn't understand. You just try telling him that.

Paging Dr. Frist...

I saw this clip, or one so strikingly similar I can't remember the difference, about a year ago. It's a back-to-back comparison of Bush speaking ten years ago during the TX gubernatorial debate and some more recent clips of him speaking, including during the Bush-Gore Presidential debate.

The difference is absolutely night and day. Frighteningly so. The clip and the linked blog entry suggest it's pre-senile dementia. I think it's a bit of a stretch to diagnose him from this sort of thing, probably put together with an agenda, but what sort of other explanations are there? No, really, I'm asking. Better preparation? He hasn't spoken well in any speech I've heard him give. Is he being coached to speak slower? That doesn't explain him stumbling over his words so much. Stress? Lack of sleep?

I don't think we really have any protection against a President that goes senile or suffers from Alzheimer's while in office. There is a clear line of succession if a President dies, but not if his mental acumen degrades or becomes impaired.

Could this explain why Dubya seems to only speak in front of pre-selected, Republican audiences? Any flaws would likely be forgiven and considered unimportant by those already of the faith, rather than those looking at him with a skeptical eye.

SOTU

The State of the Union address is tonight. For some reason, whenever I see that abbreviated as SOTU, I immediately think of STFU. Whatever.

Would anyone like to take part in my poll on how many times the word "terror" or "terrorism" will be used in tonight's speech? My vote is for 25. The winner gets a cookie. Put your guesses in the comments. I'll even accept entries after the fact, as long as you swear you didn't cheat. This is an honor system blog.

One of the other major topics Dubya is expected to opine about is health care costs. I'm not very informed on this topic (but that doesn't usually stop me from having an opinion). I've been reading Angry Bear a lot lately; they seem smart. Kash had this to say today:

If he addresses the question of high medical spending at all in his State of the Union address tonight, Bush is likely to focus solely on the medical liability insurance explanation (though I’m willing to be pleasantly surprised on this). His proposed solution to this problem is tort reform. Unfortunately, as I’ve written about previously, non-partisan estimates suggest that tort reform is likely to produce only a small decline in health care costs, of perhaps $6 billion per year, out of total medical care spending of $1,878 billion in 2004. That's not much of an impact.

... A more recent study in the International Journal of Health Services found that in 2003, administration costs in the US health care system ate up about $400bn, or about 25% of total health care spending.

... The NEJM study estimated that hospitals and doctors devote roughly one-fourth of their resources to dealing with insurance paperwork

I have a blog entry I've been meaning to get around to that shows for-profit insurance companies are inherently poorer than not-for-profits. Maybe this is why. Twenty-five percent of our health care spending is unproductive overhead. Holy hell.

Update: I just can't bring myself to actually watch. I'll see the important parts on the Daily Show, I suspect.

Can you shame those who have no shame?

You know, the Internet is a wonderful thing. It puts a truly mindboggling amount of information at your fingertips, and it's all accessible at lightning speed. Some use that power for good. Others, for evil, or at least money-grubbing unethicalness.

A few days ago, I received this comment spam, probably the first since turning on Bloggers CAPTCHA. It advertised www.abrams-california-health-insurance.com. I'm pissed off by the fact that they're spamming my blog to advertise what I figure is crappy health insurance, but I'm really pissed off by the fact that they're doing it in sub-eighth-grade English.

It wasn't just me, this spammer hit over 250 other blogs with this crap. In my case, the spam was left by someone who came to the blog after Googling for "general health care." His IP address was 68.123.236.84 (adsl-68-123-236-84.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net). The spam payload domain is registered to:

Abrams & Associates
23232 Peralta Dr #119
Laguna Hills, California 92653
949-472-9892
949-472-9815

Interestingly enough, if you go to the website, there isn't a single email address to be found anywhere. Not one. Not even at their "Contact Us" page. For an Internet-based business? I guess they don't want to get spam, but don't mind foisting it off on the rest of us. There is one in the domain registration entry, however. So it would just be terribly tragic if dan@insuresaver.com got picked up by some other spammer's spider and poor dan@insuresaver.com started getting a bunch of spam on his own. (See what I meant about a staggering amount of information?)

I am not the only one to take umbrage at this sort of behavior. One of the other spam victims was this guy on whose blog the spammer actually left his email address. (So it would be terrible if vpatel@acsseo.com got spidered as well.) So he called Advantage Consulting Services, the spammer, and left a message, and they actually called him back and confessed to being the blog comment spammer. God, if you're going to run your business in a horribly unethical manner, shouldn't you at least lie about it?

The implementation of the various CAPCHAs means that this wasn't an automated process. So I guess the good news is that some poor spammer was kept up until 2:30 in the morning cutting and pasting his spam into little blog comment forms.

Just to be abrasive, I sent this little missive to vpatel@acsseo.com:

To: vpatel@acsseo.com
Subject: Please stop spamming blogs with your advertisements

My blog is not a medium for you to advertise on. If that's what you're looking for, go spraypaint it on someone's building.

"We use industry best practices and ethical standards" my foot.

It was considerably more polite than the first draft.

Wooden ticking coolness

I'm not usually one much for do-it-yourself projects (although I have been known to pick up a hammer now and then if I know some people renovating their house...), but this wooden clock project looks cool. This guy put one together, and has some interesting photos and details on making one. I'm tempted to give it a try, but do I really need another project?

(Via BoingBoing.)

Who cares about an old piece of paper?

I just caught the end of a briefing on C-SPAN by Michael V. Hayden, the Principal Deputy Director for the Office of National Intelligence. The briefing was, of course, all about the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping of US citizens.

He was asked about the standard of evidence for the wiretapping that's been one of the main topics in the news lately. After stating, "If there's one amendment [his office] understands, it's the Fourth Amendment," he reiterated the claim that the administration can now bypass the FISA courts because the searches are "reasonable," and that's the only standard required by the Constitution. He responded to this reporters question, before leaving the room, that no warrants were required by the law.

I'd just like to briefly quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

-- The Fourth Amendment

On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson was probably a terrorist.

UPDATE: Via Eschaton, I found a transcript of the session:

LANDAY [reporter]: I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures.

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause."

And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place of probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.

Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

Look, I'm just a scientist. I'm not even particularly a history buff. And even I instantly knew that the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause and a warrant. Are we really supposed to believe that the second-highest intelligence guy in our country really doesn't know what the Constitution says?

Blogging, explained in 30 seconds

Yeah, this pretty much sums it up.

How not to kill your fish

One of the Franks died yesterday after the weekly water change. After talking it over with Guy at Fish Shop (what is it with the cute guys working at Sailfin?), it looks like it was chlorine that did it. It turns out adding dechlorinator to the tank, then adding the appropriate amount of tap water is not the way to do it, unlike what I read online. Add the dechlorinator to the bucket of water, wait 15 minutes or so, and add it to the tank. There is something like 1-2 ppm of ammonia in Champaign tap water, which is what I initially thought did it, but that wouldn't have worked nearly as fast as this.

Some useful fish, plant, and aquarium links, in case anyone is interested, or comes across this page after Googling:

• Sailfin: The Champaign fish store. Accept no substitutes. They have a large inventory, and everyone there seems to know their stuff.
• PlantGeek.net: Lots of good information on planted tanks. I think I like plants in aquariums almost as much as the fish. Since they also help keep the water quality up, I don't know why anyone would want to bother with the plastic ones.
• The Age of Aquariums: A lot of profiles on different fish species. Pretty pictures, too.
• FishProfiles.com: More fish profiles, separated by category. You can also search on size, diet, etc.
• Freshwater Aquariums: The About.com section on freshwater tropical aquariums. Annoyingly ad-filled, but some good, basic information there.

If anyone knows any other good sites, please let me know.

A mountain of publicity

A Mormon theater owner in Utah pulled the movie Brokeback Mountain from his theaters, only two hours after a reporter mentioned what the movie was about. (Two gay cowboys in love, in case you've been living under a rock.) He's since refused to say exactly why he pulled the movie, but, since he's also pulled the showing of Transamerica, I think we can make a pretty safe guess.

It's not because the movie has any graphic sexual content. It's R-rated for "sexuality, nudity, language and some violence." That's "sexuality," mind you, not the "some sexual content" of Casanova, the "strong language throughout, strong crude and sexual humor, and nudity" of Grandma's Boy, the "nudity and brief language" of Mrs. Henderson Presents, the "strong graphic violence, some sexual content, nudity and language" of Munich, or the "violence and language" of Syriana. Those are most of the other R-rated movies shown at Megaplex Theaters. So just showing that gay people exist is enough to get you banned from this asshole's theater.

What truly shows the hypocricy of this bigot is that his theater is also showing Hostel. That's a movie that starts with "exploitative sex as an appetizer," is about three young horny men that get lured to an Eastern European hotel with promises of loose women, only to be kidnapped and tortured. Graphically tortured. Ultra-violently graphically tortured. The Salon review describes it thusly:

But what's made "Hostel" instantly notorious is not the philosophical questions it raises, such as they are, but the intense and horrifying nature of its violence. You could argue, in fact, that Roth is playing to precisely the kind of jadedness he says he's criticizing. In the last few years horror directors have all but abandoned mood, atmosphere and suggestion for full-on graphic bloodshed, and Roth, a protégé of Quentin Tarantino and one of the most talented filmmakers in the genre, is leading the way.

He has no apologies. "This is a really, really violent and bloody film," he says. "And if people don't want to see that, they absolutely shouldn't go. I think there is absolutely an audience that wants their horror horrific. They don't want it safe. I'm not trying to make movies that appeal to everyone, and I think the advertising makes that clear. This is stuff that really horrifies and disturbs me."

...I tell him the truth about my own reaction, which was that I admired the humor, the tremendous craftsmanship and even the shock value of "Hostel," but found the Grand Guignol torture scenes excessive. (Unless you're a hardcore fan of Italian, Spanish and Japanese gore flicks, you've never seen anything like this.)

So, to sum up: Gay people in love = bad. Graphic, gore-filled depictions of torure = good.

Fundamentalist Christians have their priorities seriously fucked up.

Say hi, everyone

Per Manya's suggestion, I'd like to introduce you to Frank. And Frank. And Frank, and Frank, and Frank, and Frank.

That's Frank, there on the left. I think.

No soup for you

It seems to me that if you're going to call for a discussion on a rather controversial topic, and then complain that people are making personal attacks, tell them they can't sit at the "adult table," and then refuse to take part in the discussion, you shouldn't go on your blog and call people names.

Go to the kiddie table. Do not pass Go. Do not collect dessert.

McFetus

Pharyngula (now at his new server) has an interesting little question and pic up on his blog. I suspect the anti-choice coalition people have some magic soul detector that can answer the question for us though.

Perhaps, someday, Iraq will be this enlightened

Arrested gay men "to get hormone treatment"

Gay men arrested at a party in the United Arab Emirates are set to be issued with hormone injections, according to officials in the country, as part of the punishment for homosexuality in the country....

The treatments are used in the country, where homosexuality is illegal, in an attempt to cure gay men and turn them straight.

Again, we see how being gay is equated with being insufficiently masculine. The article doesn't say which hormones are used in the UAE to "cure" gay people. Historically both testosterone and estrogen (as was forced on Alan Turing). And we all know how well that worked.

Even with all the controversy surrounding gay marriage in this country, I'm very glad I live here rather than the more barbaric parts of the world.

Bring on the violence!

Squire ... ahem, excuse me ... The Squire links to a list of new Illinois laws that took effect at the beginning of this year. There is one, however, that won't be coming into play, the Violent Video Games Law and the Sexually Explicit Video Games Law. A judge ruled that the law was written so vaguely that it became unconstitutional. That's fortunately, since it was a pretty stupid law to begin with.

I ranted about that a while ago. It looks like after I wrote that, the law was amended so that the intended penalty for selling an M-rated game to a 17-year-old was actually less than the one from selling him alcohol. That was a small breath of sanity, I suppose. But the whole notion of criminalizing selling games is ridiculous to begin with. Why should they be treated any differently than movies or books or TV? This was obviously just a knee jerk overreaction to a non-problem. Good riddance.

Mawwiage

Matt over at his world continues his thoughts on marriage and John Bambanek's column in the DI a few weeks ago. I've long since said that conservatives shouldn't be allowed to play the "queers can't marry because they can't have kids" card unless they're willing to accept the annullment of all straight marriages after menopause. But then again, I'm a liberal. I approve of logical consistency.

Go. Read. Comment.

I'm back (and front)

I'm back from Texas. Hope everyone had a Happy Issac Newton's Day or whatever. Blog posting will now resume on it's regular irregular schedule.

Light posting

I am leaving for the Obligatory Family Visit soon, so posting will be light to nonexistant for a while. I'm sure you will manage.

I hope everyone has a happy holiday season. (Just to irritate Bill O'Reilly.)

Welcome back, ILPundit

I was about to remove ILPundit from the sidebar the other day, when I visited his blog and found he had resumed his insightful, yet entertaining, political blogging. Plus, he's fabulous; it even says so right on his blog.

Welcome back.

In defense of marriage

Matt over at It's Matt's World applauds John Bambenek for bringing up the question of same-sex marriage in his latest Daily Illini editorial. John basically says our society needs to have a discussion about what the role of marriage should be in our society. I say we've gone and had that conversation while John was napping. Marriage is about a loving couple coming together and making a life together. The only question that our society is grappling with is about who gets to take part in that institution.

Conservative, including Bambenek, always like to trot out the "gays can't have kids, so they can't get married" argument. Bull. Nothing about heterosexual marriage requires children. Children are a happy consequence of sex and, historically, marriage has been the approved gateway to having sex. Yes, children and marriage have always been closely linked, but marriage has never existed because it provides for "well-adjusted and well-raised children," as John asserts.

A woman can spend about half her life out of her childbearing years. I don't want to hear any more conservatives saying how marriage is only important because chidren can come of it until they also start objecting to post-menopausal women getting married. There is no reproductive reason for a woman "of a certain age" to have sex. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Therefore, insofar that marriage is intended to provide for the healthy upbringing of children, there is zero reason for a woman past about-forty to be able to get married.

Bambenek's column generated several letters to the DI's editor, and he responded to some of them on his own blog (toot!). He again brings up the issue of children when he says

If someone chooses not to have children because of their life circumstances, they can change their mind in one cycle. No amount of mental wrangling will allow for gay couples to produce their own children.

Not only has John just spit in the eye of all the loving adoptive families out there, he's never heard of a sperm bank. All it takes these days for a lesbian to "produce her own children" is an intimate encounter with a turkey baster. There are thousands of gay couples, male and female, out there with their own children. But, for some reason, their lifelong committment to each other doesn't count. The argument goes: they're not really a "family" so they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

My roomate from my freshman year and his wife are in the process of adopting a baby from Guatamala. I'm not sure why, and I wouldn't dream of asking. There may be fertility issues; they may just be incredibly generous people. I just don't understand why they count as a family, but Matt and his husband don't.

Mmmm, sacrelicious...

Best. Slashdot. Post. Ever.

If you don't think that what is in the Bible is literal, you CAN'T be a Christian.

So when Christ said "I am the door" (John 10:9), do you suppose he had hinges and a doorknob?

This response is a close runner-up.

When I read your comment, I imagined a female voice (such as that in your car) saying "Your Christ is ajar".

Edumacation in Kansas

Go read the new Kansas Teacher's Guide for Intellegent Design. Put out by the Kansas State Board of Edukation.

UPDATE: The Squire has posted his response to his current pet creationist. It's worth a read. I'm not sure I've ever seen as good a bitch-slap in letter form before. Plus, he quotes me, apparently under the impression I know what I'm talking about.

Now here's some intellegent design

Science vs. Norse Mythology, on Creation

Clearly, we need to start teaching the controversy. Give elementary school students all the information and let them decide for themselves.

So I know this guy...

Yes, I know, a lot of confessions start out with "I have this friend...", but that's not what this is about. I really do know this guy. Not all that well, we've only met once, but have corresponded online for a few years now. We initially met in the gay.com chatrooms, and he seemed like a nice enough guy that, for a while, I was trying to decide if the three-hour drive that separated us was too big an impediment to dating. He's now in his first year at a seminary in Chicago studying to become a Catholic priest. So much for that fantasy.

The Vatican released a new document this week about the ordination of gay priests. (Matt also has some comments on it.) The document has apparently been in preparation for years, and came to light during the child molestation scandal. If you want, you can read the entire document here. This is the money quote (emphasis mine):

...the Church... may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.

The "practice homosexuality" bit I get. Sexually active gay men in the priesthood are verboten. Check. That makes (some sort of) sense. Sexually active straight men in the priesthood are also not allowed. Of course, you will never hear of the Vatican putting out a policy document saying that men who "practice heterosexuality" should not be ordained.

The second bit, the part about the "deeply-rooted homosexual tendencies" is the part that pretty much says gay people can't be priests anymore. Notice that they've left quite a lot of wiggle-room with the terms "deeply-rooted" and "tendencies." As in, "Oh, he's not really homosexual, he just has homosexual tendencies." That's very odd wording. It does fit with the Church's stance that gay people are really just broken straight people that have been contaminated with evil homosexual cooties. I wonder if we will start to see a Catholic increase in the rise of the loathsome "ex-gay" movement. That has pretty much been a fundamentalist, evangelical, Prostestant phenomenon until now.

The third part in the proscription above is just so unnecessary. The "so-called gay culture"? I'm not even sure what that means. Does this mean no shopping at Abercrombie and Fitch? No more Lifetime television? Is it five Hail Mary's for humming a showtune? Oh, you have to just love the snide "so-called" modifider on that phrase. Sure, no more tweaked-out circuit queens in the seminary, but something tells me they weren't exactly lining up in tonsures and hairshirts in the first place.

I was chatting with my proto-priest friend online this evening. From what he's described, it sounds like this instruction from on high is basically being ignored by the American clergy. J. is still openly (ex?) gay and still in the seminary. So it doesn't look like "deeply-rooted homosexual tendencies" are enough to stop you from becoming a priest.

The reason for this new document is obvious. Since the dawn of the Catholic Church's child-raping scandal, they have been trying to blame it on the presence of gays in the priesthood. The Church and it's officials don't seem to understand (or find it convenient to misunderstand) that pedophilia and homosexuality are as distinct as statutory rape and heterosexuality. By coming out with this new document the Church appears to be doing something about cleaning house with respect to its sexual problems, while not having to go to the trouble of actually doing anything. Since it appears (from my one data point) that seminaries are not necessarily doing anything different about accepting gay people, the Church gets to have it's gay priests and eat them, too.

Attack of the 50 foot twink

There's a fairly new billboard on Green St. that I have to go by on the way to work every morning. It's a huge black-and-white Abercrobie and Fitch ad, with some shirtless, twentysomething, heavily waxed, twinkie guy on it. It just occured to me that the ad doesn't actually have the advertised product in it anywhere.

So I guess this really means the only thing A&F sells is the label, not really the clothing.

Wikihelp

I recently had to revert some vandalism over at Wikipedia. Does anyone know how to make a contributors name or IP address linkable to their contributions in the edit summary? Like in this one. I've been playing around in the sandbox, and can't figure out how to do it.

A voice of reason

I'm listening to the C-SPAN stream I previously blogged about, and I'm listening to the interview and call-ins with Michael Chapman. Chapman is the descendant of Darwin, and wrote Trials of the Monkey, about when he visited Dayton, Ohio, where the Scopes Monkey Trial took place.

He said something in the interview that I thought was so well put, I'd share it.

If you had a sick child, and if you were in a room full of a hundred doctors, and ninety-nine of them said, "We diagnose this disease as X, and we think the best treatment for it would be Y." And one doctor said, "I think we should pray for this child." Which one would you go with?"

Then he mentioned the National Center for Science Education's Project Steve as a good way to measure the ninety-nine evolutionists vs. the one ID proponent.

Frankly, I think it's more like as if that one doctor said, "I've never seen any of these things called germs all these other doctors are talking about. They've never proved they cause sickness. This disease is clearly caused by the child's sin, and the Devil should be beaten out of the child and that will make him better."

LATER:

Oh man, this interview ends on a great note. This guy's not a scientist, and he's not shy about saying so. He's a writer, and you have to feel bad for him because all of the caller's are talking about evolution, and not his book. But he's very well-spoken and quite insightful.

[Talking about the idea that evolution is a big fraud perpetrated by amoral atheist scientists.] In the history of science, you often see supernatural explanations for things that later are found to have a natural explanation. There will be probably things that remain a mystery, but it doesn't seem to be a logical way of looking at the teaching of science. To simply speculate about something that can't be proven.

And this part surprised and really cracked me up. A great way to end the program.

[About how ID is a uniquely American religious phenomenon.] In a way, the Church is capable of supplying more comfort to people in their lives than the theory of evolution does, but is that the function of knowledge, I don't know. I think it's also interesting to look at the failure of the American education system... And when you look at Darwin, and when you look at how he was educated, or not educated. He didn't actually go to college; he was sort of an educated and enlightened amateur. And then you have George Bush, who went through the education system, and actually graduated from Harvard. And here is a man who has had all of the advantages of the American education system, and has the views of a basically somewhat ignorant fundamentalist crowd. It's a bizarre thing to see how a man who has reached that level, with such an apparent lack of understanding of science.

Oh, I think I like this man.

I am the monkey king

Yesterday, I was sitting down to eat breakfast, and turned on C-SPAN as I occasionally do. This should tell you two things about me. One, I am such a television addict that I don't even eat breakfast without it on, and, two, I'm really a nerd.

The topic for the last hour or so of Washington Journal was Intellegent Design. The first guest was a reporter who talked a bit about ID in general and Kansas's recent decent back into the Middle Ages. The next guest was the scientific laughingstock Michael Behe, which is when I turned the set off in disgust. Watching the archive on the C-SPAN website (yes, really, I'm a nerd) there was a third guest, Matthew Chapman, a descendant of Charles Darwin who wrote Trials of the Monkey. There are, apparently, no actual scientists in Washington.

The best part of the show is the people who call in. It's a strange combination of laughing at all nutty people out there, and being frightened that, really, there all these nutty people out there. Today was no exception. One caller:

It's really frightening to see how far our country has fallen with this debate. There was a time in our country when the Bible was taught in schools... I'm thirty-five years old, and since I've graduated from high school, the public school system has become a war zone. And there's nothing wrong with teaching Intelligent Design. In fact, if anything I think maybe it's going to educate students and educate children to maybe look into the Bible, maybe look into some other form of religion and find a meaning. There's too many children out there, they don't know why they're here. If you've got something like evolution they just assume, "Well i guess I'm just evolving. So-and-so is bad, i guess since we evolved from monkeys we're just going to continue to go down that slippery slope."

That's at 1:52:40 in the stream, if you want to hear it.

One of the things that the big name ID proponents always say is that ID isn't a religion, since it doesn't say anything about the designer. On the other hand, in every case I've seen, when cornered about who the Designer is, the ID proponent always says something like, "Well, in my opinion, it was the God of the Scriptures." It's pretty clear that that "God of the Scriptures" line is code for "fundamentalist Christianity." Behe himself has said that the mysterious Intelligent Designer was God. So yet again, we see that ID is just fundamentalist Christianity wrapped up in sheep's clothing.

But what I found interesting about the above caller's rant was the fact that the problem with evolution isn't that it's wrong, but that believing in it will rob your life of "meaning." Yet again, we see that when these fundamentalists are confronted with an aspect of the material world, of reality, that contradicts their preferred interpretation of some aspect of the Bible, they actually disbelieve the reality, rather than their supernatural beliefs. That's why you can't have an intellectual debate on this topic with proponents of ID. Even if you present them with mountains of evidence supporting evolution, they won't believe it. And that's because mountains of evidence supporting evolution is exactly what we have.

And it annoys the pig

Squire (1) is engaging an Intelligent Design apologist over at his blog. He says he's already received a response to his email, but only teases us with it. No details. The hints of biblical literalism he drops makes it pretty clear what the email contains, though.

I figure this sort of action is pretty much a waste of time. You can not do science if you go into something with your conclusion already decided on. Biblical literalist IDiods (heh, love that word) are so convinced of their interpretation of unquestionable scripture, that, when confronted with evidence that some part of reality contradicts it, they don't doubt the Bible, they doubt the reality. You just can't engage that level of zealotry on an intellectual level.

Science requires an open mind. It requires that you be willing to at least consider that you might be wrong, and question your preconceived notions. Radical notions require significant evidence, yes, but eventually they will be adopted if they are correct. ID is the antithesis of that.

(1) I assume that should be "Squire" and not "The Squire." The latter would just be too pretentious. Bordering on "The Artist" level of pretension. Which would have to be punished by being forced to repeatedly watch Doctor Who: The Movie. The atrocious FOX version.

Email woes

I owe some of you an email, and I know that. For some reason, Eudora is refusing to send outgoing messages. I can recieve fine, but not send. I'll switch to Thunderbird sometime when I get the chance and get caught up on my emails.

Touched by His noodly appendage

I was talking to David the other day, and was surprised he had never heard of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Pastafarians. What with all the press about Intelligent Design and Kansas's recent abandondonment of science, I was surprised anyone could not have heard about the FSM. So here's the link: http://www.venganza.org/

Note the scientific evidence linking global warming to the declining number of pirates roaming the seas. Arrrgh, matie.

I'm considering adding this button to the blog:

Candy corn is my kryptonite

Jon mentioned earlier the groceries in C-U are expensive. I'm not sure I agree with that, although it seems to me Schnucks is pricey for little added benefit. Plus, milk and bread I buy there go bad unusually quickly, for some reason. I've always found Meijer to have fairly reasonable prices and both their selection and their stuff seems to be better than any of the smaller stores in town.

I went this weekend, though, and it seemed some stuff was a bit more expensive than I remembered. Or maybe the stuff I needed and hadn't stocked up on lately just wasn't on sale. They seem to be in the process of up-scaling. I assume that's to better differentiate themselves from Wal-Mart now right across the street. They're putting in a bakery, and there's a new deli counter. Unfortunately, it's a lot bigger and none of the people working behind the counter can see over it.

Halloween candy was on sale. I was bad.

CIA

It looks like the CIA may have been holding people in secret prisons in Afghanistan and Eastern Europe. They're not admitting anything, but the Red Cross has had reports the US has been hiding detainees from it. Which is pretty creepy if you think about it: why would the US want to hide detainees from the organization whose primary mission is do determine they are not being mistreated? There's a bill in the Senate right now that would ban "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of US detainees. The White House wants an amendment that specifically exempts the CIA from that.

On a tangential note, Digby questions why we are hearing over and over about prisoners being raped by American interrogators. I would suggest it's because rape is probably an effective tool for degrading and humiliating someone before an interrogation, in other words, "softening them up."

What I find really dangerous is that there's this meme coming from the right wing that a terrorism suspsect has NO rights. None at all. Now, I really doubt we are doing the same things in these CIA prisons that Saddam did in his. But if we aren't willing to draw a line against torture, we might wind up being no better. There's always a stubborn suspect. Lines always get pushed. And before you know it, you've got some guy's finger in a pair of bolt cutters and you're screaming, "Where's the bomb, Akmed, you've only got six left!"

Coincidentally, the US submitted a report to the UN about our foreign detainees, although it only covered those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Gitmo. It reads:

There is no question that under the law of armed conflict, the United States has the authority to detain persons who have engaged in unlawful belligerence until the cessation of hostilities...

Of course, there will never be a cessation of hostilities. That's the whole point of the Global War Against Violent Extremism. As long as someone, somewhere on the planet doesn't like someone else, there will be terrorism. Or the threat of a bomb. Or a dictator with an active WMD program. Or at least the desire to start a WMD program. And so on.

Oceana has always been at war with terrorism.

Back

Back from NY. There are pictures, which I will put online somewhere once I bother to get them off the camera.

In the meantime, could someone plese explain to me why Ithaca, a community of 50,000 people, including 20,000 college students can support a frou-frou grocery store which is nearly as impressive as Central Market in San Antonio, but the best Champaign-Urbana can do is Schnucks and Meijer (and I'm not all that impressed by Schnucks). OK, I haven't looked extensively at Strawberry Fields, but it's tiny, and I think about half of it is taken up with the homopathic remedies, aromatherapy, and other snake oil. I mean, if I can get fourteen kinds of fresh mozarella in upstate NY at 3 am, how come I can't find something halfway as decent in C-U?