The Smug Baldy Speaks

Sean over at Cosmic Variance hopes, as I do, that Hillary Clinton will stop taking the low road in her attempt to secure her nomination. In the most recent example, Hillary’s support for the ill-conceived gas tax holiday is built upon a foundation of presenting opponents (most importantly, Barak Obama) as elitist and out of touch. The problem, of course, is that those smarty-pants elitists (you know, economists and other people who can perform mathematics) know that the holiday is an astoundingly bad idea:

The tragedy is that Hillary Clinton understands perfectly well that this is a stupid policy. (If you actually wanted to save people $40 over the course of the summer, you would just give them $40.) She is embracing it anyway. Her campaign is pushing it as a purely symbolic gesture, attempting to take the side of “real people” against elitist snobs with all of their “education” and “expertise” and Ivy-League degrees.

There are a number of reasons why the gas tax holiday proposal is a bad idea, but to cling to a turd like this and to try to sell it as a “real solution” for “real people” would make its supporters like Clinton and John McCain either woefully stupid (which they’re not) or calculating and insensitive to the poor (that’s where my money is).

You’re at a party, and the lights are flashing, the music is pumping, and people talking, laughing, clapping, dancing, and then a rumor starts: somewhere, out of sight, someone might have puked. Like a wave it moves through the crowd, touching everyone as they consider, “Oh no, I may be next”, and they swallow nervously, not wanting it to be true, but with that tentative swallow, they know the truth: they could indeed.

In true whisper-down-the-lane fashion, everyone does their part to pass the rumor, but the details change and morph as it goes, and the rumor becomes more grandiose, more twisted. First someone simply puked in the kitchen, then they puke on someone in the kitchen, then they puke while dancing with kitchen knives, then someone is almost stabbed and pukes in self-defense, and then … It doesn’t end, but builds and self-organizes. The rumor becomes a living thing.

Then the rumor is on everyone’s lips, as they share their own distorted versions, and argue over the details that don’t add up. Witnesses to the event are brought in and consulted for historical accuracy, “No, there were no knives involved”, and “no, it didn’t really look like tapioca pudding.” But in the noise and growing hysteria, these observations are misheard or misinterpreted, and are then woven back into the narrative, giving it new life: “Yes, a witness just confirmed that it looked like some kind of awful pudding.” Someone else gags, and the crowd holds its collective breath, as everyone hopes to keep their bile down.

And then there’s the confirmation, indisputable evidence that at least part of the rumor is based on actual events: Someone finds a small, puddle in the kitchen that smells badly. It doesn’t really look like tapioca pudding, but there are little pearls in it that could once have been nourishing. But it’s strange, and maybe there’s too much of what was clearly someone’s salad, and there’s an overabundance of saliva.

Even after it is cleaned away, there’s a nagging odor in the air: it’s not quite vomit, but not quite not either. Like that odor, the fervor of the rumor wanes, but doesn’t quite go away as the unanswered question lingers in an otherwise festive night. Some ass drank too much, or too fast, and now we’re paying for it with our suspicion and doubt, and our own internal efforts to control the reaction we feel in the back of our throats. We accuse one another of being the perpetrator, start new rumors about someone else’s guilt. Fingers are pointed and voices are raised. How could you, or you, or you, be so inconsiderate? How could he, or she, or they not control themselves better? You’re disgusting. I always thought you were a pig too. Way to go, pal.

And feeling much better, the dog is back in the yard, eating grass again.

Over at RedState.com, gamecock raised a bunch of crazy ideas, but let’s start with this. I ask you - does this statement by John McCain somehow frame a difference between himself and Barak Obama in purely moral terms?

HOW TO HELP LOW-INCOME AMERICANS
McCain: Obama’s insensitive to the poor
GOP candidate cites rival’s opposition to suspension of fuel tax
RASHA MADKOUR
Associated Press

CORAL GABLES, Fla. –Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Sunday called Democratic rival Barack Obama insensitive to poor people and out of touch on economic issues.

The presumed GOP nominee rapped his Democratic rival for opposing his idea to suspend the tax on fuel during the summer, a proposal that McCain believes will particularly help low-income people who usually have older cars that guzzle more gas.

“I noticed again today that Sen. Obama repeated his opposition to giving low-income Americans a tax break, a little bit of relief so they can travel a little further and a little longer, and maybe have a little bit of money left over to enjoy some other things in their lives,” McCain said. “Obviously Sen. Obama does not understand that this would be a nice thing for Americans, and the special interests should not be dictating this policy.”

How does gamecock’s claim smell of bullshit? Let us count the ways:
Read the rest of this entry »

In a previous post we looked at scales of measurement - from the very very large, to the incredibly minute. In a similar vein we have Giant Stars, which provides us with a sense of just how big our biggest problems really are. As I said before, I find it reassuring when I can get reminders like this of where we stand in the natural pecking order.

This is episode IV pof the Star Wars Retrospective at Gametrailers.com, and it covers some of the classic Star Wars flight-sim video games from the 90’s based on the X-Wing and Tie Fighter games. At the time, these games were the best Star Wars games around.

From the latest episode of The Office, a horny Michael takes Dwight clubbing with him in New York to meet some ladies.

My favorite quote: “Michael: Sorry Andy, can’t take any chances on curses, not tonight.”

I made this response on Kevin Murrell’s blog after he made the following vacuous claim:

In the movie Expelled, Ben Stein gives a compelling argument for Intelligent Design.

Having not seen the film yet, I can’t really comment on how compelling his argument actually was, but I suspect that it wasn’t a compelling scientific argument. If you follow the Intelligent Design controversy at all, then you’re probably well aware that ID lacks all the hallmark features of a true scientific theory. The two most critical components that ID lacks are the requirement that the theory be potentially falsifiable (ID is not), and that it leads to testable hypotheses (ID doesn’t make any).

Interestingly, I see many who mistakenly claim (as I’ve heard Stein claim in the Expelled trailers) that the “scientific community” (interestingly, not individuals, but the community as a whole) have an almost religious belief in Evolution, which is absurd for anyone wanting to call themselves a real scientist. Indeed, this would be equivalent to saying that the religious community has faith because of the results of careful experimentation.

No, as I’ve written before, scientists don’t believe in Evolution - they accept it provisionally as good theory. If Evolution were really such bad science, maybe as some in the ID community would like it to be, then it would not withstand the internal pressure of real scientists who really test it. So far, the testable hypotheses that Evolution has made have supported it. One of the implications of Evolution, unknown even in Darwin’s time, was that the Earth has to be much older than Darwin originally believed. We now have confirmation from multiple independent sources that point to a very old earth, unless you would prefer to reject several distinct branches of science. Evolution also predicts the relative orderliness in the fossil record - and the discovery of just one counter example would completely destroy the theory. Interestingly, Evolution also predicts the genetic differences found between humans and other major primates. The recent discovery that the human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two distinct chromosomes found in the great ape species not only accounts for the the observation that humans have 23 chromosome pairs and the apes have 24, but also supports the notion of a common ancestor. If the genetics worked out any other way - then it would be reason enough to toss the theory in the bin.

The principle issue I have with ID is that, since it isn’t really science, members of the ID community have attempted to get it into our public school science classes through the tactic of redefining science itself. I think scientists take issue with that, and rightly so. Again, the equally absurd tactic would be to force churches to teach Evolution in sunday school classes by successfully redefining what the tenants of christianity are.

Nope - the Expelled hype aside, it all comes down to this: Evolution isn’t “special” in a scientific sense. It makes predictions that can be tested, and if those tests fail, then the theory will be discarded for something better. I can guarantee, however, that ID isn’t a viable alternative, since, well, it isn’t really a theory in the scientific sense of the word. And THAT’S what matters to scientists.

I saw this comment on a religious blog, and thought I’d give it some more room here. This was made in response to a favorable review of Ben Stein’s movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed:

ID isn’t really scientific and its detractors are correct to say so. However, evolution is completely neutered by LOGIC, which needs no bunsen burner or laboratory. I’ve been told that complex enzymes existed on comets and that’s where life came from. The proponents of this never seem to be concerned that a ‘complex enzyme’ has to have an origin, too. The mental gymnastics needed for faith in evolution pump up the pride of the ’scientists’ who espouse it. The wisdom of the world is indeed foolish.

Such hand-waving assertion that LOGIC (in all caps, no less) neuters evolution or that scientists have “faith” in evolution are great examples of why we need to have intelligent conversation about what science is and how it operates. Unfortunately, movies like Expelled do more to cloud the issue and polarize people with its dishonest caricature of science, scientists, and even ID.

That evolution occurred and continues to occur is indisputable fact. To deny this is to deny converging evidence from not only the the fossil record , but also from observations of chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms, from the geographic distribution similar species, from documented genetic changes in organisms over many generations, and from specific predictions the theory makes which have been observed.
Read the rest of this entry »

In today’s eSkeptic there are not one, but two responses to Ben Stein’s new anti-evolution film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. In the first response, Ben Stein’s Blunder, Michael Shermer recounts his own strange interview for the film, as well as several fabrications, including the one at the film’s opening in which Stein lectures at Pepperdine University to an auditorium of adoring film extras rather than real students.

In the second piece, Ed Brayton examines the film’s “central claim of persecution, that of Richard Sternberg” - who Shermer earlier says is, “portrayed in the film as a martyr for free speech”. Apparently, Sternberg was involved in the publication of a somewhat embarrassing paper while he worked as an unpaid research associate at the Smithsonian’s Natural History Museum. Brayton goes into great detail about how Sternberg impropriety brought him distrust of his fellow scientists, and criticism and condemnation of his actions. Hardly the martyr, the record regarding Sternberg isn’t quite worthy of a feature film:

Here’s the bottom line: Richard Sternberg went to great lengths to sneak a substandard and inappropriate paper through the peer review procedures of the journal he was editing. His actions, unsurprisingly, caused a great deal of embarrassment to his colleagues and some of them were quite angry about it and wanted him fired. But despite a few harsh words contained in emails that he never saw prior to filing his OSC complaint, ultimately nothing discriminatory or retaliatory ever happened to Sternberg. To this day, he retains the same access to the collections at the NMNH that he had prior to this incident. The worst thing that happened to Sternberg was that his clearly unethical actions were met with the disapproval and criticism of his colleagues, which is a far cry from violating his civil liberties.

And the paper Sternberg snuck through peer-review? It’s the most famous pro-ID paper ever published because it’s the only one to ever appear in a peer-reviewed journal: The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, which apparently has a circulation around 300 people. Maybe IDiots like Stein and Sternberg should do better science so they don’t have to use stealth to vanity publish in 2nd and 3rd tier journals.

Webuser.com reported today that for the first time ever, the collection of Charles Darwin’s private papers and notes can now be accessed online.

The Darwin Online website has made correspondence and manuscripts including the first draft of his theory of evolution and Emma Darwin’s recipe book*.

You can also find notes from the voyage of the Beagle on the site among the 20,000 items that have been posted.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is without question the best explanation for the fact that evolution occurred (and continues to occur) that does not also postulate some magical force that exists outside the bounds of the physical world. Indeed, it has largely withstood not only the test of time and scientific scrutiny, but also unrelenting attacks from religious fanatics who misunderstand the relationship between the theory and facts of evolution.
Read the rest of this entry »