The Smug Baldy Speaks

On another blog, someone asked this about the Alabama school board :

Again, I ask, when did it get to be a good and acceptable thing in this country to be so fucking stupid?

My response:

You know, to me it’s tempting to fall into the trap of calling evolution deniers stupid. But it’ a trap, after all. I think there’s more to it than that – maybe something about finding comfort and safety in religion within a world that offers mostly violence and confusion. Certainly, the notion that magical gods and demons share our reality is nothing new. What I’m constantly in awe of is how seemingly rational people could take these ideas seriously in the 21st century. But that’s another trap, I believe. As a scientist, I reject the idea that the world is populated with magic. To a religious person, accepting this is usually an entrance requirement.

As an aside, I heard an interesting discussion this AM about the newest tactic in the “anti-evolution” crusade: Challenging the theory of Evolution on its scientific merits.

Boy, that made me laugh. The whole point of ANY real scientific theory is that it could be falsified - given the right evidence. Good theories generate testable hypotheses that, if actually tested, could lead to the rejection of the entire theory. Evolution is no different, so I find it interesting that the anti-evolution camp would consider stooping to using the scientific method to discredit a scientific theory.

Of course, rejecting a theory like evolution wouldn’t be easy – since it’s not enough to point out where the predictions it makes are wrong. You have to have to provide a viable, scientifically testable theory to replace it. And just as the case in which Quantum Theory replaced classical mechanics, whatever you come up with as the replacement for Evolution needs to account for all the predictions that can be made under evolution as well as account for it shortcomings. To my knowledge, there’s no viable replacement from the anti-evolution camp. Let’s take “Intelligent Design” for a little walk, shall we:

Scientist Q: Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?

ID Proponent A: Yes.

Scientist Q: What testable predictions or hypotheses does it make?

ID Proponent A: Umm … none. But it explains everything. [Hands begin to wave]

Scientist Q: How’ that?

ID Proponent A: Right here in the process model, in the little box labelled “Insert flashy miracle here”. [Hand waving is blindingly fast]

Scientist Q: What evidence could disprove ID?

ID Proponent A: Well, if God were an idiot, I guess that would do it. But he’s obviously not an idiot.

Scientist Q: What makes you so sure?

ID Proponent A: Ooh – look at this snowflake. How could an idiot come up with something so pretty?

Scientist Q: You want us all to drink that purple cool aid, don’t you.

ID Proponent A: Only uppity know-it-alls like you.

This appeared in my morning paper – and was apparently an AP story:

MONTGOMERY, Ala. – The [Alabama] state school board voted unanimously Thursday to keep a disclaimer in biology textbooks that describes evolution as “a controversial theory” after no one in the audience disputed the label, which has generated heated debate in the past.

The board, in its vote to accept a committee’s recommendations of science textbooks, agreed to continue carrying the disclaimer, which calls evolution “controversial” in the first paragraph and adds in the second that any statement about the origin of life is “not fact.”

Just in case you were wondering, Evolution is highly controversial in Alabama. Not so much that it’s a scientific theory that is widely accepted by the scientific community, but because it presents an alrternative explanation to the origin of species that is accepted as an article of faith by many in the religious community. Further, in case you were wondering, Alabama is a pretty religiously active state. We’ve got God battling the Devil in the sky or something, saints and angels flying about doing whatever saints and angels are supposed to do, images of the crucifix appearing in piles of hurricane debris, and the only school board in the country that insists that evolution is controversial.

Without doubt, this is the same sort of make-believe controversy as the one that arose years ago as part of the Super bowl commercial golden era: I’m referring, of course, to the Bud Bowl. Outside the realm of a pretend football game between two opposing teams of beer bottles, there were very (very very) few who were impacted by the Bud Bowl controversy. Was Bud Light really better tasting? Could Budweiser go the distance? Nobody knew. Rather, outside of each 30-second spot – nobody even cared.

This is probably why the Alabama State School Board can get away with something as stupid as this. The only people that even care, are those that are offended by any challenge to their quaint notion that a magical being created the world with a wave of his big, uh, umbrella or sock puppet or whatever it was [actually, the bible is rather silent on this waving issue - there was some talking - but no biblical evidence of waving].

Here’s what I believe is true:

• There is no scientific evidence of any gods other the the many humans invented.
• There is no scientific evidence of any devils, angels, ghosts, UFOs, nor alien beings, other the the many humans invented.
• There really are fairies, and they’re responsible for some of the better restaurants.
• Science belongs in the public schools.
• Religion belongs somewhere else.

As seen on StupidEvilBastard.com:

In the future, if you considering having kids in Indiana – you may need permission from the government. Thank Indiana State Senator, Patricia Miller (R) (232-9489) for this particular abomination:

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant “by means other than sexual intercourse.�

According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother through assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, and egg donation, must first file for a “petition for parentage� in their local county probate court.

Only women who are married will be considered for the “gestational certificate� that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the pregnancy. Further, the “gestational certificate� will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents.

As it the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent “who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedureâ€? without court approval, “commits unauthorized reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor.â€? The criminal charges will be the same for physicians who commit “unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction.”

Read the full story. Think I’m kidding – read the daft – ur – draft legislation

The people of Alabama aren’t stupid, but I’m willing to bet that there are likely enough Alabama idiots to give Roy Moore a solid chance at being our next governor. That’s right folks – no longer content with spreading his message of how the majority of Americans are powerless before the withering onslaught of, uh, their own immorality – and raking in huge speaking fees at conservative churches in the process – Roy Moore has thrown his hat into the ring as a candidate for Governor of Alabama.

Here are a few reasons why many Alabamians are likely to vote for him, and my responses as to why these reasons are stupid:

1. Roy Moore is a good speaker. He excites people – especially Christians – who feel powerless in a world they see as overrun with immorality and decadence. Why this is stupid: Put simply – Christians who feel powerless in America – and especially in Alabama – must be idiots. Christians own America. Over 90% of Americans believe in God, and more then 80% of those are Christian. In Alabama – nearly 85% of the general population is Christian – including all the past state Govenors, virtually every legislator and supreme court justice, as well as the vast majority of other elected officials at all levels of State and Local government. If there’s a reason for someone’s feeling of powerlessness in Alabama – it certainly cannot be attributed to a Christian faith. Maybe you just need a bit more exercise.
2. Roy Moore stood up for what he believe in when he fought to keep the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Supreme Court building Why this is stupid: Roy Moore apparently wants us to forget the other time he stood up for what he believed in: The time he swore an oath to God – with his hand on a Bible no less – to uphold and defend the Constitutions of Alabama and of the United States of America. At the very best, in Roy Moore’s mind – the important part of the oath he took was the part about “invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God”, and not the part where he swore to “faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office [of Supreme Court Chief Justice]“. At the very worst – Roy Moore approached his oath of office as a minor step in his path to the Chief Justice’s seat, and he took it rather lightly – that is until it became possible to argue that the court order he disobeyed would require him to violate it.
3. Roy Moore reminds people of George Wallace. Why this is stupid: He reminds me of Wallace too:
   
   In 1953, George Wallace was elected judge in the Third Judicial Circuit Court. Here he became known as “the little fightin’ judge”.
   
   After losing the 1958 Alabama Guneratorial Election, Wallace vowed “I’ll never be outniggered again.”
   
   In 1962, Wallace was elected governor on a pro-segregation, pro-states’ rights platform in a landslide victory. In his acceptance speech he cried, “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever!”
   
   June 11, 1963 – Blocking the University of Alabama schoolhouse door in the face of federally mandated desegregation.

Please, Alabama – prove me wrong. Prove the nation wrong. You’re not stupid enough to put Roy Moore into office, are you?

Just when you thought people couldn’t get any stupider – they surprise you. Case in point is the continued public demand for the theocratic drivel from former Judge Roy Moore. Moore was forcibly removed from his position as Chief Justice of the Alabama State Supreme Court in November after his refusal to obey the order of a federal court to remove the 2-ton granite monument depicting a Protestant version of the 10 commandments in the Alabama supreme court rotunda in 2003. Moore is now the darling of many conservative Christians throughout the U.S., thanks to his courageous stand for his right to “acknowledge God”, nevermind the fact that most supreme beings get along fine whether you acknowledge them or not – being omnipotent and all that. On his new website, Moral Law, Inc, apparently the story continues. The headline today: Their collective noses are out of joint. It seems like there’s quite a lot of that going around in the circles of right-wing power.

Apparently, the newly installed Judge for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Bill Pryor, has blocked a friend of the court brief by Moore’s foundation concerning the constitutionality of the Cobb County, Georgia science textbook disclaimer. Pryor is one of the conservative federal judges confirmed by the US Senate after Democrats agreed to stop filibusters that blocked their nominations. OK, that’s not really news. The foundation filed a brief, the court denied it. Story over, right. Wrong.

It turns out this particular 11th Circuit Court Judge, Bill Pryor, has crossed paths with Roy Moore before. Pryor, in his role as Alabama Attorney General, was the one who had the courage to stand up to conservative Alabama Christians (which accounts for about 70% of the Alabama population) and removed Moore from office back in 2003.

But this little spat isn’t personal (let’s give all parties the benefit of that particular doubt). That’s just where the kookiness begins, however.

In the amicus brief, the Moral Law Foundation makes the claim, “The First Amendment was intended to protect religion, not foster animus toward it; but the district court’s departure from the constitutional text resulted in open discrimination against religion and its adherents.”

This claim is clearly false – both in its propositions as well as its conclusion:

1. Proposition: The first amendment was intended to protect religion.

WRONG. There is really no such thing as “religion� as posited in this statement. Here, the (a)Moral Law folks are not talking about religion so much as their own radical version of it. Regardless of the intent of the word, the First Amendment doesn’t say anything about protecting “religion�. It does, however, say a lot about protecting American Citizens from tyranny:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There it is – congress makes laws, congress cannot make a law “respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofâ€?. So while the folks at (a)Moral Law clearly enjoy constitutional protection in their practice of their preferred brand of faith, they clearly got the intent of the first amendment backwards. Rather than protecting “religion” – whatever that is, the First Amendment protects me and you and Roy Moore, and every other American. It grants us the right to freely exercise our faith, and guarantees that we never have to kneel at the altar of The Official Religion of the United States of America. “Religion” on its own is a concept, and it fends quite well for itself in the the marketplace of ideas, thank you very much.

2. Proposition: The court departed from the constitutional text in its ruling.

WRONG. You can read the decision yourself here. Justice Moore knows better than this. All rulings take several sources of information into consideration – with the text of the appropriate constitutional amendment(s) being among them. This ruling very clearly states that the 11th circuit court used the text of the first and 14th amendments (among other things such as testimony, evidence, and prior case law) to arrive at its decision. Interestingly, the court ruled that the board of education did not act with “the purpose of promoting or advancing religion� when it voted to place the sticker in the textbooks. This was a small victory for the anti-evolutionists, in that it shows one way to get their foot in the door – promoting religion through purely secular means may be acceptable to a federal court.

3: Conclusion: The decision, “resulted in open discrimination against religion and its adherents�.

WRONG. There is no way that anyone who would not otherwise already be predisposed toward anti-religious sentiment would suddenly become so as a result of this decision. Granted, it seems like it’s a big issue to the players involved, but this is the sort of story that the majority of Americans ignore – to most of us it’s just another example of an attempt by extremists to force their viewpoint on the rest of us that was quashed by the courts. Now pass the pinto beans.

And let’s examine this vast, anti-religious discrimination that the (a)Moral Law folks decry.

Let’s see – about 90% of Americans are religious. Roughly 70% of religious Americans describe themselves as Christian. If I didn’t know anything about the (a)Moral Law foundation, I would be able to find quite early in my search about them that they’re, not surprisingly, a Christian group. So, are they seriously claiming that single largest and most powerful lobby in the United States – Christian Americans – which accounts for roughly 65% of all American citizens is somehow the victim of discrimination? That’s rich. American Christians are one of the most powerful political and economic forces on the planet, with millions of active, devout members. Among all political groups, it’s the American Christian alone that wears power like a well-tailored suit – for good reason. It is from this group of citizens that we tend to choose our leaders and representatives at all levels of government. This single group has populated the halls of power in the United States of America for two centuries. That’s not likely to change because of some ruling against a dumb, pro-religious sticker in Georgia.

Discrimination? I think the real issue is that way out there on the fringe of the Christian tradition, we’ve got some folks like Roy Moore and his (a)Moral Law foundation who want to remake the world in their collective image, and they get themselves quite worked up when the rest of us less godly patriots don’t overlook their lust for power as we fail to automatically kowtow before them.

You guys really want to make some moral laws? How about you start working for some of that social justice and fight against the upside-down tax system in your home state of Alabama? Or maybe really eliminating the racist language ratified in the Alabama State Constitution? Or, how’s this? Just shut up about what you think activist judges would do in Alabama if you accept the fact that all Alabama children have a god-given right to an education. They do, and the activist judge Roy Moore and the rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves for whining about the money it’s not costing anyone to not educate Alabama’s children.

P.S.: There are no images of American Flags, the Great Seal of the United States of America, or any other imagery on the moral law website that would lead one to believe the owners are American. Other than a big picture of Roy Moore and his friend, the big rock that is his claim to fame, the site is pretty dull looking.

I don’t smoke, but still I bum cigarettes – mainly so I can tear them up. You should see the looks that gets. I suppose one could argue that there’s a difference between crumbling a cigarette for enjoyment and incinerating one instead. I don’t buy that argument, though. That, or I don’t care. I get a great deal of pleasure from the horrified smoker’s expression as I grind the cigarette they just gave me into an airy cloud of tobacco flakes.

It’s not as if you actually borrow cigarettes anyway. Someone gives you one, you light it on fire, and you die a little quicker. You don’t give it back, “Oh hey Chuck, thanks for that smoke you lent me, here’s the butt.” I find smokers are fairly united against my way of enjoying a fine cigarette – although they’re usually unaware of their kinship with other smokers until they give me a cig. Apart from cigarettes, there are few other things in this world that are enjoyed so much, as long as they are destroyed in just the right fashion. I guess cigars would be another example. And maybe third world countries, or American liberalism.

On another note, playing raquetball against a smoker has its own rewards. It certainly has the potential to boost ones self esteem, unless of course, you”re an obese slob like I am. When the smokers start owning you on the court it’s time to either get to the gym more regularly, or accept your potatohood and take up cribbage with the old ladies in the church basement.

Too bad those biddies smoke so much though.

Gaming MarketWire is reporting a study by a European business intelligence provider, Juniper Research, which claims that the next generation video game consoles will likely outsell all previous platforms combined – reaching $35 Billion by 2008

“Due for launch from early 2005, the big three manufacturers (Sony, Microsoft & Nintendo) are racing to develop and launch the next winning platform. New competitors are also hoping to take a slice of the new wider market

Keri Allan, Games Specialist at Juniper Research found that “The next generation of machines will take a leap into the world of convergence and offer gamers a home media centre rather than just a gaming machine. Graphics and speed will evolve, but connectivity between devices will also come to the forefront. This functionality will help consoles to finally become a mainstream entertainment medium, and put the stereotypical image of the ‘computer gaming geek’ to rest.”

Bet on that coming true – except for the part about the gaming geek stereotype.

All I can say here is that I’ve worked diligently to cultivate that stereotypical image of a computer gaming geek. I deserve it – it’s in my fingerprints. Rather than sway opinion on that score, the new consoles would probably have an easier time crapping golden eggs and scrambling them for breakfast. Geek’s in my DNS – oops typo – DNA. It’s in my DNS too.

If you’re like me, you love coffee. There’s nothing quite like the electric jolt that you get after pounding back that 4th cup of Guatamalan at 5 AM. Mmmm. Makes the whole world look different – brighter and happier – almost as if it were an illegal drug.

Don’t get me wrong – I abhor drug use of any kind. Coffee, well … That’s another issue entirely. It’s the only legal way there is to get 32 hours of work done in a day. Rise and shine, kiddies, time to hack some strong crypto.

I once tried to go an entire month without any form of caffeine. I became tepid and sluglike. I was inert, without energy, and my mind moved at hypoglacial speeds. There was no spark, no witty reparte’, nothing.

Some of my former employees claimed to have liked me better during that month. They said I had a newfound Type-B personality and that I could probably begin to appreciate email greeting cards and and feng shui. When I got back on the brew I saw them for the completely doless slackers that they were, so I fired them.

Of course, I bought each of my remaining employees 10 pounds of primo Jamacian Blue Mountan. Productivity is up 22% and the smell of profit is in the air. Yessiree. I Love Coffee.

In this article at newyorkmetro.com, pundits are asked how Paris Hilton, the tow-headed, uber-rich, 22 year-old socialite who appears en flagrante delicto on a tape circulating the net can possibly salvage her image. Wait a minute. Who are they talking about? She has an image that needs salvaging? What the hell are people thinking? Maybe the real scandal is not whether she appears on tape having sex, but why in an world so saturated with meaningless titilation we should even care in the first place. “Hey guys, some hot 22 year-old is having sex on this video the web.” Really? That’s a first.
I know – her close friends will probably say she’s completely sweet and innocent, and that she’s a victim in all of this. They may be right, but as a wise man once said, “She might not be a slut, but she certainly wears a slut’s uniform.”

Now, I don’t live in a cave, and I’m no stranger to weird things on the net, but I was unfamiliar with this “Paris Hilton” everyone was suddenly talking about. So, I do what about a bazillion other people do – I google “Paris Hilton”. Hmmm… here she is at he 21st birthday party wearing a cocktail napkin and a thong. Here she is on about twenty thousand porno sites. Here she is buying a nightclub in London. When her sister, Nikki Hilton, described Paris, she said, “There`s just one thing to say about us ‘We`re young and sinfully georgeous with multimillion-dollar trust funds!’ And we love to be photographed!!! ”

That’s 3 exclamation points, not a typo. And anyway, isn’t that like 4 things? One thing that can be said for the benefits of a public rather than a private education – we learn how to count to ONE!

Obviously, I was wrong before: Paris doesn’t really wear a slut’s uniform. That’s for the hired help. She’s more like the sweet young princess of the kingdom of Slutvania, wearing her royal, albiet skimpy, vestments.

All of that’s really beside the point, which is: This is probably the most horrendous thing that has ever happened to Paris in her short, well pampered life. She’s upset. Someone, please fly this wounded debutante someplace special where can come to terms with the trauma of her real web Coming Out event until the wee hours. My heart bleeds for her given the knowledge of the first impression she’s made on so many of us.

But honestly – it doesn’t matter because when it’s all over – she’ll still be richer and prettier than everyone I’ve ever met combined, and this scandal won’t even any sort of universal scales. In fact, it’s likely this was just a ploy to garner street cred and name recognition for Paris’ upcoming network television debut, which apparently is titled something like, “Paris pretends – and fails – to do something meaningful on a farm” Someone should just smack her anyway for good measure.

On Jan 14, 2005, our local paper reported that a US District Court ruled that a disclaimer in science textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia violated the US constitution.

The stickers read: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

My initial reaction was along the lines of, “I can’t believe that there are school boards that still think there’s any debate about evolution”. I then learned that in my home state of Alababa, a similar disclaimer has been in science textbooks since 1995.

In 2001 (AD), the Alabama State School Board revised its own version of the “Watch out – Evolution is just a theory disclaimer”, The Alabama Course of Study: Science (ACOSS) Disclaimer currently reads:

There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life.With the explosion of new scientific knowledge in biochemical and molecular biology and exciting new fossil discoveries, Alabama students may be among those who use their understanding and skills to contribute to knowledge and to answer many unanswered questions. Instructional materials associated with controversy should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. “

I thought that, if we have to be ruled by a bunch of bible-toting theocrats, at least the disclaimer they forged for the schoolchildren of Alabama advocated a degree of skepticism, even if it is misleading in many respects.

In the same newspaper there was a reasonably well written editorial by Thomas Sowell, with whom I often disagree, about the importance of critical thinking, and how our public schools don’t do a very good job at producing graduates with sound critical thinking skills.

It then struck me that the idea of a disclaimer isn’t a de facto mistake. Rather, the state should require more disclaimers of this sort. Indeed, if there’s one thing that could help the people of Alabama pull our public schools out of the national cellar it has called home for so very long, it would be more skepticism.

Critical thinking begins with the assumption that what someone says may not be the complete truth, that there is always the potential for bias and mistakes. For example, by now, you had better realize that my words are often laced with distortions and misconceptions. The point is that I’m not alone – the same can be said about, well, everything another person communicates to you, whether it’s through verbal or written form.

Such skepticism should be clearly be extended to claims made in science texts. Additionally, you’re harming yourself if you’re not at least a tiny bit skeptical about claims made in the various versions of The Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, on the news and popular media, and through advertisment.

It’s good to be skeptical, it’s the only way we can sort the intellectual wheat from the mountains of chaff that we produce as an evolving species.

Note: Everything Kirk says is a lie. Everything you read in a book might be as well.