Thursday, February 23, 2006

Overturning Roe v. Wade

All,

The subject line of this email has generally seemed to most Americans, on both sides of the aisle, an improbability comparable to a meteor hitting the earth. Sure, in theory this is a possible occurrence. Sure, if it happened it would be catastrophic for all. Supporters (following the metaphor, religious doomsday-ers) would herald the coming as that which they long awaited. The rest of the world (following the metaphor, the sane) would freak out in anger, confusion, terror, etc.

Back in 2000 and 2004, only liberals of the farthest extreme shrieked about this as a real possibility. Citing the president’s professed beliefs, citing the ageing court, they warned that this president could stack the court with anti-abortion judges. Most dismissed this, saying that Roe v. Wade was not in danger.

The Senate of South Dakota just passed a law by a margin of 2 to 1 that almost all abortions are illegal. They disallowed even cases of incest and rape, only allowing exceptions when the mother’s life is at risk. The penalty for performing an abortion is 5 years, and it is a felony. The law has been sent to the House, where it is expected to pass.

Of course the law is unconstitutional, according to Supreme Court precedent. Of course the ACLU, Planned Parenthood (et al) have made it known that they will challenge the law. The frightening part: that’s exactly what those who sponsored the law are hoping for.

“Bartling [main sponsor of the bill] and other supporters noted that the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito make the Supreme Court more likely to consider overturning Roe v. Wade. President Bush, a Republican and an abortion foe, might also have a chance to appoint a third justice in the next few years, they said,” (CNN).

Amazing confidence and audacity to admit outright that you hope the law will be challenged, that you hope your own state legislature will bring about a binding about-face in national jurisprudence, that you can change a question of a woman’s inalienable right into a felony. Amazing.

So much for the improbable.

-W.





Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Astonishment


All,

I simply have to pass this on. In the following picture are two rare phenomena of nature.


Indeed, I never thought I would see either of these things in my lifetime, let alone captured by in the same photograph! First, you have Mr. Bush. The wonder: he looks paternal and disappointed, almost like a typical parent or teacher who is upset at the immature actions of a child. Then, you have Mr. Cheney. The wonder: by God, he looks contrite! I honestly did not know at this point that the man had more than two faces (“contrite” is now added to the list of “catatonic” and “snarling”).

Bravo to TIME for their capture of this beautiful, strange moment. (Note: I have tried my best to discover the name of the photographer and the issue from which the photo is taken. However, I cannot seem to find it; I know that it did not come far after the incident itself in which the VP shot a man in the face, and I believe that it was within days of this post. I hope this does not make me too negligent regarding copyright issues. TIME, if you are thinking about suing, remember: you can't get blood from a stone.)

-W.





Evolution Shmevolution

Fun with science.

The following is a humorous article regarding evolution, the Discovery Institute, and intelligent design. Basically, the Discovery Institute a couple of years ago released a statement, signed by 514 individuals in the scientific community over a span of four years, which disagreed with Darwin’s theory. Chapman, Discovery Institute Chairmen, said of the study, “there is a minority of scientists who disagree with Darwin’s theory, and it is not just a handful.

Indeed, what constitutes a handful? The NYTimes has done some follow up, discovering that while the signers all claim doctorates in science or engineering, only 128 are in the biological sciences and 26 in biochemistry. Indeed, “of the 128 biologists who signed, few conduct research that would directly address the question of what shaped the history of life.” Finally, most involved were evangelical Christians, and some stated that their beliefs directly influence their scientific views.

In response, not long after the petition came out, one R. Joe Brandon (archaeologist) decided to gather signatures from individuals who agreed with Darwin’s theory. He took signatures on his website from individuals who hold a doctorate in science. The time? 4 days. The number of signatories? 7,733. “During my short, four-day experiment, I received about 20 times as many signatures at a rate 690,000% higher than what the Discovery Institute can claim,” Brandon said in a statement. Spoken like a true geek; they never really learn how to talk smack.

In response, not long after the petition came out, the National Center for Science Education began “Project Steve.” They attempted to get signatories from the scientific community for a statement in support of Darwin’s theory. The criteria? They only took signatures from individuals with the name “Steve,” “Stephanie,” “Stefan,” or some other form of “Stephen.” The estimate is that this constitutes but 1% of the United States population. The time? They started on February 16, 2003. As of today, the number is at 703. However, when one calculates this against the percentage of the population, the statistically significant number is 70,300 scientists. “The NCSE expresses the hope that in the future when lists of ‘scientists who doubt evolution’ are presented that it will be asked ‘but how many Steves are on your list!?’” (You can look up the Steve-o-meter here: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/meter.html.)

I think the Discovery Institute would have done better to allow supporters and detractors to imagine the number of people who were anti-Darwin, rather than reveal the startlingly small number of educated people who share this opinion. In light of the responding surveys, 514 no longer sounds like a minority. It isn’t a handful, either. It’s a pinprick.

Thanks to Vanessa for the following article.

-W.

February 21, 2006

Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition

By KENNETH CHANG

In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers.

The petition, they say, is proof that scientific doubt over evolution persists. But random interviews with 20 people who signed the petition and a review of the public statements of more than a dozen others suggest that many are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs. And even the petition's sponsor, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, says that only a quarter of the signers are biologists, whose field is most directly concerned with evolution. The other signers include 76 chemists, 75 engineers, 63 physicists and 24 professors of medicine.

The petition was started in 2001 by the institute, which champions intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution and supports a "teach the controversy" approach, like the one scuttled by the state Board of Education in Ohio last week.

Institute officials said that 41 people added their names to the petition after a federal judge ruled in December against the Dover, Pa., school district's attempt to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.

"Early on, the critics said there was nobody who disbelieved Darwin's theory except for rubes in the woods," said Bruce Chapman, president of the institute. "How many does it take to be a noticeable minority — 10, 50, 100, 500?"

Mr. Chapman said the petition showed "there is a minority of scientists who disagree with Darwin's theory, and it is not just a handful."

The petition makes no mention of intelligent design, the proposition that life is so complex that it is best explained as the design of an intelligent being. Rather, it states: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

A Web site with the full list of those who signed the petition was made available yesterday by the institute at dissentfromdarwin.org. The signers all claim doctorates in science or engineering. The list includes a few nationally prominent scientists like James M. Tour, a professor of chemistry at Rice University; Rosalind W. Picard, director of the affective computing research group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Philip S. Skell, an emeritus professor of chemistry at Penn State who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

It also includes many with more modest positions, like Thomas H. Marshall, director of public works in Delaware, Ohio, who has a doctorate in environmental ecology. The Discovery Institute says 128 signers hold degrees in the biological sciences and 26 in biochemistry. That leaves more than 350 nonbiologists, including Dr. Tour, Dr. Picard and Dr. Skell.

Of the 128 biologists who signed, few conduct research that would directly address the question of what shaped the history of life.

Of the signers who are evangelical Christians, most defend their doubts on scientific grounds but also say that evolution runs against their religious beliefs.

Several said that their doubts began when they increased their involvement with Christian churches.

Some said they read the Bible literally and doubt not only evolution but also findings of geology and cosmology that show the universe and the earth to be billions of years old.

Scott R. Fulton, a professor of mathematics and computer science at Clarkson University in Potsdam, N.Y., who signed the petition, said that the argument for intelligent design was "very interesting and promising."

He said he thought his religious belief was "not particularly relevant" in how he judged intelligent design. "It probably influences in the sense in that it makes me very interested in the questions," he said. "When I see scientific evidence that points to God, I find that encouraging."

Roger J. Lien, a professor of poultry science at Auburn, said he received a copy of the petition from Christian friends.

"I stuck my name on it," he said. "Basically, it states what I believe."

Dr. Lien said that he grew up in California in a family that was not deeply religious and that he accepted evolution through much of his scientific career. He said he became a Christian about a decade ago, six years after he joined the Auburn faculty.

"The world is broken, and we humans and our science can't fix it," Dr. Lien said. "I was brought to Jesus Christ and God and creationism and believing in the Bible."

He also said he thought that evolution was "inconsistent with what the Bible says."

Another signer is Dr. Gregory J. Brewer, a professor of cell biology at the Southern Illinois University medical school. Like other skeptics, he readily accepts what he calls "microevolution," the ability of species to adapt to changing conditions in their environment. But he holds to the opinion that science has not convincingly shown that one species can evolve into another.

"I think there's a lot of problems with evolutionary dogma," said Dr. Brewer, who also does not accept the scientific consensus that the universe is billions of years old. "Scientifically, I think there are other possibilities, one of which would be intelligent design. Based on faith, I do believe in the creation account."

Dr. Tour, who developed the "nano-car" — a single molecule in the shape of a car, with four rolling wheels — said he remained open-minded about evolution.

"I respect that work," said Dr. Tour, who describes himself as a Messianic Jew, one who also believes in Christ as the Messiah.

But he said his experience in chemistry and nanotechnology had showed him how hard it was to maneuver atoms and molecules. He found it hard to believe, he said, that nature was able to produce the machinery of cells through random processes. The explanations offered by evolution, he said, are incomplete.

"I can't make the jumps, the leaps they make in the explanations," Dr. Tour said. "Will I or other scientists likely be able to makes those jumps in the future? Maybe."

Opposing petitions have sprung up. The National Center for Science Education, which has battled efforts to dilute the teaching of evolution, has sponsored a pro-evolution petition signed by 700 scientists named Steve, in honor of Stephen Jay Gould, the Harvard paleontologist who died in 2002.

The petition affirms that evolution is "a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences."

Mr. Chapman of that institute said the opposing petitions were beside the point. "We never claimed we're in a fight for numbers," he said.

Discovery officials said that they did not ask the religious beliefs of the signers and that such beliefs were not relevant. John G. West, a senior fellow at Discovery, said it was "stunning hypocrisy" to ask signers about their religion "while treating the religious beliefs of the proponents of Darwin as irrelevant."

Discovery officials did point to two scientists, David Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician and a senior fellow at the institute, and Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but do not hold conservative religious beliefs.

Dr. Salthe, who describes himself as an atheist, said that when he signed the petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Rather, he said, "I signed it in irritation."

He said evolutionary biologists were unfairly suppressing any competing ideas. "They deserve to be prodded, as it were," Dr. Salthe said. "It was my way of thumbing my nose at them."

Dr. Salthe said he did not find intelligent design to be a compelling theory, either. "From my point of view," he said, "it's a plague on both your houses."





Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Those crazy Americans

Another poll on the maddening inconsistency (stupidity?) of American public opinion:

One in every five Americans thinks that s/he has been spied on by the NSA.

When asked if the program was right:

47% Right

50% Wrong

When asked if Mr. Bush broke the law (wording of question):

47% Probably/definitely had not broken the law

49% Definitely/probably had broken the law

I wonder if anyone who responded thought these two questions, posed together, were hilarious. I know that I did. The only way that this poll could make any sense is if the exact same participants who considered the program “right” also considered it “legal” (though this cannot account for the number of folks who thought he “probably” did not break the law; those people are apparently utterly and completely retarded).

Of course, these polls come on the heels of a recent study, which concluded that 50% of graduates from 4 year collegiate institutions do not have the reading level to comprehend and navigate a standard news article (NPR, Morning Edition, today).

I should have been a lawyer. It seems hopeless to want to teach.

-W.





Democarcy, YEAH!

President Bush has been rather unambiguous (and by this I mean rabid and terrifying, in the eyes of some) about his calling (some have called it more a quest, some have likened it to a crusade) to spread democracy throughout the world. Indeed, he used to spread his references out, but sometimes he goes right ahead and links the following: (1) We are at war with Terror. (2) This war is indefinite. (3) The criterion for ending this war is to root out tyranny across the globe, including any and all regimes that would aid or abet terrorists. (4) The only way to achieve (3) is to spread democracy to all peoples.

So what happens when good democratic citizens in a good democratic election vote for an organization declared by the US to be terrorists? Answer: do everything in your power to subvert and remove them.

The New York Times revealed yesterday that, “according to Israeli officials and Western diplomats,” The US and Israel are “discussing ways to destabilize the Palestinian government so that newly elected Hamas officials will fail and elections will be called again. The intention is to starve the Palestinian Authority of money and international connections to the point where, some months from now, its president, Mahmoud Abbas, is compelled to call a new election. The hope is that Palestinians will be so unhappy with life under Hamas that they will return to office a reformed and chastened Fatah movement. The officials also argue that a close look at the election results shows that Hamas won a smaller mandate than previously understood. The officials and diplomats, who said this approach was being discussed at the highest levels of the State Department and the Israeli government, spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly on the issue. Today, Israeli and American officials said there was no ‘plan’ or ‘plot’ to destabilize a Hamas government.”

On the one hand, this is consistent with standing law: it is illegal for the US or Israel to provide any material assistance (including funds) to a declared terrorist organization. On the other hand, the Bush administration must either completely rewrite its foreign policy, or it must admit that it is based on a thinly veiled hypocrisy. In either case, the result is the same: stated quite simply, the United States is not interested in spreading democracy, or in its claim that this is an inalienable universal right. The United States is interested in like-minded governments. What makes this so sad is that the moral high ground has been pulled from underneath the administration. That is, they have been praised by most of their critics in their decision to promote democracy around the world, rather than using the Cold War strategy of directly and indirectly installing strongmen in places of turmoil and anti-American sentiment. Unfortunately for them, even in an election that offered several viable candidates and almost no voting irregularities, the people might just vote for a party that hates America almost as much as Israel.

For or against the president, everyone will admit that American credibility has greatly receded in the international community over the last few years. Nevertheless, even our critics laud our position on democracy (cf. the cover of the last Economist). But what happens if, after using our influence to get the Palestinians voting in legitimate elections, we use our influence to remove a legitimately established democratic government?

(Incidentally, choice of wording is always very important when officials speak. For example, everyone from McClellan down has categorically denied that the US or Israel have a “plan, project, plot, conspiracy” to undermine or destabilize the Palestinian government. OK. No body said that you did. Rather, the NYT reported that the US and Israel are “discussing ways” to do these things. Thus, anybody could testify that they don’t have a “plan” (etc.), because as of yet they apparently don’t.)

-W.





Change of Heart?

wish I had poll numbers for the same questions from 2002.

The results of a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll were released today. Among other questions, respondents were asked about Iran’s decision to restart its nuclear program. Specifically, they were asked the following questions:

Pay attention to the utter confusion, all too typical, of the American people when it comes to deciding the consequences of one question when asked a second. For example: most Americans think that Iran would use nukes against America if given the opportunity. This is a dire scenario. However, most Americans would not support military action against Iran should they pursue nuclear weapons. This is a bizarre stance: it implies that Americans would rather allow the Iranians to nuke us than to attack Iran in order to preempt an attack they deem imminent. What is all the more ironic, of course, is the hypocrisy of this stance. We have at least as much reason to believe that Iran would pursue weapons and use them against us and our allies if procured; we have enormously more evidence that Iran would be predisposed to provide terrorist organizations with such weapons (given the close ties of Iran’s government with the more ultra-violent factions of Islam, in complete contrast to Hussein’s government, which was hated by such groups due to its rabidly secular and anti-Shiite stance). I love that a vast majority is concerned the US won’t do enough to stop Iran from obtaining nukes, while almost the same number is concerned that the US would rashly use military force. What exactly is it that the American people would want the administration to do, if sanctions don’t work and yet they don’t support force? And, most bizarre, what exactly has changed such that we are apprehensive to use force in the event of a known threat, whereas we were gung-ho to use force given a potential threat? Oh, that’s right. The nation now remembers what war is like, and is tired…

Pay attention also to the mirrored questions regarding the UN and the US, as to their ability to handle the situation. Remember: just a couple of years ago there were calls across the country for the US to pull out of the UN (I actually saw billboards proclaiming “Take the US out of UN!” in the South back in 2002), alongside general calls to stop paying dues, to stop humoring the defunct body, etc. It appears that in the last couple of years we have not only lost our faith in our ability to handle international crises, but we have restored some faith in the international body to perform its intended function. My guess is that this does not coincide with the American people’s sudden love affair with John Bolton. Rather, my guess is that the American people, so typically loath to admit anything like defeat, let alone impotence, is simultaneously admitting that the blunt tool of this administration’s foreign policy is incapable of effectively policing the world. The egregiously sad part of this is that there was and still is a large populace of the country that shouted this from the mountaintops for years, only to fall upon deaf ears. What’s worse, there is now a strong current (epitomized in the President’s comment during the State of the Union speech: “Hindsight is not wisdom”) to respond viciously to those who bring this up. It reminds me a great deal of my own immature responses to my parents and adults in general when they told me that they knew better, yet I acted foolishly and ended up proving them right. The sophomoric response: “FINE! So what if you’re SO WISE; what’s the point in rubbing it in my face? It’s the past; why don’t you just shut up about it and let’s forget it!” (Why is it that the larger a body of people, the more the maturity reduction? The danger in this response, obviously, is that one is so busy feeling pissed at the “I told you so” crowd that nothing is actually learned…)

(Following standard practice, I will collapse the results “somewhat agree” with “strongly agree,” and “somewhat disagree” with “strongly disagree.” These have obvious variants depending on the question.)

What should the US do about Iran?

68% Use economic/diplomatic efforts

18% Take no action now

9% No opinion

5% Take military action now

If diplomacy doesn’t work…?

49% No, do not take military action

40% Yes, take military action

11% No opinion

Do you think the Bush administration would be too quick to use military force against Iran?

69% Yes

Do you think the US will or won’t do enough to keep Iran from developing nukes?

67% Not enough

Would Iran use nukes against US?

59% Likely

38% Not likely

Would Iran supply nukes to terrorists to use against the US?

80% Likely

Would Iran use nukes against Israel?

77% Likely

Would Iran supply nukes to terrorists to use against Israel?

81% Likely

Confidence in the ability of the US to handle the situation in Iran?

45% Confident

55% Not confident

Confidence in the ability of the UN to handle the situation in Iran?

47% Confident

51% Not confident

It takes a LOT for a people as proud, stubborn, independent, and obsessed with a machismo-driven love of the military to suddenly have more faith in the UN than its own government. In other words, this poll says one thing to me: the state of the union is not strong.

-W.