Archaeopteryx

What's Happening to My Party?

2006-05-08T14:06:00.000-07:00

There's definitely something wrong with the world when Monroe County, Indiana chooses to elect the pro-war advocate Baron Hill as the Democratic Candidate for US Congress (IN district 9). Perhaps the rest of the 9th district follows the conservative persuasion, so Pseudo-republican Hill might appeal to them. But in Monroe County, which contains the so called "Berkeley of the Midwest" (Bloomington), more than half of the voters considers Hill (a man who voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and has recently announced his agreement for preeminent action in Iran) a better representative of Democratic values than Gretchen Clearwater (a woman who believes in real family values, such as job availability and better health care)? Baron Hill, who lost this seat to Mike Sodrel once already in 2004, who did nothing to address the suspicious practices surrounding that election (e.g. disenfranchisement), and who did absolutely no campaigning for this primary election, is favored over Gretchen who worked her ass off to meet people all over Southern Indiana and listen to their concerns about current policies?

Even if I hadn't invested so much time in that particular race, the results from last Tuesday's Primary Elections are still a huge disappointment. The city of Bloomington elects for IN State Representative, Peggy Welch, who is outspoken on her anti-choice views. And Monroe County elects for Sheriff, Jim Kennedy, who ran for this position several times previously on the republican ticket. So, suddenly Kennedy sees the light and considers himself a democrat? And the Monroe County Democrats see nothing wrong with this?

If one of the most liberal counties in the Midwest (which isn't saying much, I know) considers these people to be representatives of Democratic ideals, how much more fucked up are the really conservative areas? More importantly, what is the incentive for voting for Democratic candidates in the general elections in November?

The 9th district seat is expected to be one of the most contested races in the country this Fall (so I've heard). Baron Hill lost the 2004 election by less than 2000 votes (I think) and for this primary election, 68,000 people voted in the Democratic primary versus about 36,000 people voted in the Republican primary. I'm not sure how well primary election turnouts reflect voting tendencies in the general elections, but if these are indicative, the 9th district doesn't look nearly as competitive as people are saying it will be.

Similarly, Indiana's 4th district where I live, looks like it will be a pathetic and flimsy battle. Poor David Sanders (D) is looking at a slaughter. Almost 70,000 people turned out for the Republicans in the 4th, compared to a measly 14,000 for the Democrats. I work and live in the 9th district, but thanks to last year's redistricting, my house is technically in the 4th district, missing the 9th district boundary by about 0.25 miles. My house, in Bloomington, is in the same district as someone living in West Lafayette about 120 miles away rather than in the same district as the rest of the city. The funny thing is, Baron Hill probably doesn't see any problem with this sort of gerrymandering, being as conservative as he is - truly the embodiment of Democratic values. It isn't really voter fraud to change my address just to vote against Hill in November. I might consider it except just about the only person more nauseating than Hill is Mike Sodrel. It's really disheartening that elections come down to "the lesser of two evils". When are we going to have a real democratic candidate?

Clearwater for Congress!!

2006-03-28T08:57:00.000-08:00

Indiana's 9th District is currently represented in the U.S. House by Republican Mike Sodrel, who is up for re-election this Fall. Most people following Hoosier politics will agree that Southern Indiana is ready for a Democratic representative. For example, Indiana is first in the nation in foreclosure rates. Some of this is due to extreme accumulation of medical debt as a result of the very poor state of health care. Some is the result of the severe rates of job loss that we've been experiencing the past, oh, I don't know, five years or so. Yes, southern Indiana is ready for a Democratic representative.

Statistics show that most people reading this post live outside Indiana's 9th district, but every state is important and every seat counts. So, I'd like to introduce you to exactly the kind of person we need representing us and someone who is truly "just like y'all" (not the Dubya definition). Gretchen Clearwater is a very solid, progressive candidate in the Democratic primary for this seat. Her platform is simple: Putting People First. She is concerned about the state of health care, education, job loss, social security, privacy, voting reform and ending the War is Iraq. She is a strong advocate for campaign finance reform, which means, of course, that she has a lot less campaign money than the Republican incumbent or her lukewarm Democratic opponent, Baron Hill, who would probably be better served by the term "crypto-Republican."

She spent a portion of her childhood in Nigeria around the time of the Biafran war, so she is a candidate who understands the reality of war and knows the meaning of poverty, diversity, tolerance and peace. From her biography:

I have been involved in politics nearly all of my life. I became aware of poverty and world affairs at an early age in Nigeria, and foreign policy and civil rights during the Vietnam war. Martin Luther King inspired me as a high school youth to speak up for what was right and I have been doing so ever since.

I've known Gretchen personally for the two and a half years since I've been in the Biology Department at Indiana University. She is the graduate student advisor, so I've had the great pleasure of interacting with her on a regular basis. I can say with confident resolve that no time is a bad time to knock on her office door. She is outwardly caring and concerned with the welfare of the graduate students and her love of people will only strengthen in serving an entire district.

If you are so moved, visit her campaign website (or even her donation page) and show some progressive lovin'. She will heavily benefit from the support and she will definitely show the current administration the meaning of the word "compassionate." Besides, the color of her posters and buttons will match so well with your spring wardrobe!

Also at Liberal Avenger

Sensitive or Manly?

2006-03-23T12:32:00.000-08:00

I've seen this false dichotomy before, but when exactly did "manly" and "sensitive" become antonyms? ABC news:

Ladies, if faced with the decision of picking between a Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca" - the cool, independent, self-sufficient type - or a Tom Hanks in "Sleepless in Seattle" - the sensitive, supportive, thinking type - who would you choose?

One Harvard professor argues that if you said Hanks, that's just because you have been brainwashed by feminism.

"Women may say they want a sensitive man but they don't always love one," said Harvey Mansfield, professor of political philosophy at Harvard and author of "Manliness." "They are sometimes much more attracted to a manly man. He may be more oblivious of their needs and their desires but impresses them more."

...

In his controversial book, Mansfield argues that manliness has been hijacked by feminism and advocates of gender-neutral society. He defines manliness as confidence in the face of risk, and says America is on the verge of a manliness crisis.

How about a little less generalization and a little more room for individuality? I am a woman and I like 'em beefy, cool mannered with a 3-4 day beard growth and perhaps a little man-stench every now and then. But why does that have to come pre-packaged with insensitivity and complete oblivion to anything not related to sports or TV bloodbaths?

And why do all women have to prefer the same thing and share the same opinions? I guess we are all just so easily categorized. A different, slightly related article:

Women are such strange creatures. It is both a complaint and a compliment. They want their full independence and are totally dependent. They insist on parity of rights and expect the men to do more than their share. When men cross the gender divide and choose to wear their hair long, pierce their earlobes and dress as metrosexuals, women say they still like their men the old-fashioned way-rough, gruff and not too fluffy. Vanity it seems is still the domain of the fairer sex. While women have certainly gone beyond their former roles, men have not been remotely successful the other way. We are so trapped. Men who stay single and grow old are suspected of being gay. (This reflects our present bias against the third sex). Men can't hold hands; neither can they go to the toilet together. In fact, we are expected to hold our own against the strongest alpha women and cradle them like a baby when they're down. Life is tough these days for men.

Awww, poor guys. I've never heard a woman make a rude comment about men holding hands. I always got the impression that it is other MEN who point fingers, call names and maintain a bias against "the third sex."

Men's liberation movement above all is the recognition that men can choose to be a woman not only in the physical sense to fulfill traditional roles, which some women abhor in the name of feminism. It means a man can be who he wants to be and not be stigmatized for the soft decisions he takes. He can baby sit, get hurt and cry, stay home and cook and not be tagged a sissy, or a "takusa."

Come on, make up your mind. Has feminism has made girly, sensitive men (as illustrated in the first linked article) or does feminism abhor them (second article)?

I think the real answer is neither. There is no feminist conspiracy to make men more or less "masculine." I think the non-issue of "manly vs. sensitive" is entirely an intra-sex battle that reflects some men's own struggle with venturing outside old-fashioned, traditional male roles. Some women prefer Tom Hankses, some prefer Humphrey Bogarts, or maybe both or neither. Some Tom Hankses prefer Humphrey Bogarts. It will always be that way.

Survey: Which do you prefer to be and/or be with?

A Step in the Quadrupedal Direction, part II

2006-03-15T10:26:00.000-08:00

The story about the five siblings in Turkey who use quadrupedal locomotion was pretty slow to gain attention, but this Friday (3/17/06) there is supposed to be a BBC documentary about the family and perhaps the accusations of scientific misconduct issues that surround the research. BBC news:

The four sisters and one brother could yield clues to why our ancestors made the transition from four-legged to two-legged animals, says a UK expert.

But Professor Nicholas Humphrey rejects the idea that there is a "gene" for bipedalism, or upright walking.

...

The siblings live with their parents and five other brothers and sisters. They were born with what looks like a form of brain damage.

MRI scans seem to show that they have a form of cerebellar ataxia, which affects balance and coordination.

However, scientists are divided on what caused them to revert to quadrupedalism (walking on all fours).

The method of locomotion used by the Turkish children and by our closest relatives chimpanzees and gorillas, differs in a crucial way, said Professor Humphrey.

I understand that almost nothing is controlled by just one single gene; why would bipedal locomotion be any different? It seems more likely that, if a mutation was involved, it caused the brain damage (cerebral ataxia) and then the siblings learned a gait that works for them. It doesn't necessarily imply anything about our ancestors. But a "bipedal gene" seems utterly ridiculous to me.

I first read the story on World Science, which turns out not to be a tabloid (apologies for the implication). They've been great about posting updates on both the science and the ethical controversy. Their original report gives a link to a video of the quadrupedal humans.

To Be Last Place

2006-03-13T10:30:00.000-08:00

When I was growing up in South Carolina, my home state was consistently last in education in the country. Every now and then, we pulled ahead of Mississippi (or was it Alabama?), but I considered this just random fluctuation and not a sign of any progress. The State, a SC newspaper, printed this opinion which in may, in part, explain why the state's education seems irreparably bad:

ONE REASON our state has done such a poor job of educating all our children is that each new governor or Legislature offers up a new approach, and scraps the one that hasn't yet had time to work.

But in 1998, when lawmakers adopted what was then a cutting-edge idea of using a standards-based accountability system to improve education, they vowed to stick to it this time. So they created the Education Oversight Committee, composed mainly of business leaders and ordinary citizens, not politicians. The group's primary purpose was to insulate school reform from the political cycle and to map out and follow a farsighted path to fundamental improvement.

The EOC recommended that schools give equal weight to those apparent "gaps" in evolutionary theory. This is what we get for constructing an education committee of people from the general populace. So they aren't politicians; big deal. They are also not informed and give credence to an unsubstantiated side of a nonexistent debate. Plus, it's the buckle of the bible belt. Business leaders and ordinary citizens alike are going to attack evolutionary theory just because they have been told that the idea contradicts their faith, despite the fact that they don't know the first thing about it. Luckily, the SC State Board of Education has some sense and didn't take the EOC recommendation in their decision last week.

Even if you consider "natural selection" a blasphemous assault on Christianity, you simply cannot argue that teaching other origin-of-life ideas will increase the number of students who graduate from high school, or the SAT scores of those students, or the reading ability of any students.

Think those who reject natural selection are ignorant throwbacks? You still cannot argue that defeating their "critically analyze" language will produce the better-educated workforce we need to attract better jobs, pull up our incomes and make South Carolina a state that's no longer last where we want to be first and first where we want to be last.

The first part of that quote makes a great point. The legislature and EOC running on an ID rampage will only serve to distract from real issues of education. However, introducing concepts of faith into a science classroom is doing a great disservice because it undermines the very idea of critical thinking and the scientific process. And yes, helping the kiddies to develop skills of logical thinking and reasoning will make them better, more informed citizens even outside of science-related fields.

There is no debate to be had over ID vs evolution. There is no controversy in the scientific community as the IDers would have people believe. Big deal if the Discovery Institute collected just over 500 signatures expressing dissent from typical evolutionary theories. The effort was/is entitled "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" and it took over 5 years to find people willing to attach their names to it and most of them aren't biologists. To discredit this ridiculous petition, well over 7000 scientists signed a counter-petition, "A Scientific Support for Darwinism," in just four days.

In states that are well-off in terms of educational standing, the people can afford to fight it out if they want. But in states that are hurting already, these non-debates only serve to distract from real issues behind failing pedagogical strategies. Of course, the highest ranking states probably tend to be more liberal and would never dream of entertaining the ID circus in the first place.

International Women's Day

2006-03-08T10:22:00.000-08:00

In the clogosphere, this day is dedicated as Blog Against Sexism Day and since time is crunched, and my brain is too tired to be creative, I'll just send the readership elsewhere for valuable insight...hey, lazy are people, too.

I Blame the Patriarchy has a list of readings in celebration...or condemnation... This one especially made my blood boil a little...almost enough to make me write my own post about it:

From a Russian news service comes this charming summary of the day’s significance: “Russia and other former Soviet republics along with several other countries around the world are currently celebrating March 8, International Women’s Day, on which [are you sitting down?] men show their appreciation for women by giving them flowers and gifts.”

Not in Armenia, though. They cancelled International Women’s Day, and replaced it on March 7 with—I shit you not— “Day of Motherhood and Beauty.”

Materialism is what being a woman is all about!! Flowers and gifts definitely help distract from any blatant sexism and mistreatment. Jeeeeeeesus. I read it just in time for an ethics class. For the record, giving flowers is unethical...and a cop-out besides.

"Our Inner Ape"

2006-03-04T19:10:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I went to a lecture given by the renowned and highly influential primatologist, Frans de Waal, author of Our Inner Ape. Among other things, he argued that most of the study of the evolution of behavior has focused on antagonistic interactions, promoting the idea that evolution favors competition, aggression, violence and dominance. But, there's a whole range of behaviors that have been ignored because of this, including "cooperation, reconciliation" and altruism. He is right, of course, that those types of behaviors have received less attention, but I just assumed this was partly because the people who study those behaviors tend to assign human attributes to their subjects and the rest of us have trouble taking it seriously. So, when de Waal talked about cognition in capuchin monkeys, the anthropologists all creamed their panties, while the ethologists just rolled their eyes. I, personally, think there are huge problems with giving animals human characteristics in the context of research. In other contexts, though there's a 50/50 chance that it'll be just as annoying...but it's alright on rare occasions.

The reverse is even more frustrating: analyzing human behavior based on what we know of animals, which was one of the main points of this lecture and his recent book (linked above). I tend to have a visceral reaction when people say things like "humans are supposed to be (fill in the blank) because (insert generic primates) are that way." Behavior is hugely diverse, even among our closest related primates, for one thing. And, I think, human behavior is even more diverse and accounting for all of the social/ economic/ political/ genetic/ emotional factors that contribute to making us individual seems too impractical and impossible to even try.

However, under certain circumstances, I am willing to concede that there are things we can learn about ourselves from animals. De Waal told a story about a chimpanzee, Yeroen, who was displaced from his alpha position. Later, Yeroen teamed up with a second male, Nikkie, and together they took the leadership back. Yeroen helped Nikkie maintain the position, and in return, Nikkie let Yeroen reap the benefits of holding a high position (insert video of Yeroen getting it on with a female, while Nikkie sat by and watched...yes he watched). In an effort to argue for our inner ape, de Waal dared to make the comparison between the Yeroen/ Nikkie relationship:

to another more familiar King/ Kingmaker relationship:

and I must say, he's definitely got a point here. I can see the resemblance now. Maybe I'll have to rethink this whole anthropomorphism thing...maybe.

If looking like Paris Hilton is your goal...

2006-02-28T12:45:00.000-08:00

...you might be a bad feminist. (Apologies for the bad Foxworthy reference.) By owning a pair a playboy bunny panties, you might be a female-male chauvinist pig...if you're female that is. If you are male and own panties...that's called something else. Ariel Levy writes:

Women had come so far, I learnt, that we no longer needed to worry about objectification or misogyny. Instead, it was time for us to join the frat party of pop culture where men had been enjoying themselves all along. If male chauvinist pigs were men who regarded women as pieces of meat, we would beat them at their own game and be female chauvinist pigs: women who make sex objects of other women and of ourselves.

How is resurrecting every stereotype of female sexuality that feminism endeavoured to banish good for women? Why is labouring to look like Paris Hilton empowering? And how is imitating a stripper or a porn star - a woman whose job is to imitate arousal in the first place - going to render us sexually liberated?

Time out. Too much imagery. Who the hell wants to look like Paris Hilton? I always felt sorry for her because she had the misfortune of looking like herself...slightly amphibian, but with too-close-together eyes. If we are going to lend ourselves to objectification, I think we raise the bar a little higher than that. Ok, time in:

If we believed that we were sexy and funny and competent and smart, we would not need to be like strippers or like men or like anyone other than our own specific, individual selves. That won't be easy, but the rewards would be the very things female chauvinist pigs want so badly, the things women deserve: freedom and power.

Oh, believe me, I agree wholeheartedly. But the problem is not that there aren't other options available. It's just that no one takes them. I think most women (excluding co-eds with IQs moderately equal to their bust size) would agree that they don't need to adhere to the status quo to feel sexy or sexually liberated. The problem is finding partners who agree with them. All the cool kids stick with the chauvinist "sexy means looking airbrushed" tactic.

That said, I think there is a major cultural attempt to disguise rampant sexual objectification as feminist liberation. Ladies, if you want to go to the male-target strip clubs, or if you like to kiss other girls, that is completely your business and more feminist power to you. But if you do these things just for approval, get your goddamn head out of your nipple tassels and realize that the joke is on you... ... ... and you are a bad feminist... ...

A Step in the Quadrupedal Direction?

2006-02-27T15:33:00.000-08:00

I'm a little behind in my extra-curricular science reading, so this is about a week old, but it's still bizarre:

An editor of a noted scientific journal says he has discovered a genetic defect that seems to set back the clock on human evolution by more than a million years.

Its victims walk on all fours and mouth a primitive language, the scientist reported. He added that the syndrome may literally undo eons of evolution, and thus reflect with some accuracy what our ape-like ancestors were like.

The researcher, Uner Tan of Cukurova University Medical School in Adana, Turkey, has posted an online video clip of an affected woman walking on all fours, her face blurred.

So, I hate to display my ignorance because there is really so little of it. But has anyone ever heard of World Science? It looks like a science tabloid site.

But I guess if the anti-Evilutionist crowd believes the Discovery Institute, why wouldn't they believe World Science? Think about it, ID-ers: the story really explains a lot. From The Huge Entity:

'Backward' humans: "...were not aware of time and space. For instance, they did not know where they live (which country, which village, which city)." - link

Bush comparison: "Wow! Brazil is big."

"But we've got a big border in Texas, with Mexico, obviously - and we've got a big border with Canada - Arizona is affected." - link

...

'Backward' humans: "...were mentally retarded..." - link

Bush comparison: "I understand small business growth. I was one."

"I know that the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully."

Commenting on the name of a reporter's son: "Can you imagine if my name had been Mungo Bush?" - link

I'm still holding off on the celebration until we finally locate the mutation that makes people watch Bill O'Reilly.

How Do You Dispose of 6400 Tons of Mustard Agent?

2006-02-27T14:49:00.000-08:00

Well, if you're the U.S. Army, you burn it:

Incineration is the only method being considered for destroying more than 6,400 tons of mustard agent at the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (TCDF) according to a senior executive for the U.S. Army at TCDF.
...
[The Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah] would prefer that the Army use a neutralization method to destroy the agents. "Neutralization is a safe, proven method for destruction of mustard agents. Its low temperatures prevent the formation of dioxins, and heavy metals like mercury can be segregated from the waste stream and not released into the air," reads the press release.

Neutralization was used by the Army to destroy a mustard agent stockpile in Aberdeen, MD.

Read the rest at the Tooele Transcript Bulletin Online [Link]. Even to the casual observer (and I'm among them) this is a reprehensible plan. Chemical neutralization, i.e. converting the chemical weapon into a more disposable form, is the safe alternative. If the Army goes along with the current plan, they might as well dump a few tons of mercury into the Great Salt Lake for good measure.

Friday Random Ten: Functionalized Nanotubes Safe Edition

2006-02-17T03:24:00.000-08:00

C&EN reported this week on a PNAS article (that I can't seem to access) dealing with the absorption of functionalized carbon nanotubes to mammallian tissues. It looks like they may, in fact, be safe for drug delivery engineering:

In the study, mice were intravenously administered water-soluble carbon nanotubes, either single-walled or multiwalled. Electron microscopy analysis revealed that both types of nanotubes are excreted intact in urine.
...
"This is the first time carbon nanotubes have been administered intravenously and fundamental pharmacokinetic parameters have been obtained," Kostarelos tells C&EN. "It is also the first description of carbon nanotubes circulating in the blood of live animals and the first report showing blood clearance and urine excretion of the nanotubes."

OK. On with the music!

Morphine - "Shame" [mp3]
RZA - "Fuck What You Think"
Mindless Self Indulgence - "Daddy"
Creedence Clearwater Revival - "Up Around the Bend"
Le Tigre - "I'm So Excited"
David Bowie - "Young Americans"
De la Soul - "Buddy"
Cars - "Touch and Go"
Gorillaz - "Kids with Guns"
Tomandandy - "Ambient Dixie"

"I love you, but..."

2006-02-14T11:42:00.000-08:00

While there's something to be said for love and romance, they so very rarely meet the expectations we hold for them. So why try to fool ourselves with sweet treats and misleading lyrics? They just set the bar too high. Here's a mix I put together to celebrate The True Meaning of Valentine's Day. I think you'll find it much more realistic.

1. Debra - Beck
2. Until the Real Thing Comes Along - Billie Holiday
3. Good Thing He Can't Read My Mind
- Christine Lavin
4. You're the Reason Our Kids are Ugly
- Conway Twitty, Loretta Lynn
5. My Funny Valentine - Chet Baker
6. Kind Hearted Woman - Robert Johnson
7. Ilovetoloveyourlovemylove - Self
8. When I Change your Mind - Cherry Poppin' Daddies
9. Saw Red - Brad Nowell
10. It's Not Love but It's Not Bad - Merle Haggard
11. Buggly Eyes - NoFX

Bonus Track: Get Your Biscuits In the Oven and Your Buns in the Bed - Kinky Friedman, 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate of Texas. Seriously.

The Smackdown

2006-02-13T11:51:00.000-08:00

Even with all the Intelligent Design hype, the proportion of American adults who believe in the creation story has held consistently at about 50% for decades. Despite the evidence we get from the media, even many Christians don't see a real "controversy" that needs to be settled publicly. From Science (I think subscription is required, sadly):

[Randy Moore of the University of Minnesota] says students don't necessarily know how to define ID, which asserts that there must be a "designer" because life forms are too complex to have arisen solely from the process of random mutation and natural selection. But when Moore presents them with a range of beliefs, 15% to 20% side with the ID movement. And "virtually none" has changed his or her mind by the end of the semester, he notes. Colbert [Iowa State University] agrees that although postcourse surveys show students have learned a good deal about evolution, they tend to stick to their views on God's role in creating humans.

This is likely because people view their faith as a personal issue and if there is any controversy between ID and evolution, it is a personal struggle. When I teach evolutionary concepts, I give my students the evolution smackdown without remorse. I've found most students keep to themselves and don't really care to express what their personal beliefs are because they are personal beliefs and don't belong in a science class. My experience seems to be the norm:

But teachers say they rarely have in-class clashes with such students. Rather, says biologist Robert Dillon of the College of Charleston in South Carolina, students will come by "several times a semester" to express their concern that "if there was no Adam, that means Christ died in vain for our sins. We'll have a theological discussion," he says.

Wooo-hooo! My alma mater mentioned in a science magazine article! I actually took a genetics class with Dr. Dillon at CofC and I recall one lecture where he had to field some crazy questions from an outspoken member of the Campus Crusade for Christ. (Too bad I can't recall any of the questions.) He did a great job of keeping his own faith out of the classroom (I got the impression that he was Christian when he showed up to a test review session in his Boy Scout's Uniform and sang campfire songs to us. Maybe I'm wrong.)

Lately, some representatives of my home state have embarked on their own ID escapade, endorsed by Governor Sanford. United Press International:

"The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics."

But College of Charleston physics professor Bob Dukes and biology associate professor Robert Dillon Jr. criticized the governor for his statements. They told the Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier there aren't "chinks in the armor of evolution," and Sanford's citation of the second law of thermodynamics was also incorrect.

Well, even though I have to claim nativity of a state where people think humans may have descended from mosquitoes, there are at least some liberal (i.e. intelligent) safe-havens like CofC, which had the decency to expand the Darwin Celebration to more than just one day. It's currently hosting its 6th Annual Darwin Week.

ID RIP?

2006-02-13T08:28:00.000-08:00

In the latest issue of Science, Elizabeth Culotta asks, "Is ID on the Way Out?" She tells the story of El Tejon (CA) Unified School District's decision to pull a slated course titled "Philosophy of Design":

Last month, a teacher in a rural southern California high school began a monthlong course on the "Philosophy of Design," exploring issues such as "why is intelligent design [ID] gaining momentum?" In response, 11 parents, with help from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, sued the El Tejon Unified School District on 10 January. Fresh from a decisive December win over proponents of ID in Dover, Pennsylvania, evolution's defenders geared up for another court battle.

But they didn't get one. Facing projected legal costs of $100,000, the school board agreed to a settlement, ending the course early and promising not to teach any course that "promotes or endorses creationism, creation science, or intelligent design."

After the ID defeat in Dover, it seems that proponents of Intelligent Design education have softened their stance in an attempt to win the support of skeptical parents. The slogan, "teach the controversy", may gain them some mileage, but this only seems to rile the nerves of the informed. So far, cooler heads have prevailed, and the intended goals of the IDists may in fact come back to bite them.

[T]he battle over teaching evolution "isn't over," says Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes Science. "These people are well-financed and ideologues in the true sense, and they are not giving this up."

I would argue that they would be wise to give it up. Parents across the country, wary of the manufactured outrage may be motivated to win back their school boards, running on platforms centered around keeping religion in the churches and out of the classroom. If it comes to that, the anti-evolutionists will only have themselves to blame for bringing up the "controversy" in the first place.

Some Good Friedan 'Dialogue'

2006-02-10T12:19:00.000-08:00

I put 'dialogue' in quotes, of course, because the Men's Rights Activists don't really make for good intellectual discourse. But, bless their angry little hearts and their dense, impenetrable heads, they do try their damnedest. This article gives a nice tribute to Friedan, but it's really the comments that I wanted to share. Here are some of the MRA's comments that particularly make me chuckle:

Woman who have embraced feminism are largely bitter, soulless, materialistic skanks! It should come as no surprise that the two people most responsible for destroying the moral fiber of America, Freud and Friedan and degenerate talmudic jews.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Posted by: Ian Santiago | February 09, 2006 at 10:10 PM

Friedan was an evil talmudic-bolshevik and I hope that she burns in hell.
(the rest of the comment not presented because, in typical MRA fashion, it's exhaustivly long and boring).
Posted by: Ian Santiago | February 09, 2006 at 12:09 PM

All feminists from Western nations should be exiled to Saudi Arabia and that would cure them of their nonsensical philosophy.
V.L.R.B!!
Posted by: Ian Santiago | February 09, 2006 at 07:17 PM

Wow! People don't know her history. She is a known communist and everything she said about her husband beating her and having to slave in the kitchen was all lies.
She came from a very wealthy family and never cooked and cleaned in her life. She had maids and even had other people raise her children.
She was also a stout anti-lesiban, so much for women's progress as she shut out many women.
She also try to defect to the USSR, but they rejected her as a radical. No! She wasn't a feminist, she was a hard core socialist and just wanted women to join her in that political cause.

[link]

I have no respect for liers that use it for their ends. Sorry. She deserves nothing but the dirt on her grave.
Posted by: Joe Williams | February 09, 2006 at 06:40 AM

Notice how, in the last comment, Joe is trying to invalidate Friedan's ideas because she's never done any "women's work?" He's just proving why we celebrate women like Friedan for providing opportunites outside of traditional sex roles. What a dork! Thanks for proving our point Joe-"all women should be barefoot and pregnant"-Willams! Here's a response that made my heart swell

Joe, how is it that a woman must cook and clean in order to have validity? So what if she came from a wealthy family? How does that diminish what she stood for? Who questions a man's motives just because he comes from wealth and enjoys the perks that come along with it? How many successful men are the primary caregiver for their children? Think about it.

Posted by: Damoon | February 09, 2006 at 08:24 AM

I Should Have Read the Fine Print

2006-02-08T23:17:00.000-08:00

We all know the good benefits of being a feminist, right? Fornication, education, etc. But I was never fully aware of the consequences like suicide:

Dear Friends,

This article is written mostly for my sisters in Christ who are struggling with the fruit of feminism. What is the fruit of feminism?

* Discontentment
* Broken marriages
* Depression
* The murder of preborn babies by abortion
* Couples living together without marriage
* Fornication and adultery
* Homosexuality
* Suicide
* Neglected and abused children
* Unemployment and loss of jobs for men

I guess I didn't read the fine print. When should I plan to do myself in? I think I'll try to squeeze it in between my next abortion* and abusing the neighborhood children.

*note: I am my aborted fetus' mom.

Dietary Masochism

2006-02-08T22:47:00.000-08:00

Just another reason to never, ever, never substitute low-fat cream cheese for the real thing. Never. It's just painfully disgusting. Why would anyone do that to themselves?

From the Common Cold to Gene Therapy

2006-02-08T22:30:00.000-08:00

Uh-oh. Gene therapy resulting from the forced evolution of viruses?

In a project that could benefit human health, scientists forced the evolution of a common virus so that it can avoid the human immune system, making it potentially useful as a delivery vehicle for gene therapy.

You know what this means? That's right, the anti-evolutionists can't have any.

Evilution for Dummies

2006-02-06T06:59:00.000-08:00

South Carolina Senator Mike Fair is proposing a few changes to his state's Evilution curriculum . Just to keep the people informed like a good newspaper should, thestate.com set South Carolinians straight on exactly what evilution all about by defining The Terms:

Evolution: The theory developed by scientist Charles Darwin nearly 150 years ago and detailed in his book “The Origin of Species.” It says man developed from lesser species over millions of years through a series of genetic mutations. Darwin theorizes that through a process called natural selection, simple cells mutated into more complex cells and eventually mutated into animal life. Darwin’s theory says man evolved from animals, with man’s closest kin being lesser primates such as apes and monkeys.

Creationism: In the Bible, the book of Genesis says God created the heavens and the earth and all the animals within it. And on the sixth day, the Bible says, God created man in his own image.

Intelligent Design: This theory has gained popularity in recent years as an alternative to teaching evolution. The theory of intelligent design doesn’t dispute much of what evolution concludes about the origin of man. But intelligent design says natural selection cannot explain certain features of the universe and of living things. It says the universe has a clear and obvious design, and thus a designer.

Now don't get us wrong, we appreciate the gesture, but since when did journalistic research translate to pulling "facts" out of one's ass? Here, let me help. It's easy. Step 1: Go to Wikipedia. Step 2: look up the word of interest. Step 3: report. Thus:

Evolution: the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation. Its action over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world...The idea of biological evolution has existed since ancient times, notably among Hellenists such as Epicurus and Anaximander, but the modern theory was not established until the 18th and 19th centuries, by scientists such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Charles Darwin.

Creationism: In Abrahamic religions, creationism or creation theology is the origin belief that humans, life, the Earth, and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity's supernatural intervention. The intervention may be seen either as an act of creation from nothing (ex nihilo) or the emergence of order from pre-existing chaos...Many who hold "creation" beliefs consider such to be an aspect of religious faith which is compatible with (or otherwise unaffected by) scientific views...

Intelligent Design See Creationism.

Choice Feminism: I Choose to be Judgmental

2006-02-05T21:33:00.000-08:00

Reflecting on how the late Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique," helped resolve her struggle between career and family, Joan Walsh concludes that we have no choice but to be Choice Feminists. However, Linda Hirshman has a different interpretation of Friedan's ideas:

Instead, Hirshman argues, feminism should rebuke the affluent educated women who are increasingly (in what numbers is disputed) abandoning careers for family life. She even cites Friedan as an example of how radical the feminist movement once was on these questions, a radicalism she thinks the movement should return to. She notes that in her movement-inspiring 1963 book "The Feminine Mystique," Friedan went so far as to compare housework to animal life...

Unfortunately, Hirshman lamented in her must-read American Prospect piece, "Homeward Bound," after Friedan's bold rejection of animal labor for women, "liberal feminists abandoned the judgmental starting point of the movement in favor of offering women 'choices.'" Feminism has to get back to "judging," Hirshman insists, and it should judge the choice to stay home as flat-out wrong. As Hirshman writes: "To paraphrase, as Mark Twain said, 'A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read.'"

Of course Walsh is right that a woman should be allowed to lead her life however she damn well pleases without criticism. But I think both Walsh and Hirshman are missing the point. We should not blindly adopt Choice Feminism because there is cause for public criticism of certain life choices that counter the progress of feminism. Rather than condemn the stay-at-home moms, we should chastise:

1) the men who willingly start families then refuse to take on any domestic responsibility and demand that their wives be detained in culinary servitude without any remote possibility of reaching compromise between bread-winning (i.e. having fun) and diaper-changing for both of the supposed partners.

2) and THE WOMEN WHO MARRY THEM!!

What self-respecting woman would reproduce with a man who would have so little respect for her that he wouldn't even do his share of the laundry? Single parenthood notwithstanding, the solution to the struggle for balance between career and family might just be to recruit more help; you know, the paternal help that created the little varmints in the first place. In fact, I suggest that this should probably be written straight into matrimonial vows just to make sure there is no misunderstanding. "I promise to love and honor you, cook dinner 3-4 nights a week, scrub the toilet every other weekend, pick up the kids after school...till death do us part."

From an older-ish article by Louise Story:

"My mother always told me you can't be the best career woman and the best mother at the same time," Ms. Liu said matter-of-factly. "You always have to choose one over the other"

Back to Walsh:

Then I found myself in my early 30s with a baby I loved to distraction, a career I treasured almost as much (yes, almost), and a marriage falling apart due to my volcanic anger at being unable to manage both gracefully, and all my feminist certainties dissolved for a while.

I rest my case. No one can manage both, and if they can, it probably isn't gracefully. But women shouldn't have to choose between 'one or the other.' It should be possible to have both with a little bit of ethically mandated assistance. It takes two people to make the rabid little critters, it should take two to clean the baby turds off of the carpet.

My feminism is about choice: A woman can choose to marry a dimwit-deadbeat dude who considers the her full potential to lie somewhere between the frying pan and the bedroom. And I can choose to stand in judgement of their anti-feminist lifestyle.

Friday random ten: The "I wonder if I can still do it bloggy-style" edition

2006-02-03T23:23:00.000-08:00

Or "How Archaeopteryx got its groove back."

Well, it's the weekend,it's between field seasons, and it's as good a time as any to start blogging again. The "Arrested Development" marathon I'm having doesn't hurt either. Plus, there's a lot of great stuff that will be happ'nin' soon that should be of interest the general Archaeopteryx readership (for example).

Alright! Here it goes; this time with feeling!

1. Bubble gum - Brigitte Bardot
2. KRS-one [live] - Bradley Nowell
3. Planet telex - Radiohead
4. My funny valentine - Tony Bennett
5. Detachable penis song - The Cramps
6. Sweet little duck - Kathleen Edwards
7. La musique adoucit let moeurs - MC Solaar
8. The bag - NoFX
9. Hail Satan! - Mindless Self Indulgence
10. And your bird can sing - The Beatles

.45 (2003)

2005-08-22T16:33:00.000-07:00

A couple of years ago I took a class in Film Noir: German Exile Cinema, which was an utterly fascinating topic. For my final project, I made a little homage to Film Noir and German Expressionism; a short film entitled .45. It was a group project with Ryan of LA and was shared with our class, local film critics, family and friends. Here's a screen shot:

Just lately, I have discovered a film being made with the exact same title and an almost identical plot. Now, it could be a coincidence, but I am naturally pessimistic. So, lest anyone overlook the original .45, here is where our movie can be downloaded in its entirety (approximately 17minutes, 30Kb). We've also provided some links to information on the upcoming .45 knockoff.

Feel free to watch it, enjoy it, and spread the love. Here are some more screen shots for your viewing pleasure:

Update: Ryan remembers our film-making experience fondly, as well.

It Can't Get Much Better Than This

2005-08-16T18:28:00.000-07:00

Media Matters for America:

LIMBAUGH:...I have long told you, for example, Undeniable Truth of Life No. 24, written back in 1987: Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society. And even to this day, people pooh-poohed this and say it's insensitive: "How can you possibly say something like that?" Well, because I mean it, because I believe there's something to it. And now, lo and behold, the California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 2 that the supervisor could sue the company for allegedly retaliating against her with poor evaluations and job requirements because she was ugly. She didn't fit their mold of hot.

(Forehead slap accompanied by irrepressible groan of irritation.)

The Real Victims of EVILution

2005-08-14T13:36:00.000-07:00

Yes. Monkeys. We need to stop teaching our children the Evilution Lie and spare the monkeys their last bit of dignity.

No creation? No evolution

Schools in Washington County, Va. are set to begin again. Let’s hope that the evolution lie will not be taught to our young people. If the creation truth cannot be taught then let’s not teach a falsehood. Ministers of the gospel should sound off like the one who stood up for Larry Booher of John Battle High School who had taught the truth and had been castigated by the school board and superintendent. We as citizens should not bow down to the ACLU. Those who believe that man descended from the monkey family should not insult the monkey any longer. Tell the truth, it will set you free. God created all things.

Andy Raines
Bristol, Va.

Here's the link to this gem of a letter, but I posted it here in it's entirety. Emphasis added.

Friday Bird Blogging: Backyard Edition

2005-08-12T12:40:00.000-07:00

Check out what I found foraging in my backyard this week:

I know, it's the worst possible picture, but I could only get as close as the kitchen window. I feel like a Bigfoot hunter. "Really, it was right there in my backyard. See, I have this blurry photo!" In case this makes it any more apparent:

Is it a Cooper's Hawk or Sharp-Shinned? Not like anyone can tell from the photo; everyone will just have to take my word for it. It's likely not exciting to many, but I've never seen a bird of prey up close, so I was ecstatic. If the RSPB Geltsdale nature reserve has any influence, we might see more like them in the future. Hooray for the Baby Boom for Birds of Prey!

Of course, wild fauna are captivating, but what Friday Bird Blogging would be complete without a glimpse of the rare and majestic Martingale enjoying a stroll in the backyard?