If you hear there will be discussion in front of your school board about “Teaching the Controversy” . . .

this year, or in the next couple of years, it will probably involve materials coming from the Discovery Institute, Christian fundamentalists’ front group for trying to tear down evolution. Here is one example of “Teaching the Controversy” this year from NC, but you know it is happening elsewhere.

In the wake of the Dover Disaster (a disaster for the Discovery Institute specifically and creationists/fundamentalists/evangelicals in general) the Discovery Institute has gone about trying to find ways around textbook requirements in order to get their ideas into public school classrooms. That tactic? “Supplementary materials”. As noted by John Timmer (introduced below), supplementary classroom materials often don’t have to meet the same standards as textbooks.

ArsTechnica recently brought in . . . whatever term you use for someone with the following credentials:

John got a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry (yes, that’s possible) from
Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology
from the University of California, Berkeley. He’s done over a
decade’s worth of research in genetics and developmental biology at
places like Cornell Medical College and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Center. In addition to being Ars’ science content wrangler, John
still teaches at Cornell and does freelance writing, editing, and
programming, often with a scientific focus.

to review the Discovery Institute’s new Supplementary Materials.

I would quote the rather damming final summary paragraph, but that would only distract and take the focal point away from the fact that the body of the review is a masterpiece in disembowling of these substandard “educational” materials. Here is a sample:

This presentation can also be considered a “bait and switch”—take a
real scientific controversy, tell your readers that it exists, and then
substitute in the controversy you’d like them to think exists without
comment. This is obvious in the section on the fossil record, where the
Reply section contains a long list of academic discussions of the
limitations in our collections of fossils. That section wraps up by
claiming these limitations, “have led some scientists to doubt that the
fossil record supports the case for common descent.”

Who are those scientists? Well, poor Malcolm Gordon (who actually wrote
in favor of common descent) gets dragged out again, but the rest aren’t
actually scientists, nor are their publications peer-reviewed science.
Instead, there’s a book by an Italian creationist and another by
Discovery Institute Fellows, including some of EE’s authors. The bait of real issues has been switched to a statement that isn’t actually supported by the footnote.

As a libertarian and someone who believes in the principles of federalism, I am generally in favor of decisions relating to educational standards being handled as locally as reasonably possible. However, as a strong believer in the principle of the separation of church and state, I believe there is a valid rational prohibition against either overtly or subtly trying to insert religious instruction into public schools, and that’s exactly the direction, the kind of pandering, that these materials support.

If our local school board, or the state educational board, started flirting with these materials or the DI, you can be certain I will be circulating this article to them. Just say to no non-science (in this case the similarity to nonsense being intentional) in science class.

More communist than China, more socialist than France

Add this article to the one below:

How We Became the United States of France

I’m starting to wonder whether, in the “first world” of countries, there is anything other than an awful mix of quasi-capitalism, nationalistic fear-mongering, and big government (e.g. massive taxes and tiny freedoms).

Seriously, the United States certainly had its problems back when freedom meant freedom–everything wasn’t sunshine, rainbows and tulips. And our fledgling nation was helped by seemingly endless natural resources. But we are not the nation we were, and neither major political party seems to have any inclination to look back and try to cull the good from the bad. Instead we look to the new role models of the world–China for national security, France for economic advice, Russia for foreign affairs.

It’s just a truly sad state of affairs, to know that you are living in the decline of power. Had we not abused our position, had we not driven down the road to hell with the bestest of intentions, maybe we’d still lead in education and innovation. Maybe we wouldn’t be looking down our economic backs at the pursuit of China and India.

The most interesting thought to me is that for years conspiracy nuts have been talking about things like the “New World Order” or “One World Government” or whatever . . . where the shadow brokers of power consolidate governmental power worldwide into the UN or some similar body to impose the world onto the United States, to destroy our economy and our values.

Did I miss the takeover? With China adopting more free market policies, with the U.S. government taking over entire industries . . . it looks to me as if the material distinctions between major governments are fading away. Maybe we did miss the invasion, while looking to the government to save us from ourselves. Is there some first world government model that is inescapable whether you are a Constitutional Republic or a one-party authoritarian state? Are modern governments trapped into becoming nearly homogeneous because of the power of the rich and the demands of the poor and middle class?

I don’t know the answers, I only think our direction is a sad one. Neither major Presidential candidate strikes me as truly caring one whit about change. Neither truly wants to change the direction of this country. And whether that change would be massive government control, or Chiacgo-school economic reforms, at least I could respect a candidate that really wanted change. That stood up and fought for something other than a slightly more or less mealy than the status quo that we choke down every day. This path is a slow death spiral towards irrelevance. I wonder how soon we will be able to look for the next paradigm shift in government, the next evolution in moving forward? That will at least be an interesting thing to look towards.

What a wonderful world we live in.

CFI: It’s time for science and reason

Hat tip to Pharyngula.  The message this video has to convey is important, and so I’ll let it speak for itself.

You can say it isn’t totally true, but you know it’s part true. U.S. slipping towards state control (communism/socialism)

US Is “More Communist than China”: Jim Rogers

Hyperbole by the interviewee? Maybe a little.

But not by that much. The Federal Government has now taken it upon itself to prop up pretty much the entire U.S. housing market.

A mess of fomented by bad government policy, now compounded by our decision to go for the quick fix that will ensure continued pain in the housing market for years to come–read the article for some of the potential issues down the road.

Free markets aren’t pain free.  They don’t guarantee success for everyone.

But free markets and small government is a sustainable system.  What we have now, what we are moving towards, is the literal bankruptcy of government caused by decades of asinine and ignorant interventionist foreign policy, by the ever-increasing size of government both in terms of social programs and also in the restriction of the freedoms of its citizens, by the massive bureaucracy regulating in some way all facets of commerce.

Maybe the only thing not sustainable under a libertarian system is The People–democracy.  Libertarians base their belief structure on the fact that people at heart are good, and want freedom.  But when armed with the power of the federal government, and the knowledge that, at least in the short term, something can be gained “free” by nothing more than the cost of your vote to vote those in office who will take from all to give to you.  Maybe the temptations of the power of government, wielded by those in a democracy who have little to lose by adopting a policy of greed by force, is just too much responsibility for the public to handle maturely.  The temptation to take by force with no consequence.  It boggles my mind, but here we are.

This story should be linked everywhere.

Obama confuses me–do we read them their rights, or kill them?

Obama to Palin: ‘Don’t mock the Constitution’

I don’t fully understand how Obama is positioning himself on the War on Terror.  In an effort to . . . gain the votes of independents? . . . he has adopted pretty much every Republican stance regarding the War on Terror.  On this topic the differences between McCain and Obama can be measured in nanometers.

Is there anything wrong with pointing out that a lot of our success in Iraq has been achieved by religious segregation, assassination, and, obviously, torture?  And in spite of the ignorance of our leaders for years about the Muslim socio-political landscape?  When we pull out and all of our carefully-constructed (and U.S. enforced)  walls and barriers start to come down, what happens?  We’ve brought the problematic militias on board . . . when we leave and they’re in power, what is the check on that power?  What prevents them from reigniting the sectarian violence that exists outside of the context of al Qaeda in Iraq?  Unless, of course, we unofficially make Iraq a colony of the U.S. by leaving a permanent military presence.

The problem is that Democrats don’t have the balls to stand up and say that our neo-colonial policies are a significant financial drain on our country and we would be much, much, much better off entering a period of relative isolationism compared to the past 60 years.  They don’t have the balls to say that yes, all suspects should have their day in front of a court, here in the U.S., or elsewhere.  They don’t have the nutsack to state that it is our interventionist policies that created an environment conducive in the long term to fomenting enemies of the country.

We just killed a major terrorist in Pakistan.  He used to be our friend, when it suited our purposes . . . surprise, surprise!  How many of those people are we training now?  Arming now?  Short term gain, long term failure.  And if your answer is otherwise, why is it different now than it was before?  Why is history going to give us a free pass this time for the same failed foreign policies of the past 60/70/xxx years in the Middle East?

Take Obama’s latest mixed message:

On the one hand (from the article referenced above):

Calling it “the foundation of Anglo-American law,” he said the principle “says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, ‘Why was I grabbed?’ And say, ‘Maybe you’ve got the wrong person.’”

Okay . . . but wait (from the same article):

“My position has always been clear: If you’ve got a terrorist, take him out,” Obama said. “Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take ‘em out.”

So . . . if we spot a “terrorist” from 100 yards out, or from space, we can put a bullet in their head or drop a bomb on their house–that’s all good, apparently (regardless whether we hit the right target or not, or if they are actually guilty of the crimes we suspect them of).  But if we capture them, they should have rights?  Talk about selective application!  I understand that sometimes you have to hit someone from distance (despite the many civilian deaths that have resulted from those kinds of strikes, even with today’s technology), but the underlying issue is that Obama’s rhetoric is indistinguishable from McCain.

Keep in mind that if I absolutely had to vote between Obama and McCain, I would vote for Obama, but he’s not the great change agent he’s hyped as.  He’s more of the same, and he proved it when he didn’t vote against the bill giving telecoms retroactive immunity for illegal spying activities.  If he can be “convinced” that it’s ok for telecom companies to receive retroactive immunity for breaking the law in being complicit in illegal spying on Americans, why should I or anyone else have any confidence that he’ll protect our Constitutional rights in other ways?  Sure, he’ll push the pet Democrat rights like abortion, but when it comes to the power of the government and corporations vs. the rights of the people, the rights of human beings . . . he’s already shown his colors.  Sure, he’ll talk a good game about not taking big corporation money–he doesn’t really need it anyway, but he hasn’t shown me that he has any inclination to really put his foot down.  And that’s a damn shame.

You don’t want to mock the Constitution?  Don’t say we’re going to go around assassinating people.

If we really wanted change, this election would be between Kucinich and Paul.  This campaign couldn’t be shallower if it was a kiddie pool.

Google’s Open Source Browser–private browsing

I just read via Techmeme about Google’s new, open source browser project called Chrome.

Lots of goodies, such as the potential to speed up javascript. But also a private browsing feature similar to what is in existing browsers and upcoming in IE8.

With the open source nature of the project, we won’t have to worry about back doors being embedded in closed source code. There is a legion of users out there who will be snooping around the code.

All of the tools are out there to really privatize your browsing and online communications. All we need now is a galvanizing event that really pushes adoption. I would have thought that retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies for cooperating illegally with the current administration in spying on Americans would have been an excellent trigger point.

However, I think people distinguish between making a phone call and communicating over or browsing the Internet, despite the fact that voice communications are more often now occurring over the same technology.

But if it is one thing we can be sure of, it is that there will be other, large invasions of privacy ongoing. If there are enough people not accepting of it, then the trigger point will come.

Technology moves faster and more efficiently than law or politics.

BBC reported today (hat tip to Techmeme) that the world’s market leader in internet browsing software, Microsoft, will integrate more sophisticated privacy features into IE8.  This is on the heels of other browsers seeking Microsoft’s market share in part by offering better privacy features–Safari already offers this kind of protection, and Firefox soon will officially (but probably already does unofficially through one or more user-created add-ons).

You can already search and browse the Internet almost totally anonymously, so circumstances where legislation is necessary to protect user privacy should be pretty limited.  Gmail’s privacy filters (and those of its competitors) do ever-better jobs of protecting consumers from spam and phishing atatcks.

You do eventually get to a place where the free market bumps up against privacy–how web sites handle data you enter.  Should a web site have the legal right to sell data you provide?

Tough one.  On the one hand, the FCC has stated that if a web site provides a privacy policy that they have to comply with it (presumably the one in place when you entered your information . . . you saved a copy of that, right?).  So you certainly have the right to review a site’s privacy policy before entering your information and submitting it.  Sites do not have to have a privacy policy–should the law fill one in with default terms regarding the handling of data if one is not provided?  The law already fills terms into contracts that are silent on certain points.  And it isn’t as if sites like Facebook or Amazon.com are so important that they represent an essential public service that must be provided to everyone under privacy terms explicitly set by the government.  More than that, if sites are generating revenue through some limited data selling, prices will increase for consumers if that revenue stream is cut off.

On the other hand, who is actually going to sue based on the FCC’s statements, and how easy is it going to be to prove that one particular web site violated a user’s privacy?  Is it really fair to put such an onus on the average consumer to protect his/her personally identifying information and online activity?

I work in the software industry for a vendor whose software may handle credit card transactions and other types of sensitive data.  While some people may decry large corporations (I have my own conceptual issues with the legally-created fiction that is the corporate entity), it is those large corporations that have the leverage to push out non-legislative initiatives like the Payment Card Industry Data Standards.  It’s not going to protect the pictures you put up on Facebook, but it is a system designed to integrate safeguards regarding the handling of transactional information.

I’d like to see legislators take a light, measured touch in these areas.  Technology, and the market, is going to move faster than legislature, so look for those areas where the market is making adjustments, and seek to only provide a net underneath that, ideally, will be rarely, if ever, necessary.

McCain just doesn’t strike me as having a good mental grip.

I know that politicans have to remember a lot of things.  A ton of things.  So many people, and facts, and a lot of the information they get, because they are so busy, is being fed to them by people–who, in fairness, are usually people picked by the candidate himself or herself, so the candidate bears a lot of culpability if they are being fed mis-information or spun information.

But McCain just doesn’t seem to me to have the mental sharpness to process, internalize, and communicate.  Whether it is the gaffe over the Iraq-Pakistan border, Czechoslovakia, whether al-Qaeda is Sunni or Shia, how safe it is in any specific place in Iraq, or whatever, I know these all can be classified as just “verbal slip-ups”, but I’ll be damned if they don’t remind me way too much of George Bush.  Maybe for some people that’s a good thing, but it isn’t for me.  I want to have confidence that a presidential candidate really has a good grasp on issues they consider important, and if McCain is running on a platform as being the better man to tackle terrorism and terrorists, then he damn well better know what Muslim faction al-Qaeda belongs to.  So far he has not demonstrated to me that he has a significant and comprehensive knowledge on even the topics he holds himself out as being knolwedgeable about, much less topics he doesn’t even pretend to know a lot about, such as economics.  Given how much traditional conservatives used to care about economics, it just boggles the mind that you would have a Republican presidential candidate that isn’t extremely well versed in economics and economic policy.  Of course, that would have required Ron Paul to get the nomination, and that did not happen.

My alternative is Obama, a candidate who suddenly decided that citizen rights really aren’t that important after all, and retroactive immunity is okey-dokey.  Fight for the people dammit!!  Give me some reason to believe you’re actually going to stand up for citizens, and not just for big government power.  No?

Crap, time to “waste my vote” again on the Libertarian candidate.  Maybe next election . . .

Consumers stand up for market choice!! It’s good to see.

Nintendo’s new gun-like zapper.

It’s pretty cool-looking:

and, if you believe some of the comments in and to the article, dangerous to our children’s minds. No, the remote is not just dangerous, it’s going to get someone killed:

The gun like remote will get someone killed…. unless it’s pink with a flag in the muzzel. Toys guns of yesteryear were red, blue and whatever… no ligitimate reason to risk anyones life. The idiot that made the remote should have his/her brain checked….if they have one — thebeav136

Well, apparently it won’t get anyone killed if it is pink with a flag in the “muzzel”. Does it matter which flag? An American flag? An Israeli flag? An Iranian flag? Where the hell was this person living that toy guns of yesteryear were red or blue? Hell I’m not even 40 years old and toy guns when I was a little kid didn’t even have that stupid orange plastic cap on them.  A little paint job and the original Nintendo Zapper would look more realistic.

Another gem:

Great, this is what we need. Children with guns learning how to aim and shoot. Then we can sit back and wonder what is happening to our country with kids killing kids……what’s next? Could we make it squirt blood, too — unattributed

But wait, is that a glimmer of hope I see on the horizon?

Besides, a video game gun won’t help them aim correctly in real life anyway.

“Recoil? What’s that? My Wii Zapper doesn’t do that. Damnit!” — hobokendan

What about parents who want no part of it? Won’t Nintendo force all children to have them? I think I read that Nintendo will hold you at the business end of the new Zapper until you give up your right to . . . not have it in your home:

I think this a really dumb thing to do.. however, as a parent.. i make the choice what comes in my home.. This will not…. Just because it is available doesn’t mean we have to buy it. — lis1063

Someone . . . employing . . . actual . . . thinking . . . skills!

Ah, but what would the debate be without someone fresh from Jack Thompson’s talking points?

The problem with todays video games is that they are too realistic. The games of the 70s-80s were so unrealistic that it wasn’t a problem. Look at all the school shooting since the mid 90’s when video games became life like. Why are we allowing young people to become proficient with guns on these simulators that are marketed to kids these days? It is a real problem that should be controlled by lawmakers. — gcom

Or, instead of preying on weak-willed politicians willing to sell loud, vocal minorities their vote (and whatever is left of their dignity), you could use your brain:

I’ve played the Half-Life series, the Serious Sam series, No One Lives Forever 2, and System Shock 2 – all first person shooters. What did they teach me about shooting in real life? Nothing.

None of those indicated to me that I’d be left handed. Aiming obviously requires more skill than moving the cursor around until it changes color. Would a gun-like controller have made a difference? I doubt it. I might have caught on to the handedness sooner, but that’s about it. I wouldn’t have experienced recoil, reloading, using a safety, etc. With the exception of System Shock, maintaining a gun never gets covered either. — slythersci

I encourage people who click through to the article to read the variety of comments following gcom’s, which make me somewhat optimistic that my generation has not forgotten completely what freedom means, although it’s kind of a sad thought that possibly what makes us motivated to speak out is a video game.

In related news, I am planning at some point to buy a Wii. The interactivity really appeals to me, and I have young kids so most Nintendo fare will be age-appropriate for them. However, having gotten very used to (well-done) mature themes and content on PC games, I am hoping Nintendo comes through for me and I can buy some games targeted at my demographic segment.

If this doesn’t scare you, you are stupid. [Drug War]

I can’t exactly figure out what people see in a war that simultaneously:

1. is costly and ineffective [Washington Post via ToThePeople].

2. corrupts government up and down the chain [Radley Balko], not only putting innocent people in prison (intentionally, in some instances, to cover up ineptitude or police state wrongdoing), but keeping them in prison when law enforcement officials know they’re innocent.

Really, if you are pro-Drug War, or on the fence, would it kill you to take a couple of minutes and read these articles? These are not isolated incidents or minor policy issues, this is a government initiative that is systemically rotten to its very core, both in policy and execution.

Let me re-iterate, because this should not ever, ever happen in a free country–the FBI, in order to protect informants and continuing investigations, leaves wrongly convicted people in jail–and the FBI intentionally sits on the information that could free them. Want it better? They won’t say that they won’t continue this practice!!

If I get asked–is the answer that we just give up? YES!!! YES!!! Billions of dollars flushed down the toilet in enforcement, incarceration, foreign “programs” that turn the world against us, a war that funds terrorism (and wouldn’t if pulled into legal enterprise) . . . where is the upside? What am I missing? All this money, all the freedoms encroached, all the injustices, and have we cut consumption by a significant margin? No, what we’ve done is given drug dealers incentives to make newer and more dangerous drugs (see, e.g., methamphetamine, created during periods of crackdown on amphetamine . . . good going, Drug Warriors!).

Is it too much to ask people to speak out? Contact your local, regional and national politicians and show your support for ending this insanity.