Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
How Bill Clinton set the stage for George W. Bush
If you despise the Bush administration for weakening constitutional protections, zealously increasing executive authority and weakening the checks and balances inherent in our constitutional scheme, preferring secrecy to accountability, being in the pocket of big business and sending American troops on one foreign military adventure after another, you should recognize that the Clinton administration that preceded this one differed only by degree, not kind, on those matters. And there is little reason to believe that a second Clinton administration would be all that much better.The book All the President's Spin, by the folks who ran the Spinsanity.com blog during Bush's first term, makes a similar point about how Clinton managed the media.
It was under Clinton that we got not one but two attempts to censor the Internet with the Communications Decency Act.
On the other hand, there were far fewer American lives lost in military action and we did get the export controls on encryption loosened, so that users of PGP didn't become criminal exporters of munitions just by carrying a laptop to another country.
In a conversation last week, a friend of mine suggested that Hillary Clinton will win the presidency and will demonstrate her military hawkishness by doing something like invading Syria, and will end up making followers out of the right-wingers who currently hate her, ultimately sending us further down the road towards fascism and complete disregard for the rule of law.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Yet another dog found
As we set off to take our dogs for a walk down the Highline Canal this morning, we ran into this hound dog coming towards us in the opposite direction. He has a collar, but no tags. He's friendly and well-fed, and (surprisingly for this neighborhood) a neutered male. We've put him in our front yard and given him water, and put his photo up on Pets911.com. With any luck, his owners are somewhere nearby. (If they're close enough, they should be hearing his distinctive hound bark...)
UPDATE (1:30 p.m.): His owner put a "lost dog" ad on azcentral.com that we just found, and came and got him. He normally has tags, but they came off when he got out about a week ago.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Sheriff Joe arrests owners of New Times
Lacey and Larkin, who have long battled with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas, wrote a story about the subpoena because they considered it an attack on the freedom of the press. The subpoena demanded records relating to all visitors to the New Times website over the last four years, including information about what websites they visited prior to the New Times website (i.e., referral URLs)--essentially, the request is for the complete website logs for the newspaper's website for the last three years. It also demanded reporters' notes and any other documents pertaining to stories about Arpaio for the last three years.
Lacey and Larkin wrote that they believed their article to violate the law, but they published it as a form of civil disobedience in order to challenge the unconstitutional abuses of Arpaio, Thomas, and prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik.
The trigger for the events which led to the subpoena (and the apparent event of interest given the dates in the subpoena) appears to be a New Times article from July 8, 2004 which commented on Arpaio's commercial real estate investments and ended with Arpaio's home address, but the paper's criticism of Arpaio for mismanagement, inmate deaths, and grandstanding in front of TV cameras goes back many years more.
Sheriff Joe used to have a dialup Internet account with Primenet, my former employer. At one point one of his assistants, Lisa Allen, contacted Primenet to attempt to get information about a subscriber who had left a critical comment on his website, without a subpoena. We declined to provide such information without a subpoena.
UPDATE (October 19, 2007): County Attorney Andrew Thomas has announced that he has dropped the charges against New Times and dismissed special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik.
UPDATE (November 13, 2007): New Times ran an October 25 followup story.
UPDATE (October 28, 2008): It has come out that the order for Lacey and Larkin's arrest was given by Arpaio's chief deputy David Hendershott, whom Arpaio allowed to retire so he could receive a $43,000/year pension, and hired him back as a civilian at his same $120,000/year salary. Hendershott now makes $177,486/year working for Arpaio.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Altria's departure from NYC means loss of arts funding
Where the deer and the dog play
Bambi-Scruffy - The funniest videos clips are here
Proud atheists: Salon interview with Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein
(Hat tip to Wade Smith on the SKEPTIC list.)
Josh McDowell's conversion to Christianity
UPDATE (January 2, 2009): Vinny at You Call This Culture? notes that McDowell doesn't appear to have actually been converted to Christianity on the basis of evidence:
Commenting on the Hallquist post, self-identified Christian apologist Kevin H said that he had spoken with McDowell about the matter:Ed Babinski notes in comments on Vinny's blog post that Josh McDowell Ministries has, in response to queries, suggested that McDowell was not an atheist:He's the kind of guy who is amused at all that is said about him. I noticed
he was quick to correct falsehoods. For example, he told me that the evidence
for Christianity was a "foot in the door" that kept him from immediately closing
it. But it was the love of God that drew him. It seems he knows, whether his
fault or the fault of the swirling influence of his books and speaking tours,
that people have the conception that he was forced into faith by irresistable
arguments.His reading made him realize he could not initially write off Christianity from an intellectual standpoint. But it was a verse in Jeremiah that got to him: "I have loved you with an everlasting love". (Jer. 31:3).
So why would McDowell post statements like he does on his website? There is a big difference between "finding so much evidence you can only come to one conclusion" and "realizing you can't initially write off Christianity from an intellectual standpoint." My answer would be that McDowell knows what sells. McDowell knows that the story of an atheist overwhelmed by the evidence sells books and books speaking engagements, and probably most importantly to McDowell, it persuades unbelievers to accept Christ. The story of an atheist who merely gets his foot in the door is not nearly as dramatic. Story tellers tell their stories in the way that produces the desired effect.
RESPONSE TO SHARON (WHO ASKED A SIMILAR QUESTION) FROM JOSH MCDOWELL MINISTRIES
Dear Sharon, Josh says in his tract, "Skeptic's Quest," that he was looking for meaning and purpose in life. He had tried religion when he was young but could not find the answers he was searching for. What he did not know until he was in college was that it is a relationship with Jesus Christ, rather than religion, which gives meaning and purpose to life.
He does not use the word atheist in the tract, but set out to prove Christianity false. Instead of being able to do that, he came to the following three conclusions: Jesus Christ was who He said He was, there is historic evidence for the reliability of Scripture, and the Resurrection of Christ took place.
In His service,
Penny Woods
Josh McDowell Ministry
Monday, October 15, 2007
Yet another puppy found
When Kat got home from work and let the dogs out, she heard an additional dog barking in the backyard. It turned out to be this puppy, perhaps two months old, which somehow got into our fenced yard.
Internet Infidels social event
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Arizona Origins Science Association promotes long-discredited nonsense
Have you been taught or indoctrinated?
- Take a test
- View the answers
It's as if they've never seen the talk.origins website or the index of creationist claims.
The president of the group, Dr. Joseph M. Kezele, Jr., was previously mentioned on this blog as one of the five Darwin-denying doctors in Arizona who has signed on as a supporter of the anti-evolution "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity."
UPDATE: Of special interest on the Arizona Origins Science Association website are responses to surveys about creationism that they sent to various Arizona churches. I was quite pleased to see that many local churches have given responses that challenge AZOSA's young-earth creationism.
For example, the response from Dale Hallberg, Lead Pastor at Esperanza Lutheran Church, writes a comment on the statement "The Earth is relatively young (ten thousand or less years old)" (PDF) after marking it "D" for disagree: "Get serious!"
Fr. William K. Young of St. Christopher's Episcopal Church, in response to the statement "A person must accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior to be saved from eternal separation from God," marks it "D" and comments (PDF) "If so, God help us all!"
Dr. Roger Miller, interim pastor at the First Congregational United Church of Christ, added an entire page of comments (PDF) on the survey after he had viewed AZOSA's website, and writes (in part) that "Sadly, fundamentalism is, per solid research, a demonstration of limited cognitive complexity capacity. Your work, though spirited and apologetically well intentioned, shows both limited understanding of scripture and archaeology. As an M.D., I would hope you'd spend time working for universal healthcare and lower prescription drug costs and leave the theological work to those so trained and the science to those trained in their fields."
Nacchio says government punished Qwest for noncooperation on eavesdropping
The Bush administration is pushing for retroactive immunity to be granted to AT&T and Verizon for its participation in these unconstitutional programs by threatening to veto any surveillance bill that doesn't include such immunity. If the Democrats were smart, they'd go ahead and send him a surveillance bill without the immunity, and then criticize him when he vetoes it for taking action that is going to kill Americans.
CIA head investigates CIA Inspector General
Friday, October 12, 2007
The Enron whistleblower who wasn't
Greg Farrell at USA Today has done a great job of exposing Brewer's claims and how she has capitalized on being confused for Sherron Watkins, who really was an Enron executive whistleblower.
Brewer's web page at "Speaker's Spotlight" shows that she bills herself as "the" Enron whistleblower and is filled with misrepresentations:
Lynn Brewer's notoriety stems from her actions that have dubbed her "the Enron Whistleblower". Her accomplishments include: Author of Confessions of an Enron Executive: A Whistleblowers Story; Earning a Certification in Business Ethics from Colorado State University; Founder and President of The Integrity Institute, Inc., which assesses and certifies corporate integrity at the request of organizations for the benefit of their stakeholders.Notice that she doesn't give her actual title; her claim of being responsible for risk management as though she headed a risk management group is untrue. Her boss, Mary Solmonson, was a director, not an executive. Another boss, David Gossett, who reported to VP Mends, was also a director, not an executive.
Prior to joining Enron, Brewer worked in forensic accounting and spent 18 years as a legal professional in private practice, until she joined Ralston Purina, where she worked in Corporate Development for the General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer.
As an executive at Enron, Ms. Brewer was responsible for Risk Management in Energy Operations, the e-Commerce initiatives for Enron's water subsidiary, and Competitive Intelligence for Enron Broadband Services. Her responsibilities included financial derivatives and the now infamous "off-the-balance sheet" partnerships.
During her nearly three-year tenure, she witnessed numerous instances of illegal and corrupt dealings, including bank fraud, espionage, power price manipulation and the gross overstatements to the press, public and financial world. When her attempts to notify those inside Enron of her knowledge failed, she notified the United States government, who refused to return her e-mails and telephone calls.
Since leaving Enron, Lynn Brewer has become an internationally recognized speaker providing compelling details into Enron's rise and fall, leaving audiences shocked when they realize how vulnerable they are to becoming the next Enron. A past nominee for the “Women of Influence” Award, Brewer was selected in 2006 for inclusion in the 25th Silver Anniversary Edition of Who’s Who of American Women for her contributions to society.
I suspect we'll see more allegations and stories of deception by Brewer coming to light. I'd like to know if there's any substance to her claim to have experience in the field of forensic accounting prior to working at Enron. Her 18 years experience "as a legal professional in private practice" really means she worked as a paralegal (which was apparently her role at Enron).
Here's an interview transcript where she misrepresents herself from the get-go, answering the question "what was your role at Enron" with:
I was recruited about three years before the implosion of Enron, to head up a risk management group inside the legal department, that would brief, for senior management and the board of directors, these off the balance sheet partnerships at the centre of the scandal.She didn't head up a risk management group. She didn't brief senior management and the board of directors. She didn't report on the off balance sheet partnerships at the center of the scandal, she wrote summaries of gas and energy contracts for managers.
UPDATE (October 15, 2007): Lynn Brewer was known as EddieLynn Morgan (her maiden name) while she was at Enron, and her name appears in the "Enron corpus" of emails that were made public after the scandal. Studies of the Enron emails have been done to look at the web of interconnections between recipients, which show that EddieLynn Morgan was a very bit player--she is the recipient of a total of four emails in the corpus, and the author of none.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive 2007 Goldwater award
Rudy Giuliani's friends
A prominent Texas Republican has sued Rudy Giuliani’s law firm and a close friend and partner of Giuliani’s, Kenneth Caruso, alleging that Caruso, the firm and others “schemed and conspired to steal $10 million.”
J. Virgil Waggoner, a Houston businessman and philanthropist, filed the previously unreported suit in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan in July. He alleges that Caruso, his former lawyer, conspired with Waggoner’s investment adviser to cover up the disappearance of $10 million Waggoner invested through a Caribbean bank, the British Trade & Commerce Bank.
Waggoner claims Caruso “may have also been romantically involved” with the investment adviser.
Besides Caruso are at least the following:
* Giuliani inexplicably backed Bernie Kerik, and made him the city’s police commissioner, after he’d been briefed on Kerik’s organized crime connections.* Thomas Ravenel, the chairman of Giuliani’s presidential campaign in South Carolina, was indicted on cocaine distribution charges.
* Arthur Ravenel, the replacement chairman of Giuliani’s presidential campaign in South Carolina, has characterized the NAACP as the “National Association for Retarded People,” and has an unusual fondness for the Confederate battle flag.
* Alan Placa was accused by a grand jury report of sexually abusing children, as well as helping cover up the sexual abuse of children by other priests. Giuliani then put Placa, his life-long friend, on the payroll of Giuliani Partners. (Adds Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, which tracks suspected priest abuse, “I think Rudy Giuliani has to account for his friendship with a credibly accused child molester.”)
* Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), the family-values conservative caught up in a prostitution ring, was not only Giuliani’s top Senate backer, he was also the regional chairman of Giuliani’s campaign.
(Via Talking Points Memo.)
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Oral Roberts University scandal
The allegations are contained in a lawsuit filed Tuesday by three former professors. They sued ORU and Roberts, alleging they were wrongfully dismissed after reporting the school's involvement in a local political race.Richard Roberts, according to the suit, asked a professor in 2005 to use his students and university resources to aid a county commissioner's bid for Tulsa mayor. Such involvement would violate state and federal law because of the university's nonprofit status. Up to 50 students are alleged to have worked on the campaign.
The lawsuit's allegations include:
• A longtime maintenance employee was fired so that an underage male friend of Mrs. Roberts could have his position.
• Mrs. Roberts -- who is a member of the board of regents and is referred to as ORU's "first lady" on the university's Web site -- frequently had cell-phone bills of more than $800 per month, with hundreds of text messages sent between 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. to "underage males who had been provided phones at university expense."
• The university jet was used to take one daughter and several friends on a senior trip to Orlando, Fla., and the Bahamas. The $29,411 trip was billed to the ministry as an "evangelistic function of the president."
• Mrs. Roberts spent more than $39,000 at one Chico's clothing store alone in less than a year, and had other accounts in Texas and California. She also repeatedly said, "As long as I wear it once on TV, we can charge it off." The document cites inconsistencies in clothing purchases and actual usage on TV.
• Mrs. Roberts was given a white Lexus SUV and a red Mercedes convertible by ministry donors.
• University and ministry employees are regularly summoned to the Roberts' home to do the daughters' homework.
• The university and ministry maintain a stable of horses for exclusive use by the Roberts' children.
• The Roberts' home has been remodeled 11 times in the past 14 years.
Surprise! A televangelist and his family are using a ministry for personal gain.
UPDATE (October 9, 2007): The above allegations come from a report prepared by Stephanie Cantese, Richard Roberts' sister-in-law, which was on a laptop which was being repaired by an ORU student. The student gave a copy to one of the professors, who turned it over to the university board of regents.UPDATE (October 10, 2007): CNN reports that Roberts has denied (and in some cases, given explanations for) the allegations. (Thanks, Sphere, for the link to this post from the CNN story.)
UPDATE (October 14, 2007): The allegations in the lawsuit have become even more lurid.
Taner Edis on the generosity of the religious
I've previously offered some comments on evidence that conservatives and the religious are more generous than liberals and the secular and that believers are more generous than atheists. I'll add that I doubt that studies of charitable giving dig deep enough to uncover whether the giving is going to charities like these. Is it really being more generous if your charitable donations aren't being used to actually do good?
Friday, October 05, 2007
Sam Harris and the atheist label
So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.Myers rightly takes issue with this proposal. This quotation was the first thing I read from Harris' address on the SKEPTIC mailing list, and I wrote this in response before I read his entire talk:
I disagree with everybody who says there's only one way we should all be.But then, after reading Harris' entire speech, I amended this as follows:
I have no problem with there being atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, naturalists, skeptics, brights, humanists (secular or otherwise), rationalists, and people in the closet or under the radar.
Now that I've actually read his essay, I do strongly agree with him that "atheism is not a worldview." It is a small but significant component of a large set of possible worldviews.I should add to this that in my opinion, the term "freethinker" includes a subset of theists (I am in agreement with Jeff Lowder on this point, though, unlike Jeff, I believe I have met such people, though perhaps I have confused some kinds of fideists with freethinkers), and I welcome association with them.
I went to my first atheist meetup group meeting a couple of weeks ago, curious to see what it would be like. It was the first meeting of a group of people who have different ideas about what they want to do--some want to be political activists against the religious right. Some want to picket churches. Some want social events with like-minded people. I gave my endorsement for the last of these, and further suggested that they be as inclusive as possible to bring together people from other existing groups in the Phoenix area--skeptics, humanists, atheists, etc., as an informal network to have events and let people know of what other groups are doing. The megachurches succeed by creating a framework in which there are lots of little subgroups catering to a wide variety of interests, and a secular community should offer the same.
Harris' point that "Atheism is not a thing" is the same point I made to this group--it may be that the only thing we have in common is a lack of belief in God. If the group focuses on that, the meetings will be as entertaining as a meeting of people whose only commonality is disinterest in watching spectator sports, who get together to discuss their disinterest in watching spectator sports (or worse yet, watching spectator sports to comment on how stupid it is).
I have a preference for the term "skeptic" over "atheist" because I like the way it focuses the attention on method--doubt--rather than on doctrine--lack of belief in gods. If I were to find sufficient evidence for the existence of God, I would become a theist, but I would remain a skeptic. One of the most inspiring books I've read in the last couple of years was Jennifer Michael Hecht's Doubt: A History, because she shows that there is a very long tradition of doubters of the dominant religious views, and that even in cases where doubters are driven underground, doubt resurfaces again.
UPDATE (October 8, 2007): Sam Harris has responded to criticism here, and P.Z. Myers responds to that here. I agree with Myers.
UPDATE (October 9, 2007): P.Z. Myers comments on Sam Harris' references to an atheist "cult." Again, I agree with Myers here--the attributes of a cult are something like this or this. There can be atheist cults, but they need to exhibit those characteristics to deserve the name.
UPDATE (October 16, 2007): Chris Hallquist weighs in on the subject at the Internet Infidels website.
Comment for Angels book author's blog
Charles Manson claimed to levitate a school bus in order to get it to the group's hideout at Barker Ranch in Death Valley in 1968. His followers claim he did it, too.
We know the school bus got there, because it was still there until a few years ago. The terrain up Goler Canyon Road is very difficult even for four-wheel drive vehicles.
I don't believe Manson levitated the bus (or that there was a single tree that bore twelve kinds of fruit, one for each month of the year, at Barker Ranch, as he also claimed). Do you?
There are also numerous eyewitness reports of remarkable phenomena, including levitations, occurring at Spiritualist seances. However, the most exhaustively documented ones show that eyewitness testimony is at odds with what actually happened--a phenomenon that magicians are quite familiar with. If demonic activity results in such things as levitation, why is it not documentable through video recordings or testimony from witnesses trained in illusion and trickery?
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Angels and demons
Peter Williams' The Case for Angels is about…the theological rift between a Christian intelligentsia that increasingly regards angels only as figurative or literary devices, and the great mass of Christians who thankfully still regard them as real (a fact confirmed by popular polls, as Williams notes in this book). This rift was brought home to me at a conference I helped organize at Baylor University some years back. The conference was entitled 'The Nature of Nature' and focused on whether nature is self-contained or points beyond itself. The activity of angels in the world would clearly constitute on way nature points beyond itself.Can Dembski point to any genuine evidence supporting "the activity of angels in the world"? Does his "design inference" allow us to distinguish such claims from projection, pareidolia, wishful thinking, and delusion?Why is it important to know about angels? Why is it important to know about rocks and plants and animals? It's important because all of these are aspects of reality that impinge on us. The problem with the secular intelligentsia is that they deny those aspects of reality that are inconvenient to their world-picture. And since the intelligentsia are by definition intelligent (though rarely wise), they are able to rationalize away what they find inconvenient. This is what Bishop Sheen was getting at with the previous quote when he referred to the intelligentsia rationalizing evil, and this what Williams is so successful at unmasking in the intelligentsia's rejection of angels.
There exists an invisible world that is more real and weighty than our secular imaginations can fathom. I commend this book as a way of retraining our imaginations about that reality.
And Biola University philosophy professor and Discovery Institute Fellow J.P. Moreland on demons:
Recently, a hairdresser was arrested for performing cosmetic surgery on several “patients.” When this happens, the results are usually disastrous. Do fraudulent “surgeries” mean there are no legitimate cosmetic surgeries? Of course not.
Recently, a man and woman were caught trying to exorcise a demon from a little child in Arizona. The police found the three covered in blood inside a barricaded bedroom. The man died upon arrest. Do fraudulent, ignorant “exorcisms” imply that demons aren’t real and all exorcisms are bogus? You do the math.
A vast literature supports the reality of demons, and three criteria have been developed for distinguishing demonization from mere psychological trauma: (1) the universal presence of certain symptoms, including satisfaction of biblical criteria, along with responsiveness to the name of Jesus, all of which take place uniformly throughout the world, including cultures that know nothing about the Bible or Jesus; (2) the presence of supernatural power evidenced by such phenomena as moving material objects; (3) the revelation by the demon of detailed, private and embarrassing information about the exorcist in front of others that no human could have known.
These phenomena occur widely. In fact, in a recent alumni publication of the university at which I teach, the cover story featured faculty members—intellectually sophisticated professors with doctorates from top institutions—who have experienced such demonic phenomena. During an exorcism, one professor saw metal objects fly across the room. Another professor has seen this very sort of phenomena in his own condominium in conjunction with a demonized person moving in next door. During another exorcism, a different professor experienced the sort of embarrassment mentioned above. A demon accused him in front of the entire prayer team of specific sins that were detailed, including time and location. I know of others who have seen the same thing.
The fraudulent, crazy exorcisms are the only ones that get reported in the press, but don’t be fooled. The real thing is very different from the bogus ones.
It sounds like Moreland is inferring supernatural explanations for a combination of natural phenomena (perhaps a student accusing a professor of specific acts that had been observed, or phony poltergeist phenomena, usually caused by teenagers whose cleverness exceeds the observational skills of the adults they are fooling) and fabricated claims. Can Moreland even provide a reference for the faculty publication he refers to, let alone the "vast literature" that "supports the reality of demons" or the specifics of the criteria he mentions?
His analogy is bogus--we have ample evidence of real cosmetic surgery, including schools for it and doctors who can perform it on demand (for some cash). There is nothing of the sort for angels or demons, which are somehow resistant to the presence of cameras and skeptics.
UPDATE (October 5, 2007): The Pharyngula article linked from the J.P. Moreland quote above also links to a Biola University (Moreland's institution) article titled "Exorcising Our Demons: Many Evangelicals Are Too Skeptical of the Demonic" which includes this paragraph:Dr. Doug Hayward — a professor of anthropology and intercultural studies at Biola — team-teaches a spiritual warfare class with Arnold (New Testament) and Dr. John Kelley (psychology) — a class that considers theological and psychological explanations for people who believe they are under demonic attack. Over the years, Hayward has prayed with a number of such students. In rare cases, students have growled at him or become violent."People who believe they are under demonic attack" sounds like a class of people no different from "people who believe they are under the influence of CIA mind control devices" like Cathy O'Brien, "Brice Taylor" (Susan Ford) who are either delusional or simply lying. (I briefly discuss O'Brien and Taylor in this blog post on Kola Boof, who has made similarly outrageous claims minus the CIA mind control aspect.) There's a serious lack of skepticism problem here, not a "too skeptical" problem, and I don't expect we'll see these evangelicals make the slightest attempt to dig deeper or apply scientific methods of investigation.
Secret U.S. endorsement of severe interrogations
When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.
The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.
Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.
The above is just the first few paragraphs of the first of five pages in the Times. The article goes on to point out multiple instances of the White House saying one thing then secretly doing another, including re-opening CIA "black sites" for "enhanced interrogation techniques." The article ends with a quote from John D. Hutson, "the Navy's top lawyer from 1997 to 2000":
“The problem is, once you’ve got a legal opinion that says such a technique is O.K., what happens when one of our people is captured and they do it to him? How do we protest then?” he asked.The White House's tap-dancing response to this Times article can be found here.
Bob McCarty suppresses the truth
In response to this latter point, I posted a comment which pointed out that those two phrases don't support McCarty's case regarding the founding of the United States and that Jefferson, while a believer in God, did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. McCarty didn't approve my comment, so I posted again to see if it was intentional:
Bob: You didn't approve/publish my previous comment responding to your Sep. 15 comment. I'll try again.In my first pass at a comment, I also referred to the "Jefferson Bible," a version of the gospels which Jefferson produced by (in part) removing all of Jesus' miracles.
Your citation of "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" as evidence of the U.S. being founded on Christian principles shows your lack of research--the former did not appear on coins until 1854 and on currency until 1957. The phrase "under God" wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954.
I also suggested you read more of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, including his letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 10, 1787, in which he wrote "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
Oh, and I also recommended that you check out the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified by the Congress and signed by President John Adams, which contains the statement that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Tripoli violated the treaty and a new treaty was negotiated in 1805 without that language, but it is significant that both the Senate and President approved that language.
Once again, McCarty didn't approve the comments, demonstrating that he's intentionally suppressing refutation of his ignorant statements. It's his kind of dishonesty that can persuade people to believe that Christianity survives only by hiding from facts and promoting the view that "reason is the enemy of faith."
How much animal euthanization is unnecessary?
Tuesday's San Francisco Chronicle reports on the content of Nathan Winograd's Redemption: The Myth of Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America, a book which claims that there isn't a dog and cat overpopulation problem or lack of demand for them as pets, but that most animal control and animal shelter operations are simply not taking the most effective steps to care for their animals. Winograd's book and his organization, the No Kill Advocacy Center, argues that by using effective volunteer animal fostering programs and behavior rehabilitation programs, and partnering with local animal rescue groups, there should be no need to euthanize any healthy, adoptable animals. He's not just talking about it, he's successfully done it as director of operations for the San Francisco SPCA and for a rural animal shelter in upstate New York.
The No Kill Advocacy Center promotes the "No Kill Equation," a set of ten programs that it identifies as mandatory for any animal control or shelter operation to reduce euthanasia to a minimum:
I recommend reading the SF Chronicle's coverage of Winograd's book. If you're a supporter of your local animal shelters and animal control operations and they engage in euthanasia to make space for new animals, they deserve to be asked pointed questions about what they're doing along the lines of Winograd's recommendations.II. High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter
III. Rescue Groups
IV. Foster Care
V. Comprehensive Adoption Programs
VI. Pet Retention
VII. Medical and Behavior Rehabilitation
VIII. Public Relations/Community Involvement
IX. Volunteers
RESCUE, an organization that we volunteer for, is an organization committed to reducing euthanasia of dogs and cats by taking animals from the Maricopa County Animal Care and Control euthanasia lists and keeping them in foster homes or boarding until they can be adopted out to someone who's a good match for the pet based on the pet's behavior and adopter's lifestyle.
(Hat tip to Jack Kolb on the SKEPTIC list for posting the article about Winograd's book. Thanks, Jack.)
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
McCain hasn't read the Constitution?
A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?Apparently he, like Rep. Ron Paul, missed the fact that the only reference to God in the U.S. Constitution is the reference to the "year of our Lord" in the date. The Constitutional Convention voted not to open with prayers, Article VI says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," and the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.
The Constitution establishes a democratic republic with a strong separation of church and state by comparison to other nations. The Bible, by contrast, speaks of theocratic political systems with rule by priests and kings.
In 1797, the Senate unanimously ratified and President John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 of which began with the words "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." (This treaty was quickly violated by Tripoli, and the renegotiated treaty of 1805 did not contain this article, but the important point is that this language was approved by the entire Senate and the President in 1797.)
Higley school district official stops Shakespearean play in progress
The performance, by Windwood Theatricals of New York, was attended by students who chose to pay $5 for a voluntary field trip to see it at the Higley Center for the Performing Arts. Kissane interrupted it 40 minutes in, but declined to identify what specifically she found to be "inappropriate." She said that "I thought it was great for college-aged students ... I just thought it was over some of our kids' heads and it wasn't appropriate for our kids. If I'm going to err on the side of anything, I'm erring on the side of caution."
Erring on the side of stupidity, she should have said. So what if it was "over some of our kids' heads"? What about those who were getting something out of it? Why deprive those children on behalf of the lowest common denominator?
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Crucifolks, "Reason is the enemy of faith"
Reason is the enemy of faith, my friendMore on Moral Orel here.
A head that's filled with knowledge
soon is too bloated with its own weight
to fit through heaven's gate
So think with your heart
it's the only organ for salvation
think with your heart
don't deduce yourself to eternal damnation
think with your heart
'cause you know that the almighty sees us
think only with your heart
whoever heard of the bleeding brain of Jesus?
think only with your heart
UPDATE (October 4, 2007): The comments on this post got way off track from what this song is saying, with olvlzl riding his own hobbyhorses to the extent that I think he completely missed the point. When he says to me, "If you don't agree with the song lyrics, I'm glad to hear it," I can only wonder if he bothered to read them. The lyrics are parody, expressing an extreme Christian anti-intellectualism that sees not only education but reason itself as something evil and in opposition to faith that must be avoided at all costs. Of course I disagree with that, as does anyone who values reason. What makes it funny is the extreme to which it takes the view--but what makes it disturbing is that there are anti-intellectual Christians who see knowledge and attempting to seek it as evil practices. They are the sort who say that all the knowledge they need is in the Bible (and these are often the King James Version only sorts, as well), so there is no need to read anything else.
olvlzl, by contrast, is looking at the reverse position, that there is no need for faith. But that's not what the song is about, or what "Moral Orel" is about.
Onward Christian soldiers
Hall filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon and Welborn for injunctive relief to prevent such unconstitutional abuses.
In response to his lawsuit, Hall has been assaulted by fellow soldiers and threatened on blogs with being killed by friendly fire. (There have been some allegations, not substantiated to my knowledge, that Pat Tillman's death by friendly fire may have been the result of his outspoken atheism.)
Welborn, who was initially misidentified in the lawsuit as Paul Welbourne, was tracked down via his MySpace page, a visual monstrosity which says that he is a member of the "Department of Eternal Affairs," his primary occupation is "Bible Study," he has a Bachelor's Degree from Tennessee Temple University with a major in "Pers. Evangelism" and minor in "Biblical Worldview," and he attended Tara High School from 1976 to 1983. (In fairness to Welborn, the heading says that the school information is for "MAJ Freddy & HIS Girl," so the dates probably include "his girl"'s high school career along with his own, rather than indicating that he took seven years to get through high school.)
The U.S. military has had a serious problem with Christian evangelicals who don't understand what freedom of religion means. Earlier this year, the Pentagon Inspector General's office issued a report that officers who appeared in uniform in a recruiting video for Christian Embassy, a group that promotes Bible studies by senior government officials, violated military rules by doing so. Two years ago, evangelical Christians proselytizing at the Air Force Academy led to a review of the Air Force rule for chaplains which says that there can be no proselytizing those of other religious faiths, but it's perfectly acceptable to proselytize to "those who are not affiliated." A lawsuit against this evangelizing was thrown out of court last year, but the rule for chaplains with the double standard was revoked.
More on the Hall and Christian Embassy cases may be found at the Questionable Authority blog, as well as the links in this post.
UPDATE (March 7, 2008): Hall has updated his complaint to include a charge that he has had a promotion blocked because of his unwillingness to "put aside his personal convictions and pray with the troops."
UPDATE (July 10, 2008): The government has filed a motion to dismiss (at the last available moment to do so), arguing that Hall lacks standing to sue and did not take advantage of all available remedies within the military to pursue his complaint before suing.
UPDATE (April 26, 2008): The New York Times has now covered this story. (About time!)
UPDATE (April 28, 2008): Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars asks the question of why Hall had to be transferred out of Iraq for his own safety, rather than the commanding officers telling the troops to leave him alone or be punished.
UPDATE (October 18, 2008): Hall has withdrawn his lawsuit on the grounds that he will soon be out of the military and suspects the case will be dismissed for lack of standing once he's out. A second case filed by Dustin Chalker will continue.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
9/11 Truther returns to reality
Good for him.
I've yet to see a 9/11 Truther actually attempt to systematically address the content of any of the critiques, nor put together a scenario that even attempts to be a comprehensive explanation of the events leading up to and including the 9/11 attacks (such as the actions of Osama bin Laden and the hijackers, described in the 9/11 Commission Report, Gerald Posner's Why America Slept, James Bamford's A Pretext for War, and elsewhere). Instead, their methodology resembles that of creationists and Holocaust deniers--identifying apparent inconsistencies, and constructing a fantasy around them without any regard for the enormous collection of facts at hand. Their defense then becomes progressively more delusional attempts to explain away the contrary facts that they've not bothered to address.
The "Screw Loose Change" annotated version of the "Loose Change" 2nd edition video may be found here.
3D scanner made out of a webcam, Legos, and milk
(Hat tip to Dave Palmer on the SKEPTIC list.)
Friday, September 28, 2007
September's Fall
September's total was 2836 - well off from last month's high.
Something tells me, though, that this is not the start of a new trend downward, just yet.
Oh, I should note that I've changed the graph this month so that the vertical axis starts at zero instead of 400.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Liberty, security, and death
--Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Richard Jackson, motto on title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania, 1759 (often attributed to its publisher, Benjamin Franklin)
"And I hear from time to time people say, hey, wait a second. We have civil liberties we have to worry about. But don't forget, the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive, and that's what we're going to have to do."
--Mitt Romney, Republican presidential candidate debate, September 5, 2007
(Also see the Reason blog on "Civil Liberties Check-Up.")
Monday, September 24, 2007
Hacker finds vulnerability in Adobe Reader
Dave G. at the Matasano Chargen blog predicts that such attacks--targeting popular applications--will become more common. PDF in particular is a likely target due to its ubiquity and its complexity.
Instructor fired for saying Adam and Eve story shouldn't be taken literally
A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted.Even most Christians on the planet don't think that the Adam and Eve story is literally true, so it's hard to see why this would even be a controversial statement in a western civilization class. The quotes in the article from the school suggest that Bitterman was fired for something else (a "personnel issue"), but the firing immediately following the class with the student threatening legal action seems to support his account.
Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.
"I'm just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master's degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job," Bitterman said.
...
Bitterman said he called the story of Adam and Eve a "fairy tale" in a conversation with a student after the class and was told the students had threatened to see an attorney. He declined to identify any of the students in the class.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
Naomi Wolf on 10 steps to a fascist America
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law
Boston police arrest MIT student for blinking nametag
The Boston Globe's article says:
Catch that last part--the police might have killed her for wearing an LED nametag.Outside the terminal, Simpson was surrounded by police holding machine guns.
"She was immediately told to stop, to raise her hands, and not make any movement so we could observe all her movements to see if she was trying to trip any type of device," Pare said at a press conference at Logan. "There was obviously a concern that had she not followed the protocol ... we may have used deadly force."
AP and Information Week reported the device as a "fake bomb." It doesn't look at all like a fake bomb--if there was intent to do anything of the sort, I suspect it was to show how ridiculous the Boston authorities still are after the Mooninite scare. Would a jury decide that a reasonable person would think it was a bomb?
(Via Bruce Schneier's blog.)
UPDATE (September 21, 2007): I think this case is less absurd than the Mooninite one, where the devices were clearly professionally made to look like light-up cartoon characters. Questioning her was appropriate, but I don't think charging her was unless there is some evidence of intent to commit a hoax that hasn't yet been reported.
Bruce Schneier has previously reported a list of "terrorist dry run" items that TSA issued warnings about, in which each case actually had a valid explanation (though we still haven't seen what the explanation was for the "wire coil wrapped around a possible initiator, an electrical switch, batteries, three tubes and two blocks of cheese").
Odd, unexplained items are deserving of questioning and scrutiny, I think we can all agree.
UPDATE: Boing Boing has more details.
Who called the housing bubble and who didn't
Jane Galt (Megan McArdle) at Asymmetrical Information called it correctly, way back in January 2004.
I called it in September 2004, suggesting a drop in "the next year or two." The peak for Phoenix was in the fourth quarter of 2006, so I was pretty close, but I expected the drop to come a bit earlier than it actually did.
Economist Tyler Cowan was still in denial in April 2005.
In the June 2005 issue of Business Week, Frank Nothaft of Freddie Mac and James F. Smith of the Society of Industrial and Office Realtors said that the housing bubble was bunk and they saw no possibility of national price declines in the future. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research called it a bubble. Mike Englund of Action Economics fell somewhere in between, saying that "It's bubble behavior" but "not clear that the recent price gains in the housing market are a bubble."
Economist Edward Stringham told me he didn't think there was a housing bubble in November 2005.
Economist Greg Mankiw hinted that he thought there was a bubble in June 2006.
In the Fall 2007 issue of USAA Magazine, just delivered to my home yesterday, an article titled "Real (Estate) page turners" quotes "The Apprentice: Season 3" winner Kendra Todd, author of Risk and Grow Rich: How to Make Millions in Real Estate:
Ms. Todd disagrees with those who say there has been a bust for real estate. "What's dropped in some areas is market expectations more than market values," she argues.I think Ms. Todd should start working on her manuscript for Risk and Grow Poor: How to Lose Millions in Real Estate. Of course, I doubt she makes most of her income from real estate investing, rather than book sales and her hosting of HGTV's "My House Is Worth What?"
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Republican San Diego mayor signs resolution for gay marriage
"In order to be consistent with the position I took during the mayoral election, I intended to veto the council resolution. As late as yesterday afternoon, that was my position.(Via Donna Woodka's blog.)
"The arrival of the resolution -- to sign or veto -- in my office late last night forced me to reflect and search my soul for the right thing to do.
"I have decided to lead with my heart, which is probably obvious at the moment -- to do what I think is right, and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice. The right thing for me to do is sign this resolution.
"For three decades, I have worked to bring enlightenment, justice and equality to all parts of our community.
"As I reflected on the choices I had before me last night, I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage -- than anyone else -- simply because of their sexual orientation.
"A decision to veto this resolution would have been inconsistent with the values I have embraced over the past 30 years.
"I do believe that times have changed. And with changing time, and new life experiences, come different opinions. I think that's natural, and it's certainly true in my case.
"Two years ago, I believed that civil unions were a fair alternative. Those beliefs, in my case, have changed.
"The concept of a 'separate but equal' institution is not something I can support.
"I acknowledge that not all members of our community will agree or perhaps even understand my decision today.
"All I can offer them is that I am trying to do what I believe is right.
"I have close family members and friends who are a member of the gay and lesbian community. Those folks include my daughter Lisa, as well as members of my personal staff.
"I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones -- for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back; someone with whom they can grow old together and share life's experiences.
"And I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law. In the end, I couldn't look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationship -- their very lives -- were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife Rana. Thank you."
British bands banned from U.S. visits
Recently the band New Model Army, which has actually been around for decades, were denied visas to perform in San Francisco at the DNA Lounge.
I hope this doesn't happen to Sprint's WiMax plans...
(Also see Technology Liberation Front, which makes the same point.)
UPDATE (November 8, 2007): Sprint and Clearwire have scrapped a plan to jointly build out their WiMax networks, and it looks like Sprint may scale back its own WiMax plans, as well.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Moody's revises its housing price predictions
Now Moody's has issued a new report which claims the Phoenix housing market will see price declines of 17.8% between the second quarter of 2006 and the second quarter of 2008--they've doubled the percentage of drop for a time period that's three months shorter.
I'm guessing this will be closer to accurate--but still shy of the mark, unfortunately.
The report also predicts a drop of 11.7% for Tucson, lower than October's prediction of a 13.4% drop.
Lessons for information security from Multics
Karger and Schell were part of the Air Force "tiger team" that ran penetration attacks against Multics in the 1970s. They were successful, which ultimately led to a Multics security enhancement project, the result of which was that Multics was the first commercial operating system to obtain a B2 security rating from the National Computer Security Center. I played a small part in that project, fixing some bugs and helping to run tests of Multics' Trusted Computing Base (TCB).
Wilkinson critique of framing
Haidt’s research leads him to posit five psychological foundations of human moral sentiment, each with a distinct evolutionary history and function, which he labels harm, reciprocity, ingroup, hierarchy, and purity. While the five foundations are universal, cultures build upon each to varying degrees. Imagine five adjustable slides on a stereo equalizer that can be turned up or down to produce different balances of sound. An equalizer preset like “Show Tunes” will turn down the bass and “Hip Hop” will turn it up, but neither turn it off. Similarly, societies modulate the dimension of moral emotions differently, creating a distinctive cultural profile of moral feeling, judgment, and justification. If you’re a sharia devotee ready to stone adulterers and slaughter infidels, you have purity and ingroup pushed up to eleven. PETA members, who vibrate to the pain of other species, have turned ingroup way down and harm way up.Rather than recommend that liberals fake religiosity, he offers a different suggestion:
Democrats can try to appeal to religious American voters by giving some ground in the culture wars. But it seems unlikely they will find an effective balance. There is no point conceding stuff too trivial to really matter, such as school prayer, and comically pretending to be moved by the pure and the foul. And there is even less point in nominating religiously convincing candidates who really do believe embryos have the spark of divinity, that gay is gross, etc. Socialized health care isn’t worth it.Democrats should play to their own moral-emotional strengths, not apologize for not having different ones. Haidt’s early research on moralized disgust shows that its cultural manifestations vary. The Japanese apparently find it disgusting to fail their station and its duties. And here at home, formerly “repulsive” practices, such as interracial marriage, have become mere curiosities.
...
Democrats shouldn’t cater to and reinforce sensibilities that both hurt people and hurt the Democrats’ prospects. Religious doctrine and religious feeling can and have been trimmed and shaped over time to accommodate the full plurality of liberal society. Illiberal patterns of feeling bolstered by religious sentiments, like disgust for homosexuality, can be broken through slow desensitization, or a shift in the way the culture recruits that dimension of the moral sense. In dynamic commercial societies, this happens whether we want it to or not. But we have something to say about how it happens. The culture war is worth fighting, one episode of Will & Grace at a time, if that’s what it takes.
Liberals must understand the profundity to others of feelings that are weak in them, but shouldn’t pretend to feel what they don’t. They can lead as well as follow. And it remains true that all Americans, conservative and liberal alike, are wide awake to the liberal emotional dimensions of harm and reciprocity. The American culture war is about how thoroughly the liberal sentiments will be allowed to dominate. If a thoroughly liberal society is worth having, liberals will have to spot the points of conflict between the liberal and illiberal dimensions of the moral sense, drive in the wedge, and pull out all the rhetorical stops—including playing on feelings of quasi-religious elevation and indignant moral disgust—to make Americans feel the moral primacy of harm, autonomy, and rights. When the pattern of feeling is in place, the argument is easy to accept.
I find Wilkinson's reasoning to be sounder than Matt Nisbet's and Michael Shermer's.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Mirrors without glass
Photos and video at Engadget.
This reminds me of Julius Popp's Bitfall, which draws images with falling water drops.
How to avoid advancing the gay agenda
Ed writes that, if you want to avoid advancing the gay agenda, you have to avoid nearly every major airline and automobile manufacturer, major retailers, most consumer products, major financial institutions, major health insurance providers, most pharmaceuticals, and even most American beer brands. As commenters point out, even some of the exceptions he lists as possible candidates don't work (e.g., Volvo is currently owned by Ford, and K-Mart is owned by Sears, and both Ford and Sears scored 100 on the index). Commenters also point out that the major technology companies that make the Internet possible are high scorers, and that the most common piece of software on mail servers, sendmail, was developed by a gay man.
Read Ed's piece for his list, and don't miss the comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
