Archive for February 2009

NYT Makes its Entire Readership Spit Coffee at the Screen

Last afternoon, this was the cover image on the “New York Times” website:

An ugly, terrifying big picture of an ugly, terrifying little man. The premise, apparently, is that the Republican Party needs a Gingrich-like politician to reinvigorate the party, and the man himself is more than willing. To be sure, Gingrich is the right man for the job… but not why you think.

Gingrich embodies the anti-intellectual, hypocritical, catchprase-soaked Sarah Palin wing of the Republican Party. This is the man who tried to ride Bill Clinton out of town for marital infidelity, all the while carrying on with a young lady of his own; the man who invented the beguilingly over-simplifying “drill here, drill now”; and the man who spends his time (erroneously) mythologizing Ronald Reagan rather than coming up with new ideas. He won’t reinvigorate the GOP. Rather, he’ll evaluate the hole the party’s dug for itself, and happily tell them to keep digging. There’s almost no reason to think his experience fighting the last Democratic president has any application to fighting this one. Bill Clinton’s victory came on the heels of a (sadly) successful conservative revolution, a legacy that Gingrich kept alive and required Clinton to fight every step of the way. Gingrich then had a glorious recent conservative past to hearken back to, to sway moderates and enliven the base. Gingrich now has to look back twenty years to get the first glimmer of new blood in the party’s veins. It’s not an enviable place to be in, for sure, and there’s no sign that Gingrich has the wherewithal to turn it around.

So by all means, please, GOP, keep turning to Limbaugh & Gingrich. The rest of us will continue to live in 2008 the twenty-first century, thank you very much.

GOP Still Doesn’t Get It

I’ve been incidentally watching the festivities at CPAC, where conservative voters will shortly register their choice for the 2012 party favorite. By all accounts, as in previous years, CPAC is going to shoot far right of center: last year, they picked Romney far and away ahead of McCain, and in 1999, George W. Bush lost to super-homophobe Gary Bauer for being too liberal. What’s great to see, though, is that the few backwater sites that pass for the conservative “netroots” continue to push the party in that direction. “Red State,” the poor man’s “Kos,” is shocked and encouraged to see Mike Huckabee draw huge crowds… at a conservative event… and loudly begs RNC Chairman Michael Steele to kick the three Republicans who voted for Obama’s stimulus out of the party.

Yes, by all means. Kill the moderates. The GOP will only start winning again when they realize that the benchmark for success isn’t who makes Phyllis Schlafly smile: it’s who connects with the most Americans outside the CPAC hall. Oh, and please keep treating “Joe the Plumber” as a luminary.

Al-Marri to Get a Civilian Trial

For George W. Bush and “the terror presidency,” Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri was a guinea pig, the administration’s first crack at conjuring up a legal theory to justify indefinitely detaining suspicious individuals, without charges, on nothing more than a bureaucrat’s say-so (for more facts, see our old post here). Since 2003, Al-Marri has bounced between the federal criminal system and a naval brig in Charleston, in a deliberately-created state of legal limbo.

No longer. According to Fox News sources (take that for whatever you think it’s worth), Al-Marri will be shifted to the federal court system to be charged with material support of terrorism under 18 USC § 2339(A), which carries a maximum penalty of fifteen years and requires the government to prove that Al-Marri knowingly aided a terrorist individual. The operative part of the statute follows:

2339(A): Providing material support to terrorists.

(a) Offense.— Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out [various terrorist acts] or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.

No doubt Republicans will bristle at the prospect of having to (gasp!) prove Al-Marri’s guilt. But any practical concerns with the use of civilian trials – like fear of leaking classified evidence – have been long since answered. The far-right’s discomfort with the prospect of detained terrorists on American soil (which we’re sure to hear about if this news is accurate) is similarly ridiculous. We’re fine with trying serial killers on American soil, but not serial killers with a particular ideology? Come now.

This is a victory for civil rights, constitutionalism, the rule of law… and those Democrats like myself who trusted President Obama to take a progressive, rational, center-left approach to the war on terror. This might even shut up those creationists of the left, the PUMAs, but don’t count on it.

P.S.: You heard it here first second, after Volokh (thanks Steve!).

Karl Rove is STILL a Jerk

In a recent op-ed, Karl Rove accuses President Obama of “ascrib[ing] to others views they don’t espouse.” While I don’t debate the fact that Obama uses the occasional rhetorical flourish, Rove seems to take these flourishes as “straw man” attacks against the Republican Party, which is not quite right. A case in point:

In his inaugural address — which was generally graceful toward the opposition — Mr. Obama proclaimed, “We have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.” Which Republican ran against him on fear, conflict and discord?

This isn’t a straw man. A straw man generally lacks any basis in fact. Obama’s rhetorical twist here is a characterization of Bush’s culture war rhetoric: a fairly negative one at that, but it’s not coming straight out of left field. Rove may object to the characterization, but 50%+ of Americans seem to think it’s spot on.

Further, if Rove is to read the term “straw men” broadly, and condemn poetic exaggeration, he’s disingenously omitting his own history with the same tactic. Recall how, with Rove’s help, John Kerry somehow became a Vietcong sympathizer for opposing the Vietnam War; how gay marriage became a dangerous threat to the American way of life (which Rove himself can’t even explain); how “liberals” were somehow opposed to the war against the Taliban, despite voting for it; and how questioning Bush’s tactics in the war on terror became “un-American.” If Obama does “ascribe to others views they don’t espouse,” he’s got a long way to go to catch up to the master.

At least Rove closes his article honestly:

Continually characterizing those who disagree with you in a fundamentally dishonest way can be the sign of a person who lacks confidence in the merits of his ideas.

Right back at you, buddy.

Updates on Conservapedia, Futurama, and Lost

Conservapedia: Andy Schlafly WILL seek state funding to provide Supplemental Education Services, and plans to submit his application today. I have an e-mail in to the New Jersey Department of Education asking where to send my list of “recommended reading” on Schlafly. I’ll update when (if) I hear back.

Futurama: one of my favorite shows, canceled a while back by Fox (a surefire sign of its greatness), just put out its last of four planned straight-to-DVD movies. Of the three already out, two were great, and this recent release (“Into the Wild Green Yonder”) has gotten great reviews. Without being able to verify that report (yet), I recommend you BUY IT anyways: apparently, stellar DVD sales have prompted Fox to at least open dialogue with Matt Groening over the possibility of a formal Futurama season six. In other words, $30 buys you a probably-good DVD and a “yes” vote for Futurama’s… umm… future.

Lost: tonight’s episode focuses on John Locke (aka “Jeremy Bentham”), and owing to its subject matter, will go a long way towards proving or disproving my theory that the show has gotten a little preachy.

O’ Sweet, Elusive Reality: Jindal Speaks

This world view is the least of Jindal's problems.

If you didn’t watch last night, you have probably heard this morning that Bobby Jindal’s response to Obama’s sort-of-a-state-of-the-union speech last night was a remix of conservative “greatest hits,” the same points raised over the last month by Republicans in Congress in debate of the stimulus bill.

Echoing the substance of Congressional Republicans’ plan for the stimulus bill, Jindal said this about his efforts to grow Louisiana’s economy:

To create jobs for our citizens, we cut taxes six times, including the largest income tax cut in the history of our state. We passed those tax cuts with bipartisan majorities.

Sounds pretty good, eh? I went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics to see what’s happened to unemployment in Louisiana since Jindal assumed office in January 2008. Jindal’s administration inherited an unemployment rate of 4.0%. At the end of December 2008, preliminary data indicate Louisiana’s unemployment rate was 5.9%. Usually, when jobs are created, the unemployment rate does not rise. While the state’s total civilian labor force (employed+unemployed) increased by 2.4%, the number of unemployed increased 53%.

For comparison, I looked at the first year of Jindal’s predecessor’s term. Kathleen Blanco, a Democrat, assumed office in January 2004, when the state’s unemployment rate stood at 5.8%. By December 2004, Louisiana’s unemployment rate was 5.2%. During 2004, the labor force grew by 1.3%, and the number of unemployed decreased by 8.5%.

Looking at the 20 months Blanco was governor prior to Katrina (January 2004 through August 2005), the unemployment rate went from 5.8% to 5.0%. The size of the labor force grew 2.3%, and the number of unemployed decreased 1.3%.

Here is a plot of the BLS data on Louisiana:

Click to enlarge.

The kindest, most generous analysis of Louisiana’s employment statistics indicates Jindal’s tax cuts have not yet been effective in creating jobs. In the meantime, the governor has, with great righteousness, refused $98.4 million in unemployment benefits to assist the growing number of his out-of-work constituents.

Beyond extolling Republican acumen for solving economic problems, Jindal talked about the dangers of big government:

[Sheriff Harry Lee] told me that he put out a call for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who were trapped on their rooftops by the floodwaters. The boats were all lined up and ready to go. And then some bureaucrat showed up and told him they couldn’t go out in the water unless they had proof of insurance and registration.

And I told him, “Sheriff, that’s ridiculous.” Before I knew it, he was yelling in the phone. “Congressman Jindal’s here, and he says you can come and arrest him, too.” Well, Harry just told those boaters ignore the bureaucrats and go start rescuing people.

 
It almost goes without saying … almost … but who can forget whose federal administration was in charge during Katrina?

Finally, Jindal referenced “$8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a magnetic levitation line from Las Vegas to Disneyland.” According to the Department of Transportation, there are 10 designated high-speed rail corridors. None of these links any part of Southern California with any part of Nevada. Interestingly, though, New Orleans is the planned hub of the Gulf Coast corridor. New Orleans would directly link to Houston, Mobile (AL), and Meridian (MS), and the Gulf Coast corridor connects with the Southeast corridor, including connections to Atlanta, Charlotte and Raleigh (NC), and Washington, D.C. Of course, $8 billion is not enough to fully realize high-speed rail in this country, but it is a start to developing an environmentally sound alternative to passenger-car and air travel.

And if there were a rail connection between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, so what? Anyone who has made the drive knows how congested and dangerous the 15 freeway is. Further, Nevada does not have a state income tax; it relies on gaming funds to fill much of its coffers. Well, gaming revenue is down. Why shouldn’t Nevada have an opportunity to shore up its economy, even if the state is home to Harry Reid? The stimulus is for every one, and it can take many forms.

Bottom line: Jindal flopped … unless, of course, we don’t consider reality … things like facts … In that case, Jindal spun a yarn, kinda like the one your great-aunt Esther retells at every family reunion. Woe to you if she catches you for her audience.

Religious “Science,” and the Valorizing of Error

In the perennial culture war conflicts between real science, and religious attempts to defend dogma with fake science, falsifiability is the obvious (and frequent) thorn in religion’s side. If science is to have any meaning or applicability in the real world, it must be subject to testing, to be proved right, or wrong. Because religion finds whatever validity it has outside of the natural world, it can never rise to this challenge: no matter how comforting it may be, “God tells us so” is not a scientifically useful explanation. To the responsible scientist, then, falsification is useful, if disappointing. But even in the best of times, for the religious, trial through falsification is either irrelevant, heretical, or (sometimes) both.

In the worst of times, though, falsification and controversy become proof that the falsified or controversial ideas are correct, and beyond dispute. Take the Catholic doctrine of the “sign of contradiction,” which reads controversy against a “holy” individual or idea as confirmation of its divinity. Under this theory – for example – the fact that non-Catholics disagree with the idea that the fetus is fully human (and that abortion is therefore evil), means that the fetus is a sign of contradiction and therefore unassailably human. Similarly, when the Vatican was deciding whether to beatify Mother Theresa (now “Blessed Theresa of Calcutta”), criticism by secular luminary Christopher Hitchens only proved her blessed nature. Dissent bootstraps holiness into irrefutable holiness.

Now – though I know some of my liberal/agnostic peers on the internets will disagree – I have the utmost respect for Catholicism. But doctrines like the “sign of contradiction” work to subvert rational discourse, replacing reason with a persecution complex run amok. You may disagree with this assessment. But that just goes to show you, I’m right.

Top GOP Contenders for 2012 All Creationists

Recently, “Politico” has begun referring to a triumvirate of Republican governors – Bobby Jindal (LA), Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), and Mark Sanford (SC) – as the presumptive front-runners for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. Bad news? They’re all creationists – and at least in Jindal’s case, empty suits built for grandstanding, not deep thought.

Let’s try to forget Sarah Palin for the moment: you all know how I feel.

Though I bleed Democratic blue, the country needs a meaningful, intelligent conservative party. None of the candidates above will bring that “change.” Even though I’m sure to disagree with them, I want to respect the GOP again. Apparently I’ll have to wait more than four years.

Obama Ratings High, But Caution Advised

There’s nothing wrong with circumspection. Caution is my default filter. Eight years of W. and Darth Cheney, war, a turbulent election, and an economic crisis have honed my processing and investigative skills. Of course, there are no Pulitzer or Dick-Tracy-private-eye awards on my horizon, but I can safely say I keep myself pretty well informed.

And so here, 36 days into an Obama presidency, why do I feel so gosh-darned wary of what is to come?

My scale tips in favor of Obama and his Administration’s handling of the economy. Yes, I believe the stimulus bill is insufficient and relies too heavily on tax cuts. I believe ailing big banks need to be nationalized, er, yesterday (and it looks like they just might be). I make no secret that I like what Krugman has to say. Nonetheless, I give Obama a 7 out of 10 for the tone he has set and the legislation passed in this short time. While many Americans might not agree with my leftist-socialist-pinko fantasies for a utopian society, they do agree with my assessment of Obama. According to a recent NYT-CBS poll:

• 63% of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of his job as president and (57%) of the economy.
• 74% believe Obama and Congressional Democrats (45%) are reaching out to Republicans. (Only 31% feel Republicans are trying to work with Obama.)
• 91% believe the economy is either “fairly” or “very bad.”
• 77% feel optimistic about the next four years under Obama.
• 70% believe it will take at least two years “to make real progress on fixing the nation’s economy.”

Essentially, Obama has the good will, faith, and patience of Americans.

Yet, caution is in order.

Find out why after the jump.

Continue reading »

Is ABC’s “Lost” Becoming a Conduit for Pseudoscience and Proselytization?

Fantasy and science fiction are all well and good as art forms: as I’ve argued previously, the distance from reality both genres create allows for a certain objective analysis, permitting renewed and unencumbered evaluation of our world and all of its peculiarities. In this model, “magic,” advanced technology, etc., are all literary devices for creating the requisite distance, and changing the human condition to maximize or minimize various issues. The art form breaks down, though, when the artist asserts that the imaginary conditions present in the imagined world actually exist in our world: for example, no-one would fault Gene Roddenberry for dreaming up warp drive, but they might look at him a little askance if he tried to give a lecture at MIT about the effects of the Bajoran wormhole on subspace.

This was the problem with M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Happening”: he created a universe where (for whatever reason), the laws of physics didn’t seem to apply, but used this universe to argue that, in the real world, science is similarly insufficient to explain natural phenomena. He turned a nice story (I suppose) into a vehicle for pitching the same mysticism joyfully used by creationists to tear down public respect for science. Not cool, man (and PZ Myers agrees!). It’s also the problem with C.S. Lewis’ famous Chronicles of Narnia – and what separates Lewis from his contemporaries like J.R.R. Tolkien, who openly spurned allegory: because the hand of the author is so present, crafting the religious allegory to guide the reader to Christianity, the storytelling suffers.

Sadly, there’s reason to fear that ABC’s hit show “Lost” – a personal favorite of mine – is about to similarly jump the tracks from an enjoyable mystery/horror/fantasy into the realm of proselytizing bad science… or religion.

Warning: remainder of post contains spoilers regarding the 18 Feb. 2009 episode of “Lost”: Continue reading »