Locus Medius

Someone doesn't love the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

John Rennie, the editor-in-chief of Scientific American, has posted a blog entry asking the question:

Ladies and gentlemen, does it make me a bad person if I don't love the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

This is actually an important discussion because as John points out

... The FSM makes me smile. It's good pointed satire in service to an important cause, and it drills home what's wrong with the dumb arguments that I.D. should be taught as an alternative to evolution out of "fairness." ...

But my misgivings are essentially the same ones that I have about the famous Darwin fish insignia: the FSM may antagonize many religious people to whom it registers primarily as a slap at their faith, not at I.D.

Is the humorous, but snide, Flying Spaghetti Monster widening the divide between religion and science?

Haven't seen a lot of Nutjobs pick up on this one

The Washington Post reports that the satellite phone leak mentioned by President Bush in his December 19th press conference, is nothing more than urban myth.

The al Qaeda leader's communication to aides via satellite phone had already been reported in 1996 -- and the source of the information was another government, the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan at the time.

The second time a news organization reported on the satellite phone, the source was bin Laden himself.

Causal effects are hard to prove, but other factors could have persuaded bin Laden to turn off his satellite phone in August 1998. A day earlier, the United States had fired dozens of cruise missiles at his training camps, missing him by hours.

Another interesting fact is that the cited article

buried the information about his satellite phone in the 21st paragraph. It never said that the United States was listening in on bin Laden, as the president alleged. [emphasis added]

Unfortunately, in a related article, the Washington Post reports that the Nutjobs are using this fake leak to justify cracking down on the media:

"Were it not for a leak, there is a chance we could have brought Osama bin Laden to justice by now and have a better understanding of the al Qaeda operation," said [Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich], who is considering legislation to make it easier to prosecute leakers.

A spokesman for Hoekstra did not return a call seeking comment.

Hoekstra has distributed to lawmakers a classified report on leaks compiled by James B. Bruce, vice chairman of the CIA's Foreign Denial and Deception Committee, and a leading advocate of enacting very tough laws on leaks. In 2002, Bruce was quoted as saying that "we've got to do whatever it takes -- if it takes sending SWAT teams into journalists' homes -- to stop these leaks."

Does it bother anyone else to hear of a high-level CIA staffer talking about sending SWAT teams into journalists' homes?

Does it bother anyone else that the President uses an untrue story to justify a signals intelligence program of questionable legality?

Does it bother anyone else that yet again, Sissies can see no justification for the wiretapping program (do the words "failure to connect the dots" mean anything to anyone?) while Nutjobs support any expansion of federal powers, as long as its a Nutjob doing it (haven't heard the term "jack booted thugs" bandied about much since ... oh ... January 20, 2001)?

Yet another legitimate debate between personal rights and national security is being hijacked by partisan politics. Is that the way to get the best result on the ground? Or the best result in the booth? Unfortunately, most of our politicos are more interested in results in the booth.

Oh, I didn't mean Us ...

I first thought of this as soon as I heard Bush's December 19th press conference, but I didn't have my blog up then.

The head Nutjob said:

... And then the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak.

And guess what happened. Osama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to change how he communicated.

We're at war. And we must protect America's secrets. ...

You mean like the identities of CIA agents??

Can you imagine if a Sissy administration leaked a CIA agent's name for purely political purposes. We'd never hear the end of it. We'd hear snide refrences to it all the time. Where has the Nutjob outrage been?

:crickets:

What are Sissies condemning us to?

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

            -- George Santayana

What do Sissies like John Murtha think they're doing? Didn't they learn what happens when you leave an Islamic state in a condition of anarchy and sectarian violence?

Oh, apparently the only reason there is violence is because we are there. Poppycock!

Yeah, only the left lies ... [rolls his eyes in exasperation]

Murdoc is probably the blogger I read the most. In fact, if there is a blog that influenced my decision to start blogging it is his. [Yes, Murdoc, I'm the "Chuck" that occassionally posts in your comments — expect trackbacks from now on. :) ]  Mostly I read him because of his military coverage. His political posts often fall into partisan myopia, like in this post where he asks why "virtually all of the total crock stories are anti-Bush/War".

Hmmm, I seem to remember some pretty important "total crock" stories from the other side ...

[BTW, Murdoc, you don't seem to have permalinks. Makes it a little harder to reference your posts.]

Rick Santorum — "Soylent Green is People?"

Intelligent design is religious? Soylent Green is people? Everyone loves Jell-o? What else does Senator Rick Santorum not know?

Santorum, perhaps the biggest Nutjob of them all, recently announced he was resigning from the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center — the "Christian Answer to the ACLU" which defended the Dover Area School Board of Directors in their recently lost case regarding the teaching of intelligent design in the science classroom.

Santorum stated "I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did."

Santorum also indicated that "he was troubled by court testimony that showed some board members were motivated by religion in adopting the policy."

Um, HELLO! He didn't realize that intelligent design is fundamentally religious? He's either an idiot or a bald faced liar. I'll leave it to the reader to figure out which one I think.

The Philadelphia Inquirer notes:

In a 2002 Washington Times op-ed, Santorum wrote: "Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."

But in recent interviews, including one in August on National Public Radio, Santorum said: "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."

The Moderate Voice has given Santorum its coveted Plastic Wrap Political Transparency of the Year Award 2005 — "A politico who earns it must demonstrate an ability to twist a political position so abruptly and sharply that he/she/it could win a retro twist contest."

Americablog makes the extremely valid points that "If you're going to be a fundy, at least the have the balls to admit it" and "If you think you represent the majority of the country then why are you so damned afraid to admit your views and stand behind them publicly?"

Bush's Wiretapping — Legal?

I have yet to formulate my own opinion on the wiretapping debate. Do we expect our overseas communications to be secret from our government? Secret from other governments? Don't we already expect our persons and packages might be searched at any border crossing? Is the secrecy of our overseas communications more important than the government's ability to track potential terrorist communications?

Opinio Juris has an interesting analysis of the legal framework (as opposed to ethical framework) of the wiretapping controversy.

Scott Adams — Insightful As Always

I found this paragraph from a longer post at Scott Adams' Dilbert Blog to be both hilarious and insightful:

I think more religions should require clothing that conceals your defects. Then you could pick your faith based on what’s wrong with you. The Nosatarians would require a nose glove for people with ugly schnozzes. People with large butts could join religions that require you to tie a sweater to your waist. And people who are spectacularly gullible could wear explosive belts.

Jefferson's Wall Still Stands

In October 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a letter to the President of the United States describing their concern that “what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights”. They acknowledged his powerlessness to affect the laws of Connecticut, but hoped that his sentiments would “shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth”. In his 1802 reply, which has indeed shined and prevailed through the years, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

On Wednesday, December 21, 2005 U.S. District Judge John E. Jones, III affirmed that Jefferson’s wall yet stands, ruling that the Dover, Pennsylvania school board's Intelligent Design (ID) policy fails to pass constitutional muster, violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

This ruling should be applauded by everyone along the political spectrum. There is no place in our society for government to teach religious dogma to our children. It is for each child’s parents alone to decide what religious ideas to teach their children.