« January 2009 | Main | March 2009 »
February 26, 2009
February 20, 2009
Thanks But No Thanks, Discovery Institute
A evolutionary biology professor at the University of Vermont, Nicholas Gotelli, got an invitation to debate one of the pushers of "intelligent design" at the Discovery Institute. Whatever your faith (or non faith), it is a fact that "intelligent design" is a dishonest framing of creationism as real scientific theory to score political points. Instead of placating the pseudo-scientist movement as many seem willing to do, he gave what I thought was a far more useful and blunt response:
" Dear Dr. Klinghoffer:As a telecom beat writer, I deal with the Discovery Institute on a different topic: the "exaflood." The Exaflood is a term coined by Discovery that suggests there's an unstoppable surge in bandwidth demand that cannot be resolved unless you give the nation's largest telecom carriers whatever they want (be it less regulation, tax breaks, subsidies). It's as equally un-scientific as ID (a fabricated pseudo-scientific point constructed to win political fights for the Institute's paying clients), but like ID, unfortunately tends to pop up all too often as a legitimate debate instead of the fabricated pile of steaming otter shit that it really is, largely because there's not enough people willing to stand up and call a spade a spade.Thank you for this interesting and courteous invitation to set up a debate about evolution and creationism (which includes its more recent relabeling as "intelligent design") with a speaker from the Discovery Institute. Your invitation is quite surprising, given the sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you yourself posted on the Discovery Institute's website:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/
However, this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what the scientific community has come to expect from the creationists.
Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.
Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren't members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.
"Conspiracy" is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. Creationism doesn't live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don't maintain scientific standards.
Finally, isn't it sort of pathetic that your large, well-funded institute must scrape around, panhandling for a seminar invitation at a little university in northern New England? Practicing scientists receive frequent invitations to speak in science departments around the world, often on controversial and novel topics. If creationists actually published some legitimate science, they would receive such invitations as well.
So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn't science and doesn't merit an invitation.
In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation and for your posting on the Discovery Institute Website. As an evolutionary biologist, I can't tell you what a badge of honor this is. My colleagues will be envious.
Sincerely yours,
Nick Gotelli
P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching."
Religion is not science. The Discovery Institute is in the business of public relations, not science. People need to start distinguishing these differences bluntly and brutally.
February 19, 2009
The Man Has A Point
Atrios from Eschaton
"I think all discussions about contemporary journalism are somewhat problematic because news organizations are profit making businesses that also convey the impression that they are important civic institutions that live up to a variety of ethical standards and norms of journalistic responsibility. The thing is, you just have to be a significantly large and important enough organization and you can effectively declare that you embrace these norms without ever being entirely clear about what they are or bothering to try to live up to them. So Politico becomes a serious responsible news outlet simply because it says it is.The shit's entertainment, yo. The truth is big business.Greed is a defense, but it doesn't mean the rest of us have to treat them with any respect.
February 18, 2009
The Heartland Institute
One of the more greasy corporate-funded propaganda outfits I deal with in writing about the telecom sector is the Heartland Institute. Like countless other modern think tanks, they take cash donations from companies, hide their funding, then spew pseudo-scientific drivel into the national discourse for their clients. Their past efforts have included taking tobacco industry cash, then arguing that smoking-related health concerns are based on "junk science," while pretending to be protecting human rights.
Given we're a nation of morons, their tactics are very effective in placing seeds of doubt in the minds of sheople everywhere. The tactics and wording differ depending on the industry they're working for, but the message remains the same: government regulation of ANY kind kills innocent puppies, and WHOLESOME AMERICAN CORPORATIONS (TM) do absolutely nothing wrong. Ever.
They're a real high quality cabal, and as Bill Hicks would have said, I'm sure they sleep like babies.
This is their latest piece of drivel, taking aim at global warming: which we all clearly know was made up by Hollywood celebrities and hippies because they're just mean:
February 17, 2009
Flooded McDonalds
Flooded McDonald's from Superflex on Vimeo.
Leon "Tes One" Bedore
Leon Bedore gallery (aka "Tes One")
February 13, 2009
Space Tiger
Yeah, ok. Sometimes I'm easily amused.
The Evils Of Masturbation
This website is a bit of a treat, but the testimonials are particularly entertaining. Well, I guess not entertaining for those who suffer from the evil societal menace that is masturbation, but fairly amusing for the rest of us.
"You cured thousands of people from one of the greatest evils of all time. I am one of these thousands, having suffered from masturbation for the last 12 years. My family and friends saw the big difference in me, I saw the difference in me."Yes. You're even fucking crazier.
And sixty-seven dollars poorer, which is what the "cure" costs. Ironic, maybe, given that con-men could technically be considered one of the "greatest evils of all time."
What I find curious is that several of the people complain about what an epic time killer masturbation is, which makes me wonder precisely the depth of fervor they dedicated to this perceived malady.
27b/6
I've been enjoying this website, and not just because the creator is obviously (at least to fans of Terry Gilliam's Brazil) a huge Brazil fan, and a dedicated employee of Information Retrieval.
From an explanation of why monkeys would be nice to have:
"Obviously having your own monkey would be fantastic for a whole host of reasons but as they are quite intelligent yet unable to speak, they have the advantage of learning very quickly through beatings while being unable to tell anyone."
Ron Paul: What If?
I think the guy's positions, if taken to full conclusion, get a little bit absurd (the abolition of most government functionality), but it's not hard to see why he's so loved.
Why, you could almost begin considering him a viable leader, until you realize he's got the traditional evangelical hangups over things like, well, science.
February 11, 2009
Bush Song, By Henry Hey
This is bleedin' brilliant.
February 10, 2009
9 Trailer
Conspiracy Theory Rock
February 09, 2009
Hard Headed Woman
Very, Very Intense
Thomas Mangold
From: Thomas Mangold