Damn, what a lot of news!

So, to cover some local stuff, it seems there's a vigilante in Bellingham. According to this story, someone posing as an FBI agent stopped by the apartment of two level 3 sex offenders. When their third roommate came back several hours later, they were both dead and the "agent" was long gone. The Bellingham police chief has suggested in might be a vigilante. Gosh, ya think?

Now there's some talk whether the sex offender database puts them in danger. Well, it would seem that putting any person's home address on the internet puts them in danger, especially when they've done something that 99.99% of society thinks is the worst thing a human could do. These are extremely unpopular people, who normally peaceful people openly wish violence and death upon - sounds like they're in danger to me! It's a pickle. Seems like you could split the difference and list their general area - like "George Spittle, level 3, lives between 8th and 10th Street and Cedar and Pine Avenues". So neighborhood folks can know he's there, but random nuts can't just drive up to their house. Who knows what the answer is.

Let's see, what else...oh yeah, there was a hurricane. Not much to say that everyone else hasn't said 28 times. No matter what FEMA says, I think it's unclear at this point whether New Orleans will be rebuilt at all. And we haven't even got a tally of the little communities that just washed out into the ocean. It'll be months before we even have a final death toll. Very sad. My idea for N'awlins: Build a new city next door (it'll cost about the same anyway), clean up the water, and turn the old city into an underwater tourist attraction - complete with dive tours and glass-bottom boats.

And finally, more tragedy in Iraq: 648 lives lost in a human stampede. Thanks to the abortion of a war and the conditions it's created, someone was able to shout that there was a suicide bomber while a million Shia pilgrims were marching to a holy site. They panicked, and people got trampled or fell in the river and drowned. 648 people died, with no actual bomber - just the threat of one. This is what terrorism is intented to do; cause loss of life without use of resources. Thanks to George Bush, Iraq is fully controlled by these people now.

Discovery Institute losing scientists?

Meet Bob Davidson, 78 year old Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, a devout believer in evolution and member of the First Presbyterian Church.

Oh, he's also listed on the Discovery Institute's list of "400 people with scientific degrees...who are said to doubt the 'central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution.'"

It turns out, Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat contacted Mr. Davidson and asked him about this. Here's what Mr. Davidson has to say:

"I'm kind of embarrassed that I ever got involved with this," Davidson says.

He was shocked, he says, when he saw the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a "theory in crisis."

"It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," he says. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it."

And reality sets in:

"It just clicked with me that this whole movement is wrongheaded on all counts," Davidson said. "It's a misuse of science, and a misuse of religion.

"Why can't we just keep the two separate?"

Indeed...why can't we?

More on intelligent design/evolution

So I've been thinking about this a lot. ID is in the news, as the creationist Roundheads seek to keep our children stupid by teaching non-science in the science classroom and force teachers to "disclose" that many overly religious people don't believe in evolution, and that some scientists don't agree about all the details in evolution. Perhaps science teachers can just dedicate two weeks per year to "disclosing" all the many, many disagreements scientists have relating to how everything works, just so the kids will be unable to discern what's true and what's crazy-ass crazy. Oh, and we should always give equal billing to 95% of the scientific community and the 5% that are crackpot - just to teach the debate!

Anyhoo, now that I'm briefly done railing about that...it's entirely possible that I'm too dense myself to get all the nuance here, but there is an aspect of this debate that seems so obvious, but I never hear anyone mention it. It's the 'incomplete' nature of evolution.

Roundheads point to things like the appendix and cry "aha!". If evolution rids us of that which is unnecessary and passes on those traits which make us more likely to survive, why would we have something like an appendix, or tonsils?

Of course, one response is if God made us in his image, and God is perfect, why would we have something like an appendix or tonsils? There is an argument that life is so messy and we have useless things that require evolution as the only explanation. Both are fun, but what about the obvious?

WE'RE NOT DONE. We are not the finished product. There is no "aha!" moment here - we have an appendix because we're in between the humans that needed it and the humans that don't have it. Why, even among scientists, is it assumed that we're the final species in the homo genus? Evolution didn't stop when we appeared, it just keeps right on going. You see it in insects all the time. Hell, it's rarely pointed out, but our species is getting taller. But what makes us think that we're not 15,000 years from seeing a new branch of human, homo sapiens excellente or some such? I think the only thing that might stunt our evolution is our brain - we've gotten smart enough to effect medical solutions to many of the traits that would normally assist in natural selection; so weak, stupid or unattractive people can continue to reproduce, and it's really very difficult to die now. We've become unnatural ourselves, and I think this may slow down the necessity of our evolution, although it could force other changes since we have few needed adaptations.

Why is this such a verboten idea? Why is it not an obvious argument - we have an appendix because we're not done. It's wonderful proof, in itself, of evolution in progress.

Finally, why on earth do the Roundheads keep insisting that evolution's main goal is to deny the existence of a God? It seems to be completely neutral on the topic. Evolution doesn't even attempt to explain the origin of life, just how we got from point A to point whatever-today-is. It's just such a bizarre argument, made all the more bizarre by the fact that they are winning the debate despite overwhelming evidence and logic showing them to be incorrect and misled.

*sigh*. Remember: Creationists = Roundhead. Look 'em up, it's quite fitting.

Interesting twist in the story

So, I see a spike in traffic coming from Google - people are Googling "Gary Muchler", the guy trying to grab an anti-war sign in the picture downblog (see previous post) - he's the ample gentleman with a Rolling Rock shirt.

It seems that he isn't a righty protesting FOR the war; he's opposed to the war and felt the methods being employed weren't useful. According to this article, he was belligerant and called for a revolution, because Bush is an oil man and this is a war for oil.

So I offer my mea culpa - Gary Muchler is not the face of the war supporters, as I claimed below; he is, unfortunately, the face of the wacky left.

The face of the war supporters

I usually don’t get involved in this – I’m opposed to the Iraq war, but disagree with folks that think we need to get out now. I’m also not thrilled with the way Cindy Sheehan’s gone about her protest (and even less so with the people who have begun to surround her), but support wholeheartedly her right to seek answers from her President. (my difference from her is related to style, not substance). I did not take part in the vigils last night, as I felt they would be hijacked by “No blood for oil” signs and the like. It appears I was right, at least in some cases, as we managed to stray off message yet again and instead of supporting Cindy Sheehan turned the vigils into an anti-war rally.

However, I also knew the right would show themselves in their ugliness, as they are always so proud to do. And in that vein, I present to you a photo showing the true face of the right wingers and how they choose to act. Free speech, indeed!

Gary Muchler of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., attempts to disrupt a rally for Cindy Sheehan as he grabs for a sign held by Robert Griffin. (AP Photo/Dave Scherbenco)

See host image here

Strength/weakness on security – missing the big picture

One recurring theme when discussing Democrats’ inability to win the big races and seal the deal with the public is the continued perception of our weakness on military issues. No matter how many times or how many ways we approach it, we’re considered weaker than the Republicans when it comes to national defense. When this problem comes up, the answers are always the same:

Wes Clark will save us! - (full diary here)

We’ll win if we run a real veteran!

Look, another veteran on our side!

We support the troops, not the war!

Democrats just have to stand up and oppose the Iraq war forcefully!

We just need to offer our plan to get out of Iraq!

I don’t call out those diaries and those comments to shine the harsh light of criticism on them – they’re just examples, and in fact taken one by one I don’t disagree with most of what is said (with the exception of Wes Clark – I don’t believe he’s anyone’s savior). The point is to show that, unlike the GOP, we have no overarching military plan and strategy.

The GOP, like it or not, agree with it or not, has a plan and a strategy: Spend on defense, prevent anyone else from developing weapons, and scare the hell out of anyone who’s already got them. If someone gets uppity, pound on them fast and hard and apologize later.

Our strategy is, as with most issues, scattershot. If there is an overriding theme, it is “find warriors of yesterday to justify our current opinion of the current military action”. But no one, not on Kos, not in the media, not in the DNC, not in the DLC, can offer a singular, compelling and encompassing plan to ensure the national defense. Hell, with 64% of the country now admitting to doubts about Iraq, we can’t even offer a single plan on this. As long as we’re fighting among ourselves whether to: A: pull out now B: pull out strategically, or C: increase troop strength until we’ve “won”, Bush doesn’t HAVE to do anything. We’ve got nothing coherent for him to respond to, so he can just hold the course and his homeland security numbers stay above 50%.

We have to get our heads out of the sand, stop waiting for one-off saviors from 40 year old wars, and decide how we intend to protect this country today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year and in future decades. Will we build up the military strategically and invest in better technology, as Clinton started to do? Will we invest in combination of diplomatic efforts, foreign aid to poor communities in at-risk areas and a tough stance on radical outliers? Will we deploy more resources on the coastlines, at ports? Do we have the stomach to say we will hunt down people who threaten us – even if we have to do it here at home?

Some of you are planning to answer me in the comments by saying we’ll protect the country by pulling out of Iraq and staying out of the Middle East, blibbedy blah. You’re missing the point. It isn’t about Iraq. Iraq is nothing more than a historical blip; we’ve been in worse scrapes than this and the world recovers. Our plan in Iraq must depend on our long-term vision – we need vision FIRST, then we can decide what to do in Iraq according to that vision. We need coherence, and long-term planning for the future.

What do we have to face?

• Nuclear North Korea. They have missiles that can reach us, and they’re nuclear. What do we do?


• Nuclear Russia. They don’t even know what they have – or if they still have it.
  Nuclear Pakistan. They’re only our ally as long as we can protect Musharraff.


• Nuclear Iran. We’ve made them very nervous, and their theocracy is more than willing to pull the trigger on neighborhood nutjobs.


• An annoyed, militarily and economically strong China. As they gain strength and we weaken ourselves, they need us less and less – and that’s a problem.


• Terrorists abroad. Massive groups planning coordinated attacks on our military bases, on our allies, and trying to infiltrate our borders.


• Terrorists at home. White supremacists, militias, and already-here radical Islamist cells – armed, trained and patient.


• Weak ports. Our security at home is unbelievably porous, and the amazing thing is that we HAVEN’T been attacked this way yet – probably just because they’re waiting to get their hands on a big enough bomb to do the trick from the water.


• Violent dictators, and our own inaction. Think people in Sudan don’t notice how hard it is to get our attention? Think maybe they’d like to thank us for taking so long to notice them? There are a lot of countries in this situation, and they notice who we help and who we don’t.

And that isn’t even all of it. That’s just what I can remember now.

We have to provide answers to these, and as yet unforeseen, threats. A Department of Peace isn’t the answer. A bloated, endlessly and unquestioningly funded Department of Defense isn’t the answer. But right now, we can’t say truthfully that we have a coherent plan for national defense moving to the future.

Howard Dean is one of the Democrats trying to get us there, but his stock message, that we won’t send our children to war without telling the American people the truth, is only part of the issue, and doesn’t identify what we’re willing to tell the truth about. What will trigger those decisions for us, and what will we do differently to ensure that we’re ready? We have to make those decisions, and we have to agree on them. We have to be willing to compromise among ourselves, hawks and doves alike. We can’t simply adopt a war posture and call us safe, nor can we ignore the real threats. We have to answer the question not just of what we will do to protect America, but how we will do it.

In the short term, we keep setting ourselves up for long-term failure by our myopic focus on biography over substance, story over planning. The latter must underscore and precede the former – not vice versa.

Iraq is becoming our Vietnam, because our party is still fighting old battles – they’re fighting and thinking about today’s wars and tomorrow’s wars, and we bring up Vietnam every time something happens in Iraq, and crow at the top of our lungs every time a Vietnam vet runs for office. I’m already seeing a tendency to crow loudly whenever an Iraq veteran runs on our side or agrees with us. Learn this: Veterans are not sacrosanct, nor are they unassailable! There are good veterans and bad veterans, smart veterans and stupid veterans. And all of them carried a gun, ready to kill or be killed. Their courage is to be admired, not turned into a constant drumbeat of “see, we have guts, too!”

I’m hopeful that our Democracy Alliance will take this on and not try to just be a GOTV tool, or a “framing” factory, but will engage in real and true thinking. Real planning. Providing strategies for governance, leadership and security, then strategies for campaigning. Let’s start thinking about how we’ll lead, and design our frames around that vision, instead of the other way around.

Bush supports "Intelligent Design"

No surprise there, of course. Click here for the brief article and take the poll!

Here's my humble opinion: Intelligent design is A: a soothing way to keep God in science for folks conflicted between their belief and all available evidence, and B: a refuge for stupid people. Let's face it, it's a lot easier to just shrug your shoulders and accept a mysterious creator than to conceptualize intense evolutionary pressure of enormous spans of time. I think it's both - it just depends on the person (guess which one I think applies to Bush!).

Intelligent Design is just a fancified version of Philosophy 101's Watchmaker argument by William Paley in 1802. It's been debunked by scientists time and again, but even I can see the elegance and simplicity of the argument. It's alluring.

But here's the problem. It's a religious philosophical theory. It isn't testable, and it isn't verifiable unless you're willing to use the Bible as a source text. And if you use the Bible as your source text, you're necessarily seeking to disprove all other theories, proofs, and evidences by way of faith and untestable beliefs.

Evolution and science, on the other hand, require the constant testing and attempt to disprove their own theories - if you can't disprove it through testing, it is considered proved pending continued testing.

And therein lies my real problem with Intelligent Design. I don't really give a shit if they want to teach it in schools; my school taught something similar as part of a series of ideas about how things work. But we didn't, and no school should, teach a religious philosophical concept in a science class. ID isn't science in any way, shape or form. If you can't test it or even attempt to disprove it, it ceases to be science. So teach evolution in science, and teach ID in philosophy/social studies/wherever literary ideas fit.