Yeah!

from The New York Times:

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in high school biology courses because it is a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity."
...
Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled."

Although others have said that "Intelligent Design" might in fact be away to teach about how aliens (or Raeliens) actually created / designed life, Christian critics of such ideas belie their claim that they want "all possibilities" taught together. I believe in God and am not opposed to teaching about religion in public schools. However, science cannot prove God's existence. The two are entirely different subject matters. Here's to the spread of sanity!

Oh, and for the partisans in the crowd:

Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.

Judge Jones said that teaching intelligent design as science in public school violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits public officials from using their positions to impose or establish a particular religion.

response to Rep. Schmidt

from US Rep. Jean Schmidt's regular e-mail to her constituents:

... To fully understand where we are headed in Iraq, we have to understand where we have been. In just over two-and-a-half years, much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam's tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, holding of free national elections, formation of an elected government, the drafting of and ratification of a permanent constitution, introduction of a sound currency, the equipping of Iraqi security forces, and the increasing capability of those forces to take on the terrorists and secure their nation.
...
Some have suggested pulling our troops out of Iraq. But pulling out our troops before they have achieved their goal is not a plan for victory.
...
Our troops have not failed us. We must not fail them.

There are so many errors in her letter, and it all begins with her statement, "To fully understand where we are headed in Iraq, we have to understand where we have been." In fact, Rep. Schmidt has no interest in understanding where we have been. U.S. history with Iraq, as far as she is concerned, appears to go back no further than our invasion; perhaps we might, by extension, take a date as early as Sept. 11, 2001 (though any references suggested are false, ie, a lie), but there is no indication in her e-mail to suggest looking earlier. This is not history; this does not begin to cover "where we have been" with Iraq, nor does it do any justice to the experience of Iraqis themselves.

Her list of accomplishments is laughable. Let's consider:
1) The removal of Saddam's tyranny. Hey, we helped the guy get started, we supplied him with money and weapons, we turned a blind eye to his tyranny until it was no longer politically convenient. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been removed; I'm saying we never should have helped lift him to power in the first place. The lesson we would learn should we actually take the time to look at "where we have been" would be to stop propping up and supporting dictators like Saddam in the first place.

2) Negotiation of an interim constitution. This one was really pretty easy. We allowed for the appearance of actual constitution haggling to take place while certain award-winning appointees simply worked up whatever they wanted in secret, forcing through all sorts of rules that allowed the US to maintain control even after the hastily staged "hand-over" of power. If we honestly evaluated "where we have been," we would see that this behind the scenes manipulation only increased anger and resentment at US occupation and revealed the hand over as a sham.

3) Restoration of full sovereignty. This is just absurd. If the Iraqi's have full sovereignty, what are we still doing there? If "training forces" is the answer, what's taking so long? In fact, looking at "where we have been," we see that there is no intention to restore full sovereignty; at least, not until we can prop up another puppet / rabidly-pro-US government in Iraq.

4) Holding of free national elections. Sure, the people were free to come and vote. In their first election, when they voted for candidates who would have among their responsibilities the drafting of a Constitution, they couldn't vote for individuals at all but rather party slates. Often, the people who were on those slates weren't even known and when they were, their names were released just days prior to the election. A look at "where we have been" shows that we've been busy re-defining elections, electoral processes, and democracy itself.

5) Formation of an elected government. I'm not even sure what this means; it sounds the same as #4, she's just trying to take credit for it twice. Or does Schmidt mean that not only did we allow people to go to the polls and vote for mystery candidates and people to be appointed later, but we also made a building safe enough for these people, once elected/appointed, to show up (with a small number killed when they tried to get there)?

6) The drafting of and ratification of a permanent constitution. In fact, this constitution is far from permanent. There were so many disputes over its provisions, and the threat of it failing by popular vote so strong, that in the closing hours a provision was written in that allows for changes to be made at a later date, once the referendum had been conducted. So Iraqi's were asked to vote on a constitution that, once approved, could be changed markedly. Why not just ask them to vote on a blank piece of paper, on which they are promised that lots of good things will be written? If we look at "where we have been," a sad pattern begins to emerge: apparently, US leadership (read: the Bush Administration, neocons, the Republicans base, and lackeys like Jean Schmidt) is more concerned with going through the motions than with actually accomplishing anything.

7) Introduction of a sound currency. She must be referring to the influx of US dollars which have been drained from our own treasury and poured into Iraq in mismanagement and bribes, the billions that cannot be accounted for, that have been funneled to friends of Bush and anyone willing to cook up stories that Bush & company like to hear. (The latest news on that front: we've been buying propaganda in Iraqi newspapers, discrediting yet another foundation of so-called free states, a free press.) On this issue, "where we've been" is on the side of waste, fraud, and abuse.

8) The equipping of Iraqi security forces. This would be a joke except it's far from funny. This is the only reason consistently stated for why we are still in Iraq, and the administration has been lieing about our success on this point from the beginning. Rumsfeld in particular has regularly inflated the numbers of Iraqi troops and police supposedly trained; in fact, we have yet to come close to the numbers that he was giving even two years ago. Even worse, it appears that much of this training is benefiting the insurgents who come to learn then use their training against us. An honest evaluation of "where we've been" ought to tell us pretty clearly that we need a smarter approach and, if this is truly our remaining goal in Iraq ("As Iraqi's stand up, we will stand down." - Pres. Bush), we ought to ask why we're not pouring more resources and effort into actually accomplishing this.

9) The increasing capability of those forces to take on the terrorists and secure their nation. Once again, this is a repeat - it's the same as #8. Is Schmidt just trying to inflate the list of accomplishments, or what?

The one task our leaders in Congress and in the White House / Bush administration should be doing constantly is looking at "where we have been," learning lessons from this war as it takes place, adjusting and adapting and fine tuning our efforts to end the war as quickly and easily as possible, including taking the least possible lives in the process. I had grave misgivings about the war from the start; it is hard to be a Christian and not be a pacifist. In fact, given Jesus' own statements about peace and reconciliation and his own example, the burden is on those who are not pacifist. It has long since been clear that the war in Iraq was begun on fraud, that Pres. Bush did not pursue all reasonable efforts before engaging in the war but in fact did the exact opposite: he made every effort possible to ensure support for a war that he had no intention of avoiding. Now he's created a mess and he seems not to care. He won't lay out a plan for victory because a victory would mean an end to the war. It is absolutely ridiculous to begin any project without an idea of what the goal is. Whether in business or in war, where there is no clearly articulated statement of success, there is no clear direction or purpose or activity. Instead, an environment is created where anything goes (torture, anyone?). Bush never met a business he couldn't fail at (without major Saudi money, anyway); it appears the same goes for war. Why won't he state the goal, clear and simple? Why won't he make plain what are the terms for victory? There can be only three reasons: 1) He has no idea. 2) He knows very clearly what his goal is and he knows that the public would never support it, so he lies and dissembles in order to play on public opinion. 3) He has no goal because he doesn't want the war to end.

And people like Jean Schmidt stand up and say things like, "...[P]ulling out our troops before they have achieved their goal is not a plan for victory." Please, Rep. Schmidt, tell me: What is their goal?

Support our troops, Rep. Schmidt? How about telling them the truth - like whether or not you support an end to this war, whether or not you actually want them to come home, whether or not you really care that they are being asked to risk and sacrifice their lives for what began as a fraud and appears to have no end in sight.

letter to an elder, a friend

Hey B,

I just wanted to follow up a little on the topic you raised with your devotion last night. It was a good one! And I thank you for bringing it up. I have two basic reactions that I wanted to share with you.

The first is, along the lines of what S. was saying, I don't believe the Hype. I simply don't believe there is a real move 'against' Christmas. Maybe there is a problem, and I certainly think the allegations should be discussed. But I really get pissed when I hear people (like Limbaugh) say there's a "War on Christmas." There is real war in this world that we ought to be concerned about; however, to equate the debate over a season's greetings with the real violence happening in Iraq, Sudan, Haiti, and elsewhere goes beyond absurd and to me reveals the true character of these radio personalities.

Along the lines of the "don't believe the hype," here's an article you should read. Written by a woman who works for a local chapter of the ACLU in Indiana, I find it short and basically to the point. She does take a pot-shot at the very end that I found, well, funny but unnecessary.
How the ACLU Didn't Steal Christmas

Anyway, that's my first reaction. My second is this: I am THANKFUL that businesses, especially large corporations, are not going over the top in pandering to Christians this Christmas holiday season. The season has nothing to do with helping the bottom line at Wal-Mart or Target or other retail stores. The over-commercialization of Christmas, in fact, often negatively contributes to things Christians ought to be concerned about, especially poverty. People rack up more debt buying more junk (often made by people working in sweat-shop [near slave] conditions) they don't need and I am glad that big business actually draws the line somewhere in terms of manipulating or preying on our Christmas "tradition" of shopping till we drop. I perceive the over-commercialization of Christmas as a larger problem than the under-commercialization, and asking for more of it is like an alcoholic asking for more booze.

Basically, I think that these talking heads and so-called Christian organizations who are making a stink are simply trying to increase their audience - and their contributions. The debate here ought to be about inclusion, sensitivity, and respect, not about the decision some corporate big-wig made about the wording of a banner or advertisement. There's always the question, too, of what Jesus would be concerned about at this time of year and whether he would even notice. In the middle of his conversation that contains the well known "whoever welcomes a child in my name welcomes me" and the lesser known "whoever puts a stumbling block before a little one, it would be better for them to have a millstone tied around their neck and be thrown into the sea" is this often forgotten statement: "Whoever is not against us is for us." It is completely counter to the current thinking and public sentiment of at least our political leadership; Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and others seem to share the opposite line of view as well. But Jesus' statement here applied to the alleged situation would seem to say this: Unless they are hanging signs which say "Christians Not Served Here," there is no problem.
The scripture is Mark 9:33-42.

Anyway, I'd be glad to continue the conversation and hear your response. I just wanted to share some thoughts. I'm sorry to have grown so long-winded. I certainly think conversation on the subject is healthy. It's always good for Christians to work our for themselves what the important issues are, and I am glad that you brought your awareness of this subject to the elders meeting.

Later,
J

PS - I just found an interesting item: apparently O'Reilly & Fox [Fake] News are on the side of the pro-"Holiday"/anti-"Christmas" party after all - they're marketing lots of stuff on their web-site using the word "Holiday" instead of "Christmas."
Hmmm, who are the politically correct, hyper-sensitive, liberal weenies now? ;)

oh so proud of Ohio

On a late night run to Steak and Shake, while waiting forever for my food, I flipped through a stack of newspaper sections lying on a nearby table. I've been carrying around this gem ever since, just waiting to share. From the Nov. 17, 2005 Columbus Dispatch, page D5:

The Kansas school board, in approving standards last week that cast doubt on evolution, might have helped boost an entirely new area of science, a move Ohio started last year

Where to begin? I'll start with the second part: someone will have to tell me, I guess, if the claim is true that Ohio "started" this move toward a new area of science. I've lived in Ohio most of my life; I really don't think this is true. Maybe we were the first state to have legislation on behalf of, or state school board endorsement of this dogma masquerading as science. But did we really start the move? Either way, I guess, I'm embarrassed for the state that I love dearly.

But look, just calling "intelligent design" a "new area of science" is ludicrous. THERE IS NO SCIENCE BEHIND INTELLIGENT DESIGN. In fact, the proposition is a denial of science. There is no hypothesis. No collecting of empirical evidence. No tests to run and re-run, no measure for accuracy of the proposition and validity of its claims. Allow me to quote a bit more:

...The Kansas board also challenged widely accepted science that all life has a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life.

The board also went one step further - broadening the definition of science.

You see, that's the only way that these anti-education folks can cram the so-called theory of "intelligent design" down the throats of innocent, and politically naive, kids: they had to change the very nature of science because "intelligent design" IS NOT SCIENCE. As often as proponents of "i.d." publicly state otherwise, this move is the lie that exposes them. They've also done it Ohio, I learned:

Last year ... the [Ohio] State Board of Education did the same thing. "We changed the definition as well - very similarly, quite honestly," said Deborah Owens Fink, a state board member from Richfield.

That's right folks, at least two states no longer care to educate their children on sound, fundamental science. Despite the fact that basic tenets of evolution have been soundly tested and affirmed by ample evidence, elected politicians are apparently better experts than professionals. Peer review, academic standards, and the scientific method itself mean nothing to these people: rather than expand their own worldview, they choose to try and limit the view for others.

The sad part is, these two propositions, that life on earth has evolved over millions and billions of years, and that there is an "intelligent designer" - can't we just say God?! - who created, crafted, even directed the process, are not contradictory. Most of the people believe they are biblical literalists - that they take the Bible word-for-word as Truth. Yet the real contradiction, if their view were correct, is encountered in the first and second chapter of the first book of the Bible. There we discover that there are in fact TWO very DIFFERENT stories of creation. Taken literally, these stories themselves contradict each other; reading the Bible in this way fails before it really begins. A wider perspective, one that takes these texts as a testament to faith but not as literal truth, allows the reader to see that their power and their truth is found in their meaning, not their word-for-word dictation. And with such an understanding, evolution can stand as sound science without being an affront to God; and belief in God can stand as sound faith without being anemic to an inquisitive mind: in fact, the Creator gave us gifts for learning, studying, and enlarging our understanding. Jesus told us that the Truth would set us free; he did not ask us to bind ourselves to it. Paul, writing in Romans, encourages us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds; he did not advise us to close our minds and never change a bit.

There's more in the article, including a clear indication of the opportunity for blowback. I wonder, now that the definition of science has been shot to hell, how these folks will react should any of this come to pass:

In Kansas schools, science might no longer be limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena. New definitions could open new research realms.

"Like witchcraft," said Kent State University anthropologist Owen Lovejoy, who studies the evolution of early humans.

Or voodoo, ESP or the study of ghosts.

But Owens Fink disagrees.

"I think he's worrying unnecessarily," she said. "We wanted to investigate intelligent design."

Of course she thinks that. Because she doesn't want to admit to the real possibility of what she has helped achieve. Now that science has been re-defined to be the butt of a very bad joke, what's to stop people from pushing all kinds of strange and completely unverifiable theories as "science"? It was the prophet Hosea who said, many centuries ago, "For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."

In fact, the article goes on to talk about a group that is among the "i.d." boosters: Raelians. I've heard that term before but always thought it was a joke. Not so! It turns out that Raelians believe that "extraterrestrial scientists brought DNA from another planet to get the ball of life rolling" - and they're thrilled to support "i.d." because it allows their alien theories to be discussed in the midst of Bunsen burners and microscopes and periodic tables. Though if this really pans out, why on earth would schools waste money on scientific equipment that will merely collect dust?

The whirlwind is coming - may the harvest be plentiful indeed!

thought for the day

"Do not wait for great strength before setting out, for immobility will weaken you further. Do not wait to see very clearly before starting: one has to walk toward the light. Have you strength enough to take this first step? ... You will be astonished to feel that the effort accomplished, instead of having exhausted your strength, has doubled it - and that you already see more clearly what you have to do next."

Phillipe Vernier, French theologian

as quoted in Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time by Paul Rogat Loeb

World AIDS Day

Today is World AIDS Day, a day for raising awareness about the devastating pandemic that is HIV/AIDS. Want to do something helpful? From the Human Rights Campaign:

...In recognition of [World AIDS Day], the Human Rights Campaign is issuing our second annual report card to America's leaders, grading their response to the AIDS crisis.
...
Take a moment to read America's report card, and then please urge Congress to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act in 2006. The CARE Act provides funding to states for critical services to people living with HIV/AIDS, and its authorization expired on September 30, 2005.

Then, do something locally. Look for local HIV/AIDS service organizations here.

a pair of lists on Bush, war

It's been a little while, once again. I seem to be in this cycle of post a few, then take two weeks off. Of course, it doesn't help that I was on the road nearly all of last week (Yeah Holidays!). This isn't really the post I wanted to begin with, but I can't resist sharing these two lists. The first comes from an e-mail I received from Sen. Barbara Boxer via her PAC For a Change (slightly different version here); the second was David Letterman's Top 10 List last night. Both have Truth, but only one is laughable - and then, not all of it.

Today [Nov. 30], President Bush delivered what was billed as a major address on Iraq. Instead, unfortunately, it was just more of the same "stay the course" rhetoric, moving us no closer to a resolution of the conflict.

We've all been waiting for many months for President Bush to come clean with the American people about the war in Iraq. But clearly, the President still fails to see and confront the truth:

1. President Bush refuses to acknowledge that the Iraq war has nothing to do with the 9/11 attack on our country by al Qaeda, and it has diverted us from our appropriate response to that attack which was to go into Afghanistan and hunt Osama bin Laden.

2. He refuses to acknowledge the fact that our long term presence in Iraq is fueling the very insurgency that he vows to end.

3. President Bush refuses to acknowledge that any mistakes were made and that this war was based on false pretenses.

4. He ignores the tremendous financial burden on our citizens, and he completely ignores the thousands of wounded that need to hear that they will not be forgotten and that they will receive the care they need.

5. President Bush even refuses to acknowledge that Iraqi government officials believe that we can withdraw within a two-year time frame, while continuing to demean those members of Congress who disagree with him.
...
With American confidence in his handling of the war in Iraq at an all-time low, when will President Bush get the message? It's up to us to keep standing up and speaking out until he does.

The staff at the Late Show must have received Boxer's message, too:

Top Ten New President Bush Strategies For Victory in Iraq

10. "Make an even larger 'Mission Accomplished' sign"
9. "Encourage Iraqis to settle their feud like Dave and Oprah"
8. "Put that go-getter Michael Brown in charge"
7. "Launch slogan, 'It's not Iraq, it's Weraq'" [pronounced "We Rock"]
6. "Just do whatever he did when he captured Osama"
5. "A little more vacation time at the ranch to clear his head"
4. "Pack on a quick 30 pounds and trade places with Jeb"
3. "Wait, you mean it ain't going well?"
2. "Boost morale by doing his hilarious 'Locked Door' gag"
1. "Place Saddam back in power and tell him, 'It's your problem now, dude'"

*emphasis mine - my personal favorite