Bill's Comments

Today my hair-shirt, USA Today, published a front page article, "Study stirs debate over full-body scans' cancer risk". An article in Radiology, claimed that a full-body CT [computerized tomography, a technique which similar to MRI allows the creation of a 3-D representation of the subject's body]causes the same exposure to radiation as people 1 1/2 miles from Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and increases the risk of cancer by 1 death for every 1200 subjects at age 45 to 1 death for every 1700 subjects at age 60.

On page 7D, the next to the last page of the entire newspaper, there were a few more facts. The most important one was the last sentence.

But first let's look at a prevailing assumption concerning radiation and other environmental doses.

Some basic pharmacology:
All estimates of mortality are based on dose-response curves. It used to be that these were S-shaped, where there was an almost horizontal beginning to the curve, with no effect for low doses, then a sharp rise as mortality or dosage effect occurred proportional to the dose, and then another horizontal area of maximum effect regardles of dose. Increasing the dose did not increase the effect or in mortality curves there was already 100% mortality.

The current environmentalist/activist view:
This first grew out of the cancer work in the fifties and sixties. Rats and other animals were exposed to extreme doses of suspected carcinogens. The cancer induction rates were measured and then the rate of induction at normal exposures was calculated as a linear extrapolation back to the lower levels. This approach is still being used with radioactivity, radiation from therapeutic and diagnostic devices, and environmental pollutants. In effect, they are assuming there is an effect all the way back to zero.

Critique:
This is plain bad science. If we look at the dose response curve, it is not linear. In the range of the proportional response, it is almost linear. However, there are a large number of substances that can cause cancer in artificially large concentrations that are critical to our survival in much smaller concentrations. Salt is the first that comes to mind. Not too long ago, John Ray had some posts on this effect, that certain "toxins" actually promoted health in small doses.

No one published any data for the lower end of the curves, so the activists took the worst possible case and ran with it, the linear extrapolation that believes there is no zero effect. But dose response curves all have zero effect regions. So this approach flies in the face of common scientific experience.

But there are other arguments here that are more forceful. If we look at radiation, its effects are in the breaking of bonds in the nuclear DNA of cells, leading to cumulative mutations which finally cause cancer. But it takes a lot of radiation for this to occur. There are a number of reparative mechanisms in the cell that help keep DNA intact. In addition all life evolved exposed to radiation, more at an earlier time than now. Thus there must be a no effect level, or everything would have died long ago. In fact, radiation is beneficial in that it encourages the occasional spontaneous mutation that has led to evolution.

Similar arguments can be advanced for many of the pollutants or environmental chemicals with which we seem to be so concerned. The body has wonderful biochemical mechanisms for detoxifying things. Yes, there are some things that actually get transformed into something worse, but we learn about those quickly when they occur.

I think our current obsession with germs in the US is of this same ilk. I grew up with reasonable cleanliness. But I didn't have all these anti-bacterial soaps and cleaners around. I played in dirt, pet all kinds of animals, chewed grass (the green stuff in our lawns) and generally didn't worry about germs. As I grew up I got measles, chicken pox, and many different kinds of colds and flus. Almost all my adult life I have never been sick more than 24 hours, with a few outstanding exceptions. I think it is because I was exposed to germs at a low level and built a generally tough immmune system. Fortunately, most kids, especially boys, tend to get around the excessive efforts of parents to keep them sterile.

I wouldn't deny the value of vaccines, and espouse them because they work by challenging the immune system, but I do wonder at our bacteriophobia. We have gotten to where the risk of an adverse reaction now prevents the immunization against smallpox. Supposedly it has been stamped out in the world. However, there are related poxes still extant, and I think it will come to bite us in the butt someday soon.

The summary is that any article that claims some low rate of death or illness due to some fairly common behavior or item, is most likely based on bad science. Demand to know where the data came from and how the numbers were obtained.

Now for the final two sentences I mentioned way up top:

"He also notes that CT technology has been widely used for 25 years. If it really caused cancer, he says, doctors would be diagnosing far more tumors by now."

Isn't reality wonderful? It can usually make an activist into a fool.

Right now with the murder of the twelve Nepalese workers on my mind along with 9/11 and all the rest, I know what I wish Hell to be -- similar to one scenario from the SF novel series "Heroes in Hell", I would like every terrorist to serially experience the death of every one of his victims. That would be both justice and retribution. Vengence would repeat it, many times. Just think, OBL, laughing at the destruction of the WTC, having to hear his laugh in his ears as he dies 3000 times, actually more in his case. That is just what he has to answer to for the US.

I read Belmont Club daily, and I thank Peg Kaplan for bringing it to my attention. He always has outstanding news analysis and commentary. This wry comment from his latest post was too good not to quote:

"There's a reason the French are world leaders in the manufacture of perfume."

Wicked Thoughts has the best set of one liners I have ever read. Go...Now...

The news is always a source of friction to me when I'm on the road. I get my daily mixed blessing of USA Today -- mostly articles that get me riled, but a good source of material for blogging.

1. The coverage in USA Today of the Republican Convention vs. the Dems is like night and day. The Democratic convention was light, and wonderful, and positive, and (gag me with a spoon), while the Republicans are right wing, excluding moderates, etc. anything to make a negative report.

2. The major TV media broadcast the opening of the Dems but not the Republicans. Very subtle way to avoid the two best opening speakers this year. And then I love the article in USA Today claiming that such coverage had been planned for a long time. Maybe so, but that doesn't make it right.

3. I am sick and tired of pollsters. I am even more sick and tired of the constant hashing and spinning, and over analysis of every twitch in the numbers. I wish Gallop, Roper, and all the rest would take a vacation for about three months. Just imagine what it would be like if the newspapers had to report something rather than repeat someone else's data.

OHH! Maybe the reason we have such a low voter participation is the constant polling that predicts what will happen. Why should people vote when the answer is already given?

Dick McDonald, who's forceful The Right Scale, has posted this (I quote it entirely):

I'm Not Sorry

Dick McDonald

I'm not sorry. I don't respect John Kerry's military service and I feel stabbed in the back by Bush, and every Republican, Fox News and the Demomedia who indict 254 decorated eye-witnesses as liars. By respecting Kerry's service record brands the Swift Boat Veterans as liars. I went to military school and when everyone but one person was out of step, we blamed that one person, not the whole squad. Kerry is an insincere, disingenuous, manipulative, out-of-step. unproductive, lying sociopath. America will out the truth. Maybe a brave Republican will lead the way. I am looking for him now. Do I hear the name Marvin Scott(R) of Indiana? Running for the Senate against Evan Bayh.

I realize that it may be good politics to "respect Kerry's service in Vietnam" but Dick McDonald is right. It is wrong to respect a record built on misrepresentation.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe." --Thomas Jefferson

Today we have to include the sources of news on the internet, but it still holds true.

From the WSJ Opinion Journal comes this statement"

We're Not GOP Shills
President Bush can't stop us from telling the truth about John Kerry.

BY JOHN O'NEILL
Friday, August 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

We formed Swift Boat Veterans For Truth for one purpose: to present to the American public our conclusion that John Kerry is not fit to be commander in chief. We are organized as a "527 group" with Adm. Roy Hoffmann at the helm, our leader today as he was some 35 years ago when we served under him in Coastal Squadron One in Vietnam. Our membership is transparent and shown on our Web site, www.swiftvets.com, currently including more than 250 Swiftees. We have 17 of the 23 officers who served with Mr. Kerry, most of his chain of command, and most sailors. We have more than 60 winners of real Purple Hearts. No one has a better right than we do to speak to the matters involving our unit.

Are we controlled by the Bush-Cheney campaign? Absolutely not. The Swift boat veterans who joined our group come in all political flavors: independents, Republicans, Democrats and other more subtle variations. Had another person been the presidential candidate of the Democrats, our group never would have formed. Had Mr. Kerry been the Republican candidate, each of us would still be here.

We do not take direction from the White House or the president's re-election committee, and our efforts would continue even if President Bush were to ask us directly to stop.

Why have we come forward? As explained in "Unfit For Command," Mr. Kerry grossly exaggerated and lied about his abbreviated four-month tour in Vietnam. He disgraced all legitimate Vietnam War heroes when he falsely testified to Congress that we were war criminals, daily engaged in atrocities that had the full approval of all levels in the chain of command. So, once Mr. Kerry decided to apply for the commander in chief's job with a war-hero résumé, we felt compelled to come forward to explain why he is "unfit for command."

We have faced assaults on our character, motives, personal backgrounds and honesty. We are told that Mr. Kerry's camp has prepared attack dossiers on the members of our organization. I have been charged with being a Republican shill. But for more than 30 years, I have been non-political, and have voted for as many Democrats as Republicans. In truth, I consider myself a political independent, regardless of how John Kerry and his supporters try to characterize me.

The Kerry-Edwards camp has threatened TV stations with libel suits should they choose to run our ads. Mr. Kerry has filed a complaint with the FEC, seeking to silence us.

How many different ways will John Kerry devise to ask President Bush to condemn our ads and squash our book? Why, Mr. Kerry, are our charges as a 527 group unacceptable to you, while the pronouncements from 527 groups favorable to you are considered acceptable, regardless of stridency and veracity? And we do not have a George Soros, willing to drop millions into our modest group. We control our message. To date, we have received $2 million from 30,000 Americans who have donated an average of around $64.

Mr. Kerry, we ask you not to repeat the same mistake you made when you returned from war: Please stop maligning your fellow veterans. Dealing with us should be easy. Just answer our charges. Produce your Vietnam journal and notes, and execute Standard Form 180 so the American people can see your complete military record--not just the few forms you put on your website or show to campaign biographers.

Mr. O'Neill, author of "Unfit For Command" (Regnery, 2004), is a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

I consider any attempt to shut down or restrict the 527's as wrong (including Moveon.org.). Political speech is never to be controlled by any government agency. As for President Bush, Senator McCain, and all the other politicians that voted for this (the new campaign finance law)-- You should have been more careful what you asked for.

The Federalist Patriot
Founders' Quote Daily

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." --James Madison

Much as it does good in the world, here a particularly egregious example of what seems wrong with the Roman Catholic Church acting as an instrument of God. A priest who celebrated Mass in Latin every day on the set during the making of "The Passion" and now is celebrating Mass with a group that is apparently in disfavor with the Catholic Heirarchy, over doctrinal issues has been suspended. Here is the publicized reason:

A Toronto-area priest who was spiritual adviser to Mel Gibson during filming of the controversial movie The Passion Of The Christ has been suspended by Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic for saying Latin masses for a traditional Catholic splinter group.
...
Somerville, who defends the film against critics, and who strongly denies that Gibson or the movie are anti-Semitic, was suspended by Ambrozic for celebrating mass in Toronto for the Society of St. Pius X, a group that Ambrozic and the Vatican's ecclesiastical commission consider "not in full communion with Rome."

"(Y)our ongoing association with and celebration of the Tridentine Mass for members of the Society of St. Pius X give external recognition to their illegitimate claims and their lack of submission to our Holy Father Pope John Paul II, to bishops appointed by him, and to the teachings of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Your actions are also a potential source of scandal to clergy and laity of the Archdiocese of Toronto," Ambrozic said in a letter to Somerville.

The Society of St. Pius X is one of several traditionalist Catholic groups that refuse to accept changes brought in by the Second Vatican Council, such as saying mass in the vernacular instead of Latin and having the priest face the congregation instead of turning his back to them.

Suzanne Scorsone, a spokesperson for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto, said yesterday that Ambrozic didn't have a choice in the matter.

"Essentially it's a situation where (Somerville) has chosen to take a position not in keeping with the faith body he has agreed to be a priest for. Since he's taken a different position he can no longer speak for us," she said. "He was given the opportunity, even after the suspension letter, to reply and say that he would agree with what the Church teaches.

"He declined to do that. The time period elapsed and so the suspension is now official," she said. "This is an issue on which the Holy See already has a very clear position."

A retired Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Toronto, Somerville said he respects Pope John Paul II for his "heroism and his office" as head of the Catholic Church. But, like other traditionalist Catholics, he has reservations about post-Vatican II doctrine.

Since 2001, he has been celebrating the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Latin liturgy, which has its roots in the 16th-century Council of Trent, using the 1962 guide to the mass. Masses are held in chapels and private homes, mostly in Toronto and Michigan, Montana, Indiana, Philadelphia, Minnesota, and Washington, D.C.

Being suspended by the Toronto archdiocese means Somerville is still a Catholic and can practise his religion, but is not officially authorized to say mass anywhere in the world.

"I regret that it's come to an open conflict between me and my archbishop," he said in response to the suspension. But, he believes, the suspension "is unlawful and without foundation."

He said the St. Pius X society is not "schismatic," as alleged by Ambrozic, and is not "out of communion with Rome."

And under canon law, he said, "no one is to be penalized who disobeys a command out of necessity, even if he is mistaken about the necessity, even if it's only a perceived necessity."

I realize this seems parallel to the case of the little girl's first communion that I posted. I pointed out that doctrinal consistency is likely the reason for the strength of the church. That would appear to be the issue here as well, although I smell some standard, of this world, politics as well.

In this case those considered in the wrong are refusing to accept a sanctioned change by the church, whereas in the first case, the church was refusing to change when asked by those considered in the wrong. I think the case here is weaker, in that requiring the Communion bread have wheat and the wine have fermented grape juice might be justified in a cultic requirement sense. The issue of Latin in the service is strictly a dictum by the church heirarchy.

What I find interesting, however, is that the issue is over saying the Mass in Latin, and yet St Bartholomew's Basilica in Philadelphia still holds Latin Masses twice a month. Also, if providing communion to a group of sincere believers who disagree with church doctrine, is grounds for suspension, why have the priest(s) that have given communion to those politicians that voted for and champion abortion not been chastised or punished in any way?

Even though I can see the Roman Catholic position in both issues, it does offend my concepts of God and the worship of Him that some men can say, "Do it my way, or else." It makes them little better than Christian or Islamic fundamentalists. Of course, I belong to a church founded by the man that told the Holy See where to get off, and got away with it.

Thanks to Mike Gilleland for the link.

The time has come the scientist said
To speak of other things
Of whistles, sounds, and helium
and maybe how birds sing.

(Apologies to Lewis Caroll, "The Walrus and the Carpenter" from "Alice in Wonderland")

I was taking my evening walk and was sure I heard a steam engine chime (Steam engines do NOT have whistles, they have chimes.) I started thinking about why I was so sure it was a steam engine and the nature of its characteristic sound. Why did I think it was steam instead of air powering it?

Let's start with something familiar, a toy whistle. It has a slot with a taper to an edge and a hollow tube. (We could also start with a flute or piccolo, but they create the original sound a bit differently so aren't as good for the purpose). Or maybe some of the readers remember the old Boy Scout whittling project to make a willow whistle. The key is the sharp edge at the slot, and the hollow tube. In fact expand this and you have a pipe on a pipe organ. Air passes across the sharp edge and a turbulence is set up. The turbulence then generates sound waves. For all sound waves that have a wavelength that is 4, 2, 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, etc. the length of the tube will be enforced by resonant amplification, and others will be diminished or cancelled. This provides the pitch of the whistle.

The timbre or quality of the sound is controlled by the relative proportions of the various wavelengths of sound. The longest wavelength is the fundamental and the others are the overtones. Overtones are exact fractions of the fundamental, i.e., there are an integral number of them contained in the length of fundamental. The chime notes on a guitar are overtones of the string generating them. The octave is the 1/2, the next one is the 1/3. I have not heard nor was I ever able to generate the 1/4 or higher overtone. Yet it is the abundance of this overtone that accounts for much of the characteristic tone of a French horn. For that matter, French horns are sufficiently rich in overtones that two horns playing two notes can produce from their common overtones the remainder of the chord. I did it once when I was taking lessons.

Having described at a very high level the fundamentals of sound generation, we now can talk about helium. Everyone knows the trick of inhaling the helium from a helium balloon and then talking "Donald Duck" or my favorite is "Follow the Yellow Brick Road." Conversely, one time I participated in a halon test (Halon is the gas that quenches fires in computer rooms without water. Contrary to what many people believe it does not get rid of oxygen. It actually is a free-radical quencher--a reverse ozone hole generator.) During the test, my normal tenor voice became something close to basso. So here we have the same vocal chords, lungs, mouth structure, yet three quite different voices depending on whether they are using helium, air, or halon and air to generate the sounds. The difference is due to the effective mass of the atmosphere. Helium has an atomic weight of 4. Air is mostly nitrogen and oxygen so has a molecular weight of .8(28) + .2(32) = 28.8. Halon is very dense stuff. I don't know the exact formula, but it has a lot of bromine in it which has an atomic weight of 37 and a molecular weight of 74 [That's from memory. So if it's off a bit, sorry. The argument still holds.] But halon is not just a bromine molecule, it has carbon and more than two bromine atoms in it. My guess is it is about 200 or so molecular weight. Even a small percent of this in air would significantly raise the density.

OK, so why worry about the density of the atmosphere? Because a less dense atmosphere emphasizes high overtones, and a more dense atmosphere emphasizes low overtones.

Now we get to train steam chimes. A good steam chime was composed of several tuned brass tubes that looked very similar to organ pipes. The idea was that they would create a chord when sounded. If one used air to sound them they would sound similar to an organ, perhaps with less character to the tone. But sound them with steam and there is a world of difference. The complexity of the sound greatly increases. This is due to the complexity of the steam. When it is first released, the steam expands and rapidly cools, and vapor starts condensing. What is created is an atmosphere with a constantly changing density and gradients within it. As the vapor condenses, it cools, and the effective density rises. Additionally, the vapor changes the nature of the turbulence that generates the sound. The result is a characteristic sound unlike any other.

The same could also be said for calliopes, those musical sound generators that used to provide merry-go-round music and riverboat music--a sound unlike any other. Where I love the sound of an engine steam chime, I really don't like a calliope. I think it is because a steam chime is static in pitch, and once tuned, it gives a reproducible result. Calliopes try to produce changing pitches with a non-homogeneous medium (unlike a pipe organ which uses homogeneous air), and so always sound out of tune to me.

In the heyday of steam railroading, every hot shot engineer had a characteristic hand on the cord, and usually a distinctive sounding chime on his assigned engine. As a consequence we get this line from The Ballad of Casey Jones:

"The brakeman knew by the engine's moan,
that the man at the throttle was Casey Jones."

There's nothing else like it.

Oh, yeah, I'll save the birds for another time.

I always have a certain quiet, pleasant anticipation when heading over to Mike Gilleland's blog. Today he discusses some common phrases in English and Latin. It is not that they have the immediacy of political commentary, but I find it reassuring that someone cares enough about such things as to provide correct answers. One common failing in the things we often do is failing to pay attention to details. Here the details command attention.

Norm Weatherby at Quantum Thoughts has some troubling statistics on the economics of illegal immigration. There must be room for them in the economy or they wouldn't keep coming. Let's make it easier to become a citizen the right way, and harder to sneak in. Raise the quotas for third world countries, but clamp down on the borders even harder. It will make a great filter. The ones that do get in will have been selected for determination, willingness to work hard, and even better will be on the tax rolls. (That is not quite as inconsistent with my other beliefs as it first seems. Better to have more people paying so that everyone can keep a bit more.)

The Air Marshall at Naked Villainy has some succinct thoughts on the idea of Islamic courts in the US for muslims. I totally agree.

I just added a link to the right to Amy Ridenour's National Center blog. It is a conservative blog and well worth visiting. I found it from the spike in referrals when she linked to my post on the risks of early term abortion. Thanks, Amy.

A theme that I have written against before is the so-called Argument from Design, or in some versions, the Anthropic Principle. In essence the argument from design says that the universe is so exquisitely designed and so delicately inter-related that it could only have come from a designer. In the Anthropic Principle, the thinking is taken one step further. It states in its various versions, that the universe is so fine-tuned in its construction, that minor variations in the values of fundamental physical constants would render the existence of humans impossible, therefore the universe was designed for the existence of humans since we exist. (In thinking about this today, it reminded me of Winnie the Pooh and honey. Pooh thought that bees existed to create honey so he might eat it.) I am currently reading one of the more thorough papers in this area and plan to post a rebuttal in the future.

What I want to present tonight is the idea that such attempts to use knowledge of science to create evidence for God are both futile and degrading to both God and to science. First and foremost, the epistemology of religion and science are totally opposite. Religion depends on faith and a belief in revealed word. This is common to the three main monotheistic religions and could also be said of the religious writings of other major faiths, e.g. Hinduism and Buddhism. Science on the other hand depends on the objective reproduction of findings by others.

Faith is of itself a difficult issue. The most common idea of faith is an unquestioning acceptance of God. I don’t think that this is the correct meaning. Abraham is considered a man of great faith, yet in reading the Old Testament, yet we see him arguing with God over the destruction of Sodom. In fact driving a bargain with God, extracting a promise the Sodom would not be destroyed if there were ten good people there. (Obviously there weren’t since, it was destroyed, and Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she looked back. Great morality play stuff, and I’m NOT being facetious). What characterizes Abraham’s faith was his lack of questioning God’s being there. Much like we expect our spouses or closest friends to be there for us, so also did Abraham expect God to be there, even if they argued. This is the real basis of faith, a form of trust that God will be there and will fulfill his promises. It is not a blind acceptance of any individual act, but rather a willing acceptance of the existence. Once the premise of God is accepted, there is no questioning, and there is no attempt to prove or disprove. His existence is stated and from that point on taken as given. The word of others is considered sufficient to provide belief. Claims are made for the things that God has supposedly done, and there is little question of them as long as they fit preconceptions.

The rigorous questioning and requirements for objective demonstration place science outside of the realm of religion. In science nothing is taken on faith unless explicitly stated as being assumed. Even then that assumption may be questioned in light of other data or newly acquired results. Even the most fundamental assumptions are open to question. The history of science is littered with the remains of former theories and premises. Euclidean geometry continues to be taught and have value, but there were a number of new geometries that have come along that questioned the truth of the idea that two parallel lines would never intersect, or in alternative formulations, that the angles of a triangle could be either less than or greater then 180º. The truth of the idea that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, is no longer correct in interstellar space, it must follow a geodesic, which potentially is far more curved.

The two areas have disparate goals as well. Science wants to provide the maximum ability to work with the world around us. It provides explanations and new ideas that can be exploited by everyone to obtain a better standard of living. The goal of religion is to increase belief in the given tenets of the religion and modify the believers’ behavior accordingly. In general that is accomplished in small church meetings, not from large, widely disseminated publications, whereas with science belief is accomplished with the publication of the new data. To bring the questioning tactics of science into the search for God, is to state one does not have faith or possibly even belief. To bring the practice of faith into the quest for scientific knowledge is to restrict its scope of inquiry before it is even opened.

One can also approach this as an emotional construct for religion and a rational construct for science. In saying this, it is not to be taken as condemning religion as irrational, or promoting science as rational. As humans we have both parts in us and need to allow both to flourish. For years I was an agnostic, and said only that which was logical and objectively demonstrable counted. When I decided that I did believe in God, arriving at that belief did not use my scientific background. It was in response to my own, internal emotional conflicts. The only thing my scientific training has done is to provide me with knowledge to avoid a conflict between the proper spheres of operation of religion and science. It also provides the knowledge to recognize the differences between the two areas.

As I said last Thursday, such arguments appear to me to be more an attempt to rationalize an arrived-at belief than a convincing argument to another person. Belief in God should be its own justification, just as the practice of science does not need a supplemental belief structure.

Naked Villainy, my favorite quiz source, has this quiz on which I scored a 33%.

I also took the political quiz and was a pragmatic rightist -- surprise, surprise!

Once again Drudge has linked to something of interest. This time it is a good object lesson in how to say something about nothing. He links to a Dan Rather news item on rumors concerning the coming convention. In the 70's and during the Challenger disaster I had a lot of respect for both Walter Cronkite and his protege Dan Rather. I have since lost it [the respect -- some people would say I lost it categorically long ago :-) ] This post is a good example of why I don't care much anymore for Dan Rather. He does his best with no information to torpedo Vice-President Cheney, and then tries to rehabilitate Mr Kerry.

BTW this is why I constantly watch Drudge. He can go weeks with nothing that interests me, then suddenly produce a deluge of interesting links.

Time Magazine interviewed Laura Bush and Drudge linked to it. What a politically savvy and gracious lady! Drudge also posted a link to an additional interview by the New York Post.

Drudge earns a HAT TRICK and Mrs. Bush earns my vote for President. (OK that's not quite correct, but I think President Bush has earned another term in office, and it pleases me that Laura Bush is such an articulate and principled lady.)

Drudge has a preview of the TIME interview with President Bush. Go read it. Here is my favorite quote:

“By Bush’s math, you can change your tactics, but you pay a price for changing your principles, and can gain capital by toughing out a fight even if you lose,” Dickerson and Gibbs write.

Amen.

Now the liberals are targetting the delegates to the Republican Convention directly. And the Justice Department is looking at it as possible voter intimidation. The battle is joined. It's going to be an ugly 2 1/2 months until the election.

Thanks to Drudge for the link.

Thinking about some people I know, that I also know hate President Bush and therefore like Mr. Kerry, I believe that part of it has to do with how they view themselves and their place in the world. I have commented on liberals that use it as a means to power, and those who think they are helping others (without consideration of the means to do so), but now I think there is a third category. Those who do not see themselves as efficacious in the world. They feel unworthy or inept, have poor self-images, and generally want to be taken care of. As a consequence they deeply resent President Bush's expectations that they be self-sufficient. It makes them face the fact that they aren't and can't and/or don't want to be. It is taking away their ease and what they see as entitlement.

What is worse, is our public education system encourages this belief and behavior. It strongly discourages anyone solving a problem with another student or in independent behavior. It all has to be under the control of the teacher and/or administrator. No wonder the liberals like control of education. It allows them to make clones, to the degree that it is possible.

The Maximum Leader has taken this quiz and is a Claymore. It fits his love of the Scots. I tried it and got this result:


Bastard Sword, although used by many europeans in
medievil times this sword was more of a
collecters sword and was less used for fighting
and more used for looking at, and would only be
used by great warriors or lords/kings. (Please
Vote)


What sword would you use (info and pics on swords as well)
brought to you by Quizilla

I do like the line about great warriors and kings. :-)

The New York Daily News published the same news event by two different reporters. One was pretty much straight news, the other a standard spin article. Here are the two links, 1 and 2. You read; you decide.

Thanks to Drudge for the links.

While I was taking my enforced absence from the blogosphere, both the Maximum Leader and the Minister of Agriculture (Smallholder) at Naked Villainy have come back to blogging in full force. Good to read you back guys!

The Maverick Philosopher has posted an excellent presentation of what constitutes a cumulative case and applies it to the war in Iraq. One of the best things about Dr. Vallicella is that he has a full appreciation of the realities of the world along with his phenomenal academic skills. As witness this quote from the end:

"But of course, liberals and leftists are so blinded by their passionate hatred of Bush II, that patient analysis of the foregoing sort will be lost on them."

If you haven't seen it, go to Steve Headley's Texas Conservative and look at the city dude in the country. What I would really love to see is him trying to produce the product.

Ally is always passionate in her posts, but this one on partial birth abortion is particularly hard-hitting.

TCS has a graphic with an article that is just too good to miss. Study it for a while. It is one of my favorite types of optical illusions, and the context is too perfect.

Brock Yates has an excellent column in TCS today on why gas milage is a poor criterion for making policy. He does a good job of bringing out the reasons why people drive and why smaller, lighter cars are an ivory tower pipe dream. [deliberately mixed metaphor, but can't you just see it?]

I managed to sneak in some blog reading while my program was running, and found the link to this blog on John Ray's Dissecting Leftism blog. He's good. At first glance he makes me think of a cross between Norm Weatherby and Steve Rugg -- both excellent bloggers.

The title comes from a post of the same name by the SoDakMonk. It comes from an old joke where a scientist asks a Hindu guru what holds the earth up. The guru says it sits on the backs of four giant elephants. These in turn sit on the back of a giant turtle. So what holds the turtle up? ....yep, turtles all the way down. Fr. Matthew mentions this as being in a recent book by Stephen Hawking. He then goes on to see things ominous in Hawkings use of it, continuing to a final cruel ad hominum attack.

I enjoy reading the SoDakMonk, and I have a lot of agreement with his concerns over the persecution of religion in this country. But he is frequently posting the latest version of supposedly scientific evidence for a designed universe. I am currently reading the paper he linked to last week, and I find that it has the common fallacy of the probability of extremely rare occurrences. This is a view that when an extremely rare event occurs or an extremely low probability event occurs, it is seen as being directed rather than being a chance happening. An example from my past is the parallels that were drawn between Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy (the real, original JFK) after Kennedy was assassinated. The paper looks at the complexity of nature and life and does not see anyway for the intricate interrelatedness to occur except by the application of a designer. The author is a materials scientist, and apparently has little experience or knowledge of biology or computer science. In biology evolution can create great complexity and interrelatedness in short times, geologically speaking (very long in human terms). Computers now have genetic algorithms that are solving complex problems rapidly and in ways never thought of by their creators. They do it by evolving the programs to arrive at a solution. I would counter that the end result is so complex that it could not have been designed a priori. The counter to that is that God has infinite intelligence so could do it. This assumes the argument to be proven.

This author also looks at the fundamental physical constants and makes note that if any of them varied by very small amounts that life and our universe as it is would not be possible. He then states that since it does exist, it was designed to exist so we could. Again there is no way to prove or disprove that there are an infinitude of parallel universes with different values for the physical constants and they are quite bizarre compared to ours. Also it may well be that we will ultimately discover a more fundamental statement of reality from which these constants naturally derive with no need for a design.

As I have discussed this in depth elsewhere, where I concluded:

However, just because God is apparently not a requirement for life, does not make Him redundant.

So much of this kind of discussion and argument stems from trying to push either too much onto God or not enough, or else attributing the wrong things. Perhaps the best approach is to revive the Old Testament, “I am that I am,” and not try to force God into areas where He is not necessary. Instead of an anthropic universe, consider an anthrocentric God. It is in our day to day lives as humans that God has meaning.

I consider attempts to rationalize, justify, or support religion with science as wasted. The two are incompatible in their approaches, methods, and knowledge base.

But now I want to return to the SoDakMonk's second paragraph:

But what was originally a harmless joke takes on a more ominous tone when used by an anti-religious extremist like Hawking. Hawking is one of the surprisingly small number of modern scientists who is still an atheist.

Actually, if Fr. Matthew is mostly aware of the writings of physical scientists then he might be led to that conclusion. I think there are many scientists out there that simply keep quiet about it, since it does not relate to their science.

The "strong anthropic principle", as detailed last week, is making believers out of scientists who recognise that the universe appears designed for intelligent life.

I have discussed this above and elsewhere. I do not think it is convincing when given to someone. Usually it occurs as the reasons why someone choses to believe.

I haven't read Hawking's latest book, but what I have read by him leads me to think he is rather overrated as a world-class thinker when he ventures beyond his specialty.

Anyone speaking or writing to a general audience, even in his speciality, will not be "world-class" except to his/her publicist. Dr. Hawking is justifiably one of the most brilliant thinkers in theoretical physics today. When he tries to bring his ideas to a general audience it is much like I do when I blog science. Even if he writes outside his field, he is doing no more than Carl Sagan did with "Broka's Brain" and "The Dragons of Eden", both of which gave me intellectual heartburn, but were still worth the reading. Such publications are an extended equivalent of blogging.

His physical disability is actually a good public relations trick for him, because it fits the pop culture icon of the eccentric genius. Yes, even in the academic world it helps to have a gimmick.

This is an entirely unwarranted and cruel ad hominum attack. Dr. Hawkings disability has nothing to do with his ability as a scientist. It is his ability to think that has allowed him, with the help of others, to find ways to communicate despite his disabilities. He should be considered an inspiration. Almost anyone else in the same situation would have given up and died long ago.

I have no issue with Fr. Matthew's espousal of arguments for design. I went through that at one time as well. It is comforting in this modern day of attempted hyper-rationality that an emotional state can seem to be supported by reason. However, whether one disagrees or not with another's position, attacking the person in a way not related to the position is wrong. I could be described accurately as a fat, old, fart, but it bears no relationship to my blogging. Were I to try to be athletic, then it is a different story.

John Ray in his Greenie Watch blog has published a term to describe those who have a more sane approach to the environment. One can be a greenie (as in weenie) or one can be a terracotta.

If you're a green, you believe in wildlife (without humans) and wilderness, you want to change attitudes, you believe in communal ownership.

If you're a Teracotta - a material which comes from the earth, but only through the medium of human agency, you believe that humans are part of the world ecology, that you want to see wise use of environmental resources rather than mere wilderness, that you want to change incentives (rather than the minds of politicians) and that private ownership and property rights are probably the best way to protect scarce things, like the environment. Makes sense to me

.

I don't mind being a terracotta.

OK, I couldn't stand going a week without posting. It's addicting. So while my program runs, I'll steal some time.

I'm in Columbus, OH, this week, staying downtown. I've gotten serious again about my weight, so every evening I take a 30 minute walk (Having done nothing for months, 30 minutes is a good time). The hotel is located a block from the State Capitol, and across the street from the Scioto river. So walking can be very pleasant, things to see and think about.

Tonight I'm just into my walk and a guy comes the other way towards me. We pass and I exchange the usual stranger-stranger pleasantries. I'm in a good mood so probably am pretty cheerful. (Oh, yeah, the guy looks pretty poor, economically). About 10 yards away he suddenly turns and says, "Sir, can I ask you something?" OK, I figure I know what is coming, but not being in a hurry and in a good mood, I figure I'll see how it plays out.

He gives me a long spiel and a bunch of ingratiation. Along with, he's been in prison 13 years and just got out a week ago, and hasn't had anything to eat in four days, and he's been to the shelters and the churches and can't get anything. (Yeah, I realize it's all a lie). So could I spare the cost of a sandwich. (Inflation has even hit panhandling. Used to be a cup of coffee).

I look at him and ask, "Are there any places to eat nearby?" He says only about 8 or 9 blocks on up. I said, "nothing around here, say over on High Street?" No. I said, "I'd be happy to feed you, but I will not give you money." He looks at me like, "Huh?" I repeated it. I said, "I will feed you, but I will not give you money. I never give money." This guy looked like he was lost in the twilight zone. This response was totally outside anything he could deal with. He just shut up and turned and left.

BTW if he had asked for money, I wouldn't have given it to him. And I found out a bit later on the walk there was an open Wendy's three blocks away and an Arby's with a 2 for $4 special just a block away.

It's not nice to tell lies. But I doubt if he learns.

This week will be an intense one on the road. I will consider myself lucky to read other blogs much less post to my own. Some weeks I can keep up on the road and some not. This one will most likely be a not.

An eight-years old girl, the Roman Catholic Church, and Political Correctness come together in this particular case.

Here is the story (via CNN, and Naked Villainy): [elisions are the girls personal history]

BRIELLE, New Jersey (AP) -- An 8-year-old girl who suffers from a rare digestive disorder and cannot eat wheat has had her first Holy Communion declared invalid because the wafer contained no wheat, violating Roman Catholic doctrine.
Now, Haley Waldman's mother is pushing the Diocese of Trenton and the Vatican to make an exception, saying the girl's condition should not exclude her from the sacrament, which commemorates the Last Supper of Jesus Christ before his crucifixion. The mother believes a rice Communion wafer would suffice.
"It's just not a viable option. How does it corrupt the tradition of the Last Supper? It's just rice versus wheat," said Elizabeth Pelly-Waldman.
Church doctrine holds that Communion wafers, like the bread served at the Last Supper, must have at least some unleavened wheat. Church leaders are reluctant to change anything about the sacrament.
"This is not an issue to be determined at the diocesan or parish level, but has already been decided for the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world by Vatican authority," Trenton Bishop John M. Smith said in a statement last week.
…
The diocese has told Haley's mother that the girl can receive a low-gluten wafer, or just drink wine at Communion, but that anything without gluten does not qualify. Pelly-Waldman rejected the offer, saying her child could be harmed by even a small amount of the substance.
Haley's Communion controversy isn't the first. In 2001, the family of a 5-year-old Massachusetts girl with the disease left the Catholic church after being denied permission to use a rice wafer.
Some Catholic churches allow no-gluten hosts, while others do not, said Elaine Monarch, executive director of the Celiac Disease Foundation, a California-based support group for sufferers.
"It is an undue hardship on a person who wants to practice their religion and needs to compromise their health to do so," Monarch said.
The church has similar rules for Communion wine. For alcoholics, the church allows a substitute for wine under some circumstances, however the drink must still be fermented from grapes and contain some alcohol. Grape juice is not a valid substitute.
…
Last year, as the third grader approached Holy Communion age in this Jersey Shore town, her mother told officials at St. Denis Catholic Church in Manasquan that the girl could not have the standard host.
After the church's pastor refused to allow a substitute, a priest at a nearby parish volunteered to offer one, and in May, Haley wore a white Communion dress, and received the sacrament alongside her mother, who had not taken Communion since she herself was diagnosed with the disease.
Last month, the diocese told the priest that the church would not validate Haley's sacrament because of the substitute wafer.
…
Pelly-Waldman is seeking help from the Pope and has written to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, challenging the church's policy.
"This is a church rule, not God's will, and it can easily be adjusted to meet the needs of the people, while staying true to the traditions of our faith," Pelly-Waldman wrote in the letter.

Here is a catholic blogger’s take on the issue, a fear that the church will ultimately be dictated to by the courts. (via the SoDakMonk)

Next major assault on religious liberty
Know what it will be? A campaign to deny to churches and other religious entities the right to enforce their own doctrines against an individual dissenting member.

The ideological basis for this campaign will be the asserted right of the individual to "practice" the religion of his choice. Of course, traditional Free Exercise principles forbid the government from interfering with this right; the new twist is that a church's own teachings will be seen as violating religious liberty norms if they burden an individual's desire to belong to that church.

I've already seen an article in the Yale Law Journal sketching this theory, using "fundamentalist" Islam as its target -- a smooth move, since no one will want to be seen defending the right of the Taliban to be the Taliban. (I'll post the cite later; I don't have it here right now.)

In this light, consider this news item:

BRIELLE, N.J. — An 8-year-old girl who suffers from a rare digestive disorder and cannot eat wheat has had her first Holy Communion (search) declared invalid because the wafer contained no wheat, violating Roman Catholic doctrine.
...
Some Catholic churches allow no-gluten hosts, while others do not, said Elaine Monarch, executive director of the Celiac Disease Foundation, a California-based support group for sufferers.

See? Some parishes already accommodate, so it's obviously sheer discrimination for the Church as a whole not to. But Ms. Monarch isn't finished:

"It is an undue hardship on a person who wants to practice their religion and needs to compromise their health to do so," Monarch said.

"Undue hardship." "Undue burden." Lack of "reasonable accommodation." It's the language that precedes a lawsuit, probably under the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Free Exercise suit against the Church will come later, after the Supreme Court has been persuaded by Mark Tushnet, Cass Sunstein, et al. that the "state action" requirement for direct liability under the Constitution should be abandoned.

The Air Marshall at Naked Villainy posted this easily sympathized with view:

Wheat-allergic girl denied Communion
Read the story here[link to above story, bk]. I'd be interested in BigHo's take on this. Being a spiritual, but non religious person, married into the Catholic church, this sort of thing strikes me as just plain stupid. I guess it's OK for priests to molest little kids, but you can't use rice crackers in communion.

It just seems that so many times organized religion gets hung up in irrelevant details and misses the whole point of worshipping a greater being. Especially a political, and financial organization like the Roman Catholic Church.

My Comments:
Despite the apparent triviality of the issue, actually it is very deep and strikes at the roots of religious practice. What makes it more difficult is that depending on one’s starting point, any of the views may be considered justified or even correct. It is also seems to be over the top that this would be seen as a possible attempt to force a church to change its doctrine. So I would like to look at this in a bit more detail.

One of the things that seems to characterize modern society is that we are always ready to ask for, and obtain an exception. It has become much more common in the last few years as victimhood becomes the gold standard for legal action. At the same time one of the strengths of the Roman Catholic Church over the ages is its conservatism, a deliberate reluctance to change without major debate and a careful (some would say overly careful) decision process. Despite the various mistakes that have been shown in its history, there is always a sense of a core, unchanging set of doctrines and practices. It would be my guess that a renaissance or possibly medieval catholic placed in a modern Latin service would be right at home. Such conservatism will of necessity be protected by a tremendous rigidity towards outside influences. That it is a successful strategy is evidenced by the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is the only denomination that is growing in the US besides fundamentalist churches, which are also quite rigid in belief and practice. Mainline protestant churches, with occasional exceptions, are experiencing declines. Mainline protestant churches also are the most flexible in belief and practice.

The nature of churches is that the ecclesiastical hierarchy dictates correct belief and practice. And in many churches this means agree or don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Interestingly enough this seems to characterize many growing faiths, including fundamental Christianity, Islam, and Roman Catholicism. It provides a solid core of absolute reference. It does no matter if it is consistently followed by the believers. It is its existence that provides the anchor. It is important to realize that one can discuss doctrine and practice as separate entities, but in actual use practice follows from doctrine, and cannot be isolated from it.

Enter into this an eight-years old girl cursed with an inability to eat wheat gluten. It is my understanding that this disease can be extremely painful and debilitating with exposure to very small amounts of wheat. It is in the nature of an allergy. Think of it as a version of allergy to bee stings or seafood. She has been raised a Roman Catholic and to Catholics, First Communion is a major milestone while growing up. Generally a party is given afterwards that often rivals a birthday party in expansiveness. It is a major family occasion. Her regular parish priest refuses to give her a rice wafer in place of a wheat one, so another priest does. Now her First Communion is declared void.

To most of us this seems heartless and cruel. It is not her fault she has the disease. Why can’t the exception be made? In the news article the church representative states that doctrine requires that some wheat gluten be present in the wafer for it to count. Just as they also say that there must be some fermented grape juice in the grape juice substitute for wine that is given alcoholics. This seems rather technical and hair-splitting in nature. But it can be seen as a way of ensuring spiritual continuity with the original Last Supper, where unleavened wheat bread was served (much like a whole wheat matzo). So even though the Roman Catholic Church has, over the years, turned unleavened bread into an unleavened, shaped disc or wafer, still it has carefully maintained a sense of continuity with the requirement that some wheat be present.

Given such doctrinal importance, it is understandable, even if to some unacceptable, why an exception in this case would be seen as a major erosion of the core faith. If one such exception were made it would open the gates to others. This certainly cannot be the only such doctrinal issue that is inconvenient. It happens to be one of the ones under direct and total control of the church. Many others such as birth control depend on the conscience of the parishioner to be observed.

It is important to keep in mind, that despite the difficulties of maintaining such a position in the face of opposition to it, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE CHURCH TO DO SO. Much as I said Lester Maddox had a right to chose the clientele of his restaurant in a very early blog. So the church then presents this young girl and her parents with a very difficult decision, remain in the church of birth and not take communion, remain in the church of birth and take communion and be sick, or leave the church. One of the successes of the Roman Catholic Church is that they do an excellent job of indoctrination as a member grows up [this does not necessarily have pejorative connotations]. Leaving the church is probably the last option to be considered.

In today’s climate of victims’ superiority, it is natural for the church to feel the threat of a lawsuit. In this case with the publicity surrounding it, the fear may turn out to be well-founded. If the rights of the church are found to be subordinate to that of the parishioner, then the state will have, in effect, established a religion, because it will have dictated the terms of religious practice of a church.

But what about the little girl? I see a number of options. First, do we really know that a single communion wafer, once a week or once a month will be truly debilitating? Do we know that she has an absolute intolerance to wheat gluten, or is this a case of taking the absolute position for sake of creating an issue. It is possible that she would only have to take a small portion of the wafer for it to count. To anyone familiar with communion wafers, the whole thing is pretty insignificant physically in the first place. There has to be some medical treatment besides avoidance. Can something be worked out with her doctor to minimize the impact of taking communion? I deliberately removed the statements concerning the girl, her condition, and her and her mother’s comments, because they could be considered inflammatory in nature. I don’t think this is being undertaken in good faith by the mother. In the absence of any statements to the contrary, if no attempt a accommodation is to be taken, then find another church. There are mainline protestant churches with a liturgy almost identical to the Roman Catholic one, and most would be willing to use a non-wheat substitute for the communion bread.

The SoDakMonk in the previously linked post said:

“I have always considered the possibility that the Church could see political persecution in my lifetime. The voices of those who hate Christianity are growing louder, and I don't see much outrage on our side. We need a wake-up call.”

Unfortunately, the call is coming very late. This kind of political persecution has been going on for years in Establishment Clause law. I have read a lot of the opinions, and the overall trend has not been to keep religious freedom. Even in my days as an agnostic, I knew that one had to respect religion. Not to respect it opens the doors to persecution of ANY belief, not just religious.

Mike Gilleland at Laudator Temporis Acti has posted a note on hiring. In my day in science during Lyndon Johnson's guns and butter programs, the pertinent phrase was "Women and minorities are encouraged to apply." I guess getting the job was a cinch if you were a black woman. This was during the worst job market for scientists that I can remember. Science magazine which normally had six to twelve pages of openings, had one to two, and almost all of them carried the above phrase. The poor white guy with kids to feed that had just been laid off didn't stand a chance.

Norm Weatherby at Quantum Thoughts has posted some of the evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is a current secular position that Jesus was a mythical figure. As Norm points out, the evidence does nothing to support or disprove Jesus divinity, but it does establish him as a real person.

Dick McDonald at The Right Scale has the transcript of Richard Reid's sentencing. It is one of the most powerful statements of freedom vs. terrorism I have read. Read it.

Dennis Mangan has linked to my post on deer and predators, and points out:

"for it assumes that only human interests count, and that is exactly what must be established. "

Most articles and commentary on the supposed immorality of eating meat seem to have an argument of animals' interests in them. They then use the animals' interest in not dying in being the moral equivalent of our interests or even trumping all but our interests in not dying. I am not in a position to properly argue this, both from knowledge and time standpoints, but there are two things that strike me about this argument, 1) is the concept of interests being properly applied, or is it being stretched and distorted for the purposes of the position, and 2) given that interests are indeed a correct concept to use, what is the determiner of the value of interests or what are proper interests to have.

I am glad to see Mike Gilleland back blogging again, and he has a link to Joy of Knitting . It is an established blog, and definitely has some different and interesting posts.

The SoDakMonk has a sobering post on the attacks on religious freedom. It rapidly gets into areas of constitutional law and individual freedom trumping religious freedom in the sense of an individual's religious preference being imposed by law on a religious institution despite the established and stated doctrines. The link to another blog and the comments in that blog make it more substantial than one might first suppose.

I have been concerned for religious freedom for some time. This form of attack is new but not surprising.

For the consequentialists in the crowd: This article discusses the well-researched, peer-reviewed and published finding that abortion in the first trimester is three times more dangerous than giving birth, and the legal implications under Roe vs. Wade.

Thanks to the SoDakMonk for the link.

Ally at Who Moved My Truth? does an excellent job of pointing out the inconsistency of the feminists' position on abortion.

Steve Rugg at JusTalkin is really on fire today. Love both his posts on the Kerry advertising and on the Al-Sadr mess in Najaf.

Joshua Elder has published an essay in TCS on the liberals with the above title. It is the best statement on liberal elitism I have seen.

In an email newsletter from The Federalist for today (20 August 2004, Federalist Patriot No. 04-33, Friday Digest) this appeared:

Keeping alive the "President Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore" myth, 13 Democrat congressmen demanded in July that UN observers be invited to monitor the upcoming presidential election. Their request was rejected by UN Secretary Kofi Annan and barred by House Republicans. Yet Secretary of State Colin Powell has invited the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's (OSCE's) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to monitor our election anyway. [emphasis mine, bk]

The ODIHR (pronounced, we suppose, "oh dear") is based in Warsaw and conducts "in-depth observation of national and local elections." Its goal is to "ensure full respect for full human rights...as well as promote tolerance throughout society," according to its website.

Needless to say, House Democrats are thrilled, and they're letting the propaganda fly. Said Demo Rep. Barbara Lee -- she of the lone House vote against going to war with the Taliban -- "We sincerely hope that the presence of the monitors will make certain that every person's voice is heard, and every person's vote is counted." As if they weren't in 2000. (Memo to Colin Powell: Mr. Secretary, we respect and admire your service to our country...but what were you thinking?)

Advocates of American sovereignty are livid, and properly so. A spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul described Powell's action as "exactly the type of entanglement that results from our continued insistence on being a member of the UN...."

Meanwhile, just how ODIHR representatives will perform their monitoring is unclear. For example, in Florida, election officials say that foreign observers are not allowed within 50 feet of the polls. But perhaps while they're at it, the foreign "observers" can trump state sovereignty, too.

Tech Central Station published an essay discussing the increase in deer-automobile accidents. They also pointed out the resistance to letting hunters ease the problem. In a nutshell, the reason there are too many deer is that there are not predators and plenty to eat. Deer eat crops, shrubs, gardens, whatever they can find, and they are becoming a nuisance to suburban homeowners. There is so much population pressure that their natural timidity towards man is becoming less. There are no predators because we eliminated them when we settled the country. We had to. Given the choice between a deer that knows danger and how to escape and a fat, dumb cow or fat, slow pig, a predator will go for the domestic food.

From a wildlife management viewpoint the answer is obvious – kill the excess deer.

From a political, emotional viewpoint – wrong answer. I blame the movie “Bambi”. It was out about the time I was four, and it had lots of appealing, childlike characters. The underlying message was that hunters were the bad guys. They kill Bambi’s father and mother. Nowhere in the movie were there natural predators. Animals were presented as “just like us”. Yes, this is obvious make-believe, but the underlying emotional message still got across – animals are sweet, cuddly, and we are awful to hunt them.

Projecting our view and reactions of the world and its impact on us onto animals (anthropomorphism) is totally fallacious. Animals do not live in our world and we do not live in theirs. Yes, we can see similarities in their reactions to what we would feel or do, but that alone does not validate ascribing human-like feelings or reactions to them.

Many of the objections to hunting are simply ignorant. The worry over a wounded animal dying later rarely happens. Almost all hunters are responsible in that they 1) practice to become good marksmen and markswomen and 2) if they wound an animal they follow it until they find it and then kill it as quickly as possible. Though there is trophy hunting, which I would like to exclude from this discussion, deer, turkey, rabbit, squirrel, duck and goose hunting actually provide food and leather or fur. This is not wanton killing. Restricting hunting to only bucks has caused major declines in the quality of deer herds. By selecting only the most fit as objects to hunt, we have removed them as sources of input to the genetic pool. From a natural viewpoint, it is more effective and less naturally expensive to hunt does. Since hunting is done during the mating season, there would be no risk of orphaning a fawn. It would allow males to compete again for the leadership and ownership of the does, and would remove the desire to hunt for a trophy. Removing a doe is far more effective method for herd reduction than removing a male.

Back to anthropomorphism, most people can imagine being shot with a rifle, but few can imagine being hit by a car. Of the two, the car is the worse. A rifle either kills instantly or passes on through. A car creates blunt trauma and death may or may not come rapidly. It may only break a leg in which case the deer dies a slow, lingering death, unable to compete adequately. Here is a thought comparison, being shot by a rifle is to being hit by a car, as being cut with a sharp knife is to being hit with a hammer.

Outlawing hunting and hoping for a better way to control deer than hitting them with cars is nothing but wishful thinking.

The Igloo has a good post on the effects of aging at a relatively young age.

The SoDakMonk has found a new and interesting article arguing for a designed universe. I have downloaded and printed it. I will study it and discuss in a future post. I personally do not believe in a designed universe though I do believe in God. This article looks to have a lot of thought behind it.

Bill Vallicella has yet another important post, this time as an answer to a new argument from atheism/agnosticism. I am constantly awed by his ability to concisely and accurately nail his points.

Tonight I had dinner at an Indian Restaurant for the first time. One of my colleagues said I should try it. OK, I was nervous about doing it on my own. I had heard some bad stories about some other Indian restaurants. I was very pleasantly surprised.

The restaurant was very clean and well decorated with nice Indian prints on the walls. I was amazed at the reasonableness of the prices on the menu, especially for the wine. I typically expect 2X retail or more in lesser restaurants. This was about 125% to 135% of retail. The three of us ordered a huge amount of food, and had some left, with the wine for $25 apiece.

The waiter was very good. Granted we were the only customers for a while, but still I have had bad service under those conditions before. I really enjoyed the food. We ordered medium hot, but I could have handled hot OK. I like this cuisine better than Thai and possibly better than Mexican/TexMex.

But what was more interesting to me was that the other side of the restaurant was set up for a kids party. It looked like about 50 people were expected. They started arriving while we were eating. There was a mixture of American and traditional Indian dress. A couple of the ladies were pregnant.

I think this captures in a nutshell what the American dream is about. These people have come to this country. They work hard; they produce something of value and sell it, and they maintain a closeness of family. I don't consider them a block of Indians. This was a family group first of all. That they happened to be Indians is incidental in one sense, but important in the sense that they have chosen to come here an are working hard to make it worth it.

The other thing to note is that a child's birthday is important. How many US families would bring together the extended family to celebrate a child's birthday? (I have been fortunate to belong to one such for the last 22 years.) Also they believe in having children and taking care of them.

I have over the past few years read opinion that points out that the third world is reproducing faster than the Western world. Pat Buchanan has written on this as well in relation to the US. Pat Buchanan feels that we are threatened by this. If one wants to consider whites as superior, we are. But this country wasn't founded on race, it was founded on ideas. That they came from white men is incidental in terms of their application. If our immigrants understand success better than we do, then they have every right to take over. They will have earned the privilege.

If, like Europe, we, as the longer resident Americans, become so self-centered that we can't be bothered with children, and we don't want to work harder than 40 or so hours a week, then we will get exactly what we deserve. We will be replaced over the decades by those who will.

The biggest problem with getting what we deserve is that by the time it arrives, we've forgotten what we have done. This article is a good example of what all those wonderful, clean air and water regulations and licensing requirements have done to the building of new and better buildings and roads.

Here are some quotes:

LOS ANGELES – Somewhere in China today, a dam is being built and it's ruining Bill Feltz's day.
"It's hurting us, no question," says Mr. Feltz, vice president of production for Anderson Concrete, a leading Central Ohio concrete firm. "The Chinese are building dams and roads and Olympic venues, so they are using more cement than they make." The extra demand is driving up the prices for the rest of the world, he says, so "here in Columbus, Ohio, a significant portion of that is coming out of our pockets."
…
Some construction companies have already planned for shortages until 2005. Although raw materials needed for cement are not in short supply, both the cost and the regulations surrounding the construction of new mills to mix the cement are significant hurdles, observers say.
"The permitting process can take years because of regulations and the fact that many communities don't want a mill in their backyard," says Anderson's Feltz.
To help alleviate the problem, some contracting and homebuilding associations are pressuring the federal government to temporarily lift a ban on cement imported from Mexico. Such tariffs - now at 40 percent but recently as high as 80 percent - began 14 years ago amid US accusations that Mexico was unfairly competing with US companies by selling below cost.

Thanks to Drudge for the link.

Norm Weatherby tends to bring out the geek in me, especially with his humor. For all fellow geeks these are funny.

Lee at Verbum Ipsum has a double today also. He has two excellent posts comparing libertarians to liberals, and a counter to the TCS article on fusionism (libertarianism and conservatism).

Bill Vallicella has a double plus an assist. He posted a lengthy reply to a post by Kevin Kim (Big Hominid), and also a reply to a letter on Incarnation from a graduate student in Philosophy of Religion.

These are very challenging discussions. I have saved them off for later study.

I have created an archive of my religious posts, Bill's Religious Archive. It is to function strictly as an archive. All posts will be here first and a copy to the archive. The purpose is to put all my religious writing in one place.

Lee at Verbum Ipsum has an excellent riposte to an LA Times article condemning religion. Regardless of your beliefs, I think it is an important statement in this area.

Steve Rugg at JusTalkin is on fire. This is a powerful post. He should get angry more often!

One of the most damaging behaviors in human relations is self-righteousness. It sets its practitioners apart and maintains barriers. A righteous person simply goes about his/her life doing the things that she/he believes are correct. The self-righteous person rubs everyone’s nose in how righteous he/she is. My usual Biblical example is the Pharisees. They made a big deal about following the letter of the law and then proceeded to have Jesus put to death for pointing out their hypocrisy.

Modern day self-righteousness was responsible for the mess that was Ireland for so many years. It was a combination of self-righteous and self-pity. Often the two go hand-in-hand. It is a deadly combination – I am so good, things are so bad, I am deserving of …. (revenge, retribution, compensation, etc.) Self-righteousness and self-pity fuel the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. There is an attempt to play on it in the Iranian meddling in Iraq.

In the US, usually liberals are the most guilty of self-righteousness, with their great “concern” for the poor, downtrodden, etc. Evidence of self-righteousness comes in their litmus test politics and decisions. A single issue determines all. A judge is confirmed or fails confirmation on his/her personal views on abortion. Or for that matter her/his personal views on anything. As if to say that the law was subject only personal whim in its interpretation.

People do the same with their own issues sometimes. They will condemn others categorically for a single view they do not agree with. It is a shame, because when they experience the same behavior from someone else they find it hurts. Self-righteousness leads to ideology and the ideology then is used to reinforce the self-righteousness along with the self-pity.

To reference an earlier post, self-righteousness is pride without humility.

Lee at Verbum Ipsum published a note a few days ago mentioning the difference between science and ideology. It has prompted me to post my thoughts on the continuation of a four part series started quite some time back, on the foundations of society. (The other two parts are here and here.)

One of the problems I see in our society today is the warfare between science and religion, specifically academic science and fundamentalist religion. The most obvious battle ground is the argument over teaching evolution in the nations public schools. The fundamentalists want to claim equal time for creation theory or even get rid of the teaching of evolution altogether. For one brief moment they succeeded in Kansas when the State Board of Education decreed that evolution would no longer be taught in the Kansas schools. Historically there have been times when the Roman Catholic church suppressed and dictated the content of science in order for it to be consistent with church doctrine of the time. Today there are cases where religion and science appear to be bedfellows, but I find such coziness troublesome.

At the same time scientists are all too ready to condemn religious thought as superstitious and to especially dismiss the Creation Story. [Dismissing it is to make the converse mistake of the fundamentalists. They hold it as literally true, and science says it is manifestly false. Neither realizes it is an important myth to Judeo-Christian society, just as is the Daneii (Navaho) legend of how the earth and man came to be. Both provide important groundings of belief.]

The problem here is that each side is entering into areas to which it does not belong. I pride myself on being a good scientist by training and by inclination in my approach to everything. I also take pride in having arrived at being a theist, albeit quite non-traditional in my approach. The only way my science impacts my theism is in the analytic thinking habits that I bring to it. The only impact that my theism has on my science is in whatever moral choices I use in the application of the science. It does not impact the practice of the science itself. That is as it should be.

Religion gives us no information or instruction on how to provide for ourselves, or subdue our environment so that we might live. Science gives no instruction on what our moral values should be. Properly employed, science fearlessly studies anything and everything. Religion determines first which of the results of the studies are proper to implement based on its moral laws, and secondarily can determine if the study itself is immoral. A recent example of science without morals was published in the NYT Sunday magazine. A commentary on it was published in Tech Central Station.

The second area is a bit dicey sometimes because of the areas that might be studied. The most obvious example is the ongoing debate on stem cell research and the use of embryonic tissue. Another might be the study of human sexuality. To many believers both these areas are fraught with sinfulness. The one because the fertilized ovum is considered a human, and the other because sex between other than a man and a woman married to each other is wrong. Secularists (read, scientists) point out the benefits to be obtained from the knowledge. [Resolution of this is the province of government because it requires the resolution of competing standards and rules.].

Here are some notes on what I see as the nature of the relationship between scientists and religion as it exists today.

It has been noted that the scientists most likely to be theists in some form are physicists, and those least likely are biologists. I think this comes from ignorance of each others areas, being poor philosophers, and the nature of their respective work.

Lets start with physicists, who form the bulk of the religious scientists and are major contributors to such organizations as the Templeton Foundation. Physicists comments, as quoted in a publication from the Templeton Foundation, tend to fall into the Argument from Design—“The universe is so ordered that there must be an intelligence behind the order.” This is actually poor philosophy, since the order the physicists describe is the order of their models of physical reality. Physicists frequently use their descriptions as a substitute for the actual reality. Events are hypothesized to occur that appear to violate the laws of thermodynamics as long as the energy to cause them is “paid back” within the uncertainty of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principal (HUP). HUP is a theory about how closely we can measure something at the atomic and sub-atomic level, not a theory of reality. Another example is Schroedinger’s Cat. A cat is inside a box with a radioactive source. If the source decays, the cat dies, if it does not the cat is alive. The question is whether the cat is alive or dead. According to this interpretation of quantum mechanics, the cat is neither alive or dead until we open the box and check, at which time it will become alive or dead depending on whether the source emitted a particle or not. This is a good description of our knowledge about the cat, but not about the reality of the cat. There are many other examples and paradoxes that indicate a lack of philosophical rigor in understanding what their theories are or imply. Hence the argument that there is a design, therefore there must be a designer. This may be emotionally satisfying to them, but is actually inaccurate reasoning. What is happening is they are creating an ordered description of the universe and saying that because this ordered description works, that is the design of the universe, and since it appears to be ordered and designed, there must be something that ordered and designed it.

Another argument is the so-called anthropic argument. In effect, it is somewhat teleological in that it points out that this universe is suitable for humans only because of some vary precise values of certain physical constants, and that if those constants had other values, the universe would be uninhabitable. Therefore this universe exists because humans exist. In my mind it is a close cousin Bishop Berkley’s and Kant’s ideas, that in essence, the universe is subjective, not objective. Or perhaps to engage in a bit of ad hominum attack, the anthropic universe appeals because those who believe in it can remain the center of the universe just as when they were children.

Biologists go the other way. The deeper one goes into biology, the more chaotic, accidental and undetermined it appears. There are precise descriptions of biological processes that are very ordered in some cases, but every process has places it can go wrong, and examples of where it does. The mechanisms that life uses to reproduce itself are amazingly accurate but subject to error, and certainly don’t appear to be the end result of a rational design. A hundred years ago, there were still strong arguments that there existed a non-physical quality that was essential to life—the vitalists’ arguments. Since that time increasingly detailed knowledge has all but destroyed that notion, and life is seen as the sum of the processes that have been and will be described. Even the highest areas of the workings of the human brain are being reduced to patterns of firing of neurons. Prebiotic evolution studies are slowly closing the gap between non-living and living entities, indicating that somewhere along the way non-living collections of chemicals can become living. In addition, evolution appears to be a very messy and inefficient way to do things. It is a constant process of mixing genes, sometimes altering them, producing as many varied copies as possible and letting them attempt to survive. The ones that survive are then able to recombine with other genes and try again. This not only applies to sexual reproduction, but also asexual reproduction, since bacteria can have genetic material from other bacteria inserted via natural bacteriophages and conjugation. On one hand, it appears wasteful, but in the time scales available, it does the job and provides an extremely rich variety of life.[1] However, just because God is apparently not a requirement for life, does not make Him redundant.

So much of this kind of discussion and argument stems from trying to push either too much onto God or not enough, or else attributing the wrong things. Perhaps the best approach is to revive the Old Testament, “I am that I am,” and not try to force God into areas where He is not necessary. Instead of an anthropic universe, consider an anthrocentric God. It is in our day to day lives as humans that God has meaning.

[1] The overall efficiency of evolution is such that computer scientists have adopted an analogical process called genetic algorithms. Code is created that is “mixed” in the computer and allowed to process. The code that produces the best result then mixes together to produce different code and the processing repeated. This continues with the addition of “mutations,” that give new steps in the processing. The results have been some excellent and heretofore never thought of ways of solving the problems being tackled.

And I also am proud to be in the community of bloggers that the Maverick Philosopher has mentioned. A note to Dennis Mangan, in the blogging world, the PhDs are far less important than the ideas presented in the blog. You have earned an equal stature by posting and trying to think about things.

The AnalPhilosopher has posted a description of the Epicurean ideal.

Keith posted a similar statement early on in his blogging career, to which I had this response:

At first glance this analysis of desires appeals immediately and the partitioning has merit--necessities, preferences, all the rest. However, desires for wealth and power (or perhaps fame) are not necessarily inimical to happiness. They may be for those who don't care about them, or for those who become irrationally driven to pursue such ends as ends of themselves. But I am convinced that the pursuit of something beyond the immediate physical and emotional needs is essential to the health and happiness of individuals, and thus we have the pursuit of ideas, the creation of material objects, etc. In the process wealth, power, and fame may accrue. The acquisition of these things may certainly be pleasurable even to the extent that they rather than the pursuit of the original goal become the motivators. But is this necessarily inimical or harmful? If the expansion of my material wealth becomes a motivator for improvements in what I do or how I do it, by what standard have I harmed myself or others? In the pathological case where wealth, power, or fame are sought as substitutes for other needs, e.g., love, self-respect, peer-respect, etc., I can see the argument applying.