September 30, 2005
The Book of Lamentations
As told by one Tara Reid:
NEW YORK - Tara Reid wants to prove she's a great actress instead of a party girl. The actress says the media has unfairly represented her and that she just needs a good movie to break the stereotype.
"I think there must be a journalist school where students are taught how to kill Tara Reid," the 29-year-old actress says in a Steppin' Out magazine issue on newsstands Oct. 12.
"The one thing I want to say about American journalists is: why is partying and having a good time bad?" Reid says. "And how come when someone else gets messed up or is a junkie or gets DUI'd and goes to rehab and is considered a hero again?"
Reid says she doesn't plan to go that route because she'd be "admitting guilt for something I'm not guilty of." Instead, she has fired her publicist and hopes to find a good role because the 'wild girl' reputation is hurting her career.
"I need one more great movie role so they say, `Wow, she can act! She's a great actress.' Then I think they'll leave me alone."
She needs one more great movie role so they say "she's a great actress!" Sweetheart, you'd need to have at least one decent role TO BEGIN WITH before you can say you need one more. American Pie was a funny movie, but your role in it? Well, let's just say you weren't at band camp that summer, were ya? Nope. I loved the scene in AP where your character lost her virginity. A cabbage would have done a better acting job. The green leaves and folds just lend themselves to emoting, wouldn't you agree? Which is more than I can say for you: you looked mildly constipated. Until you actually go out and learn how to act---which I can only imagine will cut into your hangover recovery time---you will be unable to get those nasty paparazzi get off your back so you can snort coke/let your tit hang out/get drunk/screw boy toys with impunity.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.
September 29, 2005
A Brief Moment of Alias Related Bitching
I will put it after the jump so as not to spoil it for you Tivo viewers.
more...
Posted by: Kathy at
09:39 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I don't think for one moment he's actually dead. They'll just have to try harder! Though as my boss said this morning, there's no way he should have actually survived the initial shooting. If he was really dead, he would have died there next the railroad tracks, Sydney weeping over his bullet riddled body.
Posted by: Ith at September 30, 2005 06:17 PM (LCvAk)
2
great little blog you got.
nothing wrong with a little bit of cake.
SL
Posted by: shoelover at September 30, 2005 09:48 PM (Hw3RZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
And Now For a Brief Message From the Cake Eater Sister
You all remember
James, right? Well, his Mom---Christi---has a something she'd a like to say to you all.
Hi,
This is Christi (the Cake Eater sister), mom of James. We are finally getting our act together and thanking all of those out there in the blogosphere for helping us out this summer in trying to find a cure for Type I Diabetes. Many of you helped us not only reach, but surpass our goal of $4000. James' Jaywalkers in Omaha was able to raise $4400 this year! We have you to thank for that.
It is always amazing to us how generous our friends and family are when we send out our walk letter. But we are even more amazed when people we don't know are compelled to help us out, too. We so appreciate the sacrifice.
We had a fabulous time at the Diabetes Walk this year. We had wonderful weather (and that is rare in August in Nebraska). The kids had a ton of fun. And best of all, James had the feeling that he is not alone in this battle. He has so much support, from people he knows and people he doesn't know.
Thank you from the bottom of our hearts!
Christi and James
She also passed along a photo of all those who walked that day, so you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, could get the whole Walk to Cure Diabetes experience.
I will add my thanks to hers. You are a great group of people!
Posted by: Kathy at
04:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.
Ain't It The Truth?
Clicket on the image for a bigger, easier on the eyes size.
Cartoon by the brilliant Scott Kurtz of PvP Online.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:38 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Our TIVO allows 100 hours of recording and is damn near full! We're hoping to get time to watch it all before it starts arbitrarily deleting shows so it can record more.
Posted by: Noodles at September 29, 2005 12:12 PM (OGdph)
2
LOL! I just got a DVD last week, and just in the nick of time!
Posted by: Ith at September 29, 2005 01:59 PM (LCvAk)
3
Oh dahling. All I need to know is where James Spader will be this season.
;-)
Posted by: Sadie at September 29, 2005 02:10 PM (7SNDe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Oh So Emotional
{Cue the kid from Poltergeist}
We're Baaaack. And by "we" I mean that the Demystifying Divas and the Marvy Men's Club are back from our hiatus two month tour of Europe, Scandinavia and the Subcontinent.* Did you miss us?
Let's keep the tears of gratitude and thankfulness to a minimum, ok? We know you missed us. There's no need to get all blubbery about our return, ok. Turn off the faucets already. We get the point... And there, my devoted Cake Eater readers, is my exceedingly clever segue into today's topic: just how emotional should a man be?
And the answer is... {insert drumroll here} it depends, and I believe it's a regional thing.
I'm sure if you were a woman and lived in, say, California, you would be much more used to guys who were in touch with their sensitive selves. Because everyone knows that California is where it's considered de rigeur for men to go out and hug redwoods and weep for all the times their fathers spent slurping martinis instead of playing catch on the front lawn with Junior. I'm sure the women out in Californiaaaay are used to this sort of thing and I daresay they appreciate the honesty. After all, it's what they're accustomed to. They, most likely, grew up in California. They were probably there at the beginning of the "me" movement so, undoubtedly, redwood hugging is nothing new in their book. They probably wonder why all men don't come out and commune with the redwoods to get in better touch with their feelings. I would assume they probably budget for therapy and the resulting anti-depressant prescriptions the way I budget for the electric bill.
I, however, live in the Midwest. I was born and raised here. This is where we repress our emotions until we melt into vast puddles of stressed-out goo. Because that's what our ancestors did and if it was good enough for them, well, damnit, it's good enough for us! They came out here and tamed this land and there was nary a blubberer amongst those brave pioneers. Yet, I will admit, Midwestern Man (tm) has evolved and has come into the twenty-first century. He is no longer the emotional troglodyte his ancestors were. He has become familiar with the ways of the kleenex, but for the love of GOD, he will never actually let anyone know about this familiarity, ya dig? That's just the way he is.
So, I will admit, I want a man who knows himself, who is in tune with what's going on in his head and his heart, but I do not want someone who is going to blubber about the state of fifth chakra every other day. I've got better things to deal with, thank you very much. Like the cuticle on my left thumb that needs trimming before it erupts into a hangnail.
Now run along and see what the other delightful demystifing divas have to say on the matter. Then, if you're hankering for a dose of testosterone, you can flip the coin and see what The Wiz, Stiggy, Phin and The Foreign Minister have to say on the topic. Jamesy has also joined up with the Men's Club this week, go and read what he has to say, as well.
*Bonus points to whomever gets the quote.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:28 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 562 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Cab Calloway, from "The Blues Brothers".
Posted by: Russ from Winterset at September 29, 2005 10:38 AM (M7kiy)
2
Thank you, Russ! I threw that up there the other day and no one said anything! I was beginning to wonder.
Posted by: Kathy at September 29, 2005 10:41 AM (yBAYg)
3
damn. he beat me to it.
Posted by: caltechgirl at September 29, 2005 01:38 PM (Eb5t4)
4
I think it depends on where in CA. Vast swathes of this state are Red. All the Blues live in mostly the population centers on the coast. I can't speak for all CA women, but I'm not into all that 'sensitive' stuff.
Posted by: Ith at September 29, 2005 02:03 PM (LCvAk)
5
Excellent!
It's been toooooo loooooong.
; )
Posted by: Christina at September 29, 2005 06:52 PM (zJsUT)
6
It's been my experience that most women who want an emotional man want one until they find one.
Then they want a man's man.
Until they find one.
Then they want an emotional man.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Posted by: Brian B at September 30, 2005 09:54 AM (CouWh)
7
There is a happy medium, Brian.
Great post, Kath.
Hugsonya,
Posted by: Margi at October 02, 2005 12:51 PM (nwEQH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 28, 2005
Netherwhat?
As in the Netherlands will shortly cease to exist if
this sort of thing is a governmental priority over, you know, beating down homegrown Islamofascists.
Posted by: Kathy at
11:04 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Funny, but I actually don't really have a problem with it. Sounds like a real business expense. I may not agree with the profession, but sounds like she used the course to start a business and generate more income for the state by way of paying taxes on that income. *shrugs*
Posted by: RP at September 29, 2005 10:28 AM (LlPKh)
2
If person took a course in the good ol' USA of A and started "preaching" would they have to take a tax deduction, or would they set up their "church" and become an instant tax-free organziation?
Posted by: Zendo Deb at September 29, 2005 12:16 PM (nN1Yn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
On Grammar
At the back of every issue of
Forbes is a collection of quotes on a certain topic. This week's topic is grammar. I thought I'd share a few because they're amusing.
Cut out all these exclamation points. An exclamation point is like laughing at your own joke.
---F. Scott Fitzgerald
Commas in The New Yorker fall with the precision of knives in a circus act, outlining the victim.
---E.B. White
You can be a little ungrammatical if you come from the right part of the country.
---Robert Frost
Bad spellers of the world, untie!
---Graffito
Save the gerund and screw the whale.
---Tom Stoppard
Waiting for the German verb is surely the ultimate thrill.
---Flann O'Brien
The adjective is the banana peel of the parts of speech.
---Clifton Fadiman
I am the King of Rome, and above grammar.
---Emperor Sigismund
To be loose with grammar is to be loose with the worst woman in the world.
---Otis C. Edwards
I never made a mistake in grammar but one in my life and as soon as I done it I seen it.
---Carl Sandburg
Posted by: Kathy at
10:21 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Great set of quotes, especially about the German verbs. I remember Sherlock Holmes deducing a note's author by observing that only a German could be so unkind to his verbs.
Posted by: R-Five at September 28, 2005 08:45 PM (im0vA)
2
EB White is a particular hero of mine. The man could write like an angel.
Posted by: RP at September 29, 2005 10:29 AM (LlPKh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 27, 2005
I Do This Because I Love...
Sorry, kid, but we need to have a wee bit of a chat about
this post.
You know, I just don't understand what all of the fuss is about regarding the mentioning of so-called Intelligent Design theories when discussions about Evolution arise in our nation's schools.
Yeah, yeah. I know that Evolution is the one with all the cool fossils to see and that there is no proof when it comes to Intelligent Design. I also know that some scientists feel that without proof and without any means of testing a theory, a theory is considered bunk. However, not so long ago, the best minds in the world were convinced that the earth was flat, so I'm thinking we should be a little more inclusive in our discussions.{...}
Phoenix then goes on to claim that her teachers tried more to "indoctrinate" rather than "educate," and says her father set her straight on more than one occasion when an educator gave out faulty/less than complete information. Due to this, she has learned critical thinking, which is good. I'm not knocking that. Critical thinking is always good. But then there's this whopper of a statement at the end of her post that, quite literally, made my jaw drop:
{...}So, I say, let our children decide for themselves. Perhaps Intelligent Design can't be proven or disproven now. Perhaps Evolution is the real deal. But what does it hurt to expose our children to the entire debate? Can we not trust them to come to their own conclusions? If I had to sit through 4 weeks in a world history class listening to extended discourse on Islam in the 8th grade, including the 5 tenets of Islam, why can't today's students hear about the beliefs of some Christians as it relates to this issue? Learning about Islam didn't turn me into a Muslim. Being exposed to the idea of Intelligent Design isn't going to throw your child to the lions.
What's the big deal? Can't we trust our kids to decide for themselves?{...}
Sweetheart. You really want to know what the big deal is? Ok, well,Was the 2nd Amendment the only thing you learned about when it came to the Constitution? Because, if it was, you should know we have this little thing called the Establishment Clause which, along with all the other subsequent case law that follows it, declares that no religion shall be taught in public schools. It's pretty simple stuff. This is why Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught in public schools---because, in a very small way, it's teaching religion.
To miss this point is to miss the big fat pink elephant that's plopped its fat ass down in your living room. That's what the "big deal" is. And there is a bit of a difference between teaching the Five Pillars of Islam in a historical context to being taught that, because some people don't believe in Darwinism and take offense at the notion they were descended from apes, there should be an entire section added to the science curriculum---a section that has nothing to do with science, but has everything to do with religion. Yet these people claim the teaching of ID is all about offering students "a choice." That's all well and good but one choice is based in science; the other is based in religion. And neither one can be proved.
Look, I don't see CAIR asking for an entire section on Islam to be taught in all World History classes, do you? The analogy Phoenix raises is faulty. When the tenets of Islam are being taught in a World History class it is because, to be sure, a good deal of the world's history was shaped by that religion, hence it's fair to make sure students know precisely why the Ottoman Empire was out there, raping and pillaging for Allah. It's the same when Christianity is taught in relation to the Crusades or the Holy Roman Empire, or how Hinduism is relevant to the rise of the British Empire in India. It's knowledge that is essential to the discussion. It's rote knowledge; it's knowledge that's matter of fact, taken for granted. I fail to see, however, where intelligent design is essential to the discussion of evolution---particularly when that discussion is taking place in a public school. It is an explanation of evolution that is, for the most part, based in religion, and as we've established, religion does not belong in public schools.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if anyone wants their kid to learn about creationism, they should send their kid to a parochial school. It's pretty simple stuff. Your kids will be taught the religion of your choice, without any messy and inconvenient facts to get in the way of things.
Posted by: Kathy at
11:15 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 810 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Bravo.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Posted by: Leab at September 27, 2005 11:38 PM (LsJ+O)
2
Sloppy, Kathy. Needlessly sloppy. Don't make me screed you. Just admit you haven't actually read the Intelligent Design primary sources, and are going on hearsay, and we'll leave it there. You beat up this strawman real good. It didn't prepare you for actual debate on the topic you just attempted to lecture on.
Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2005 12:28 AM (7P5xE)
3
I'll freely admit I haven't read the ID primary sources. I don't think I need to read it, either. I'm, honestly, not all that interested in the theory itself, no more so than I am interested in revisiting Darwin's
Origin of Species. All I need to know is that Intelligent Design preaches that a higher being helped out with the evolution process. I mean, that is the basis of the theory, is it not? You don't have to get too much more involved than that to dictate that it shouldn't be taught in public schools.
If people want to teach their kids about theories of evolution based in religion, they are more than welcome to do so. I have no issues with that. Just don't do it in a public school. Send the kids to a parochial school or homeschool them.
Posted by: Kathy at September 28, 2005 12:39 AM (yBAYg)
4
All I need to know is that Intelligent Design preaches that a higher being helped out with the evolution process. I mean, that is the basis of the theory, is it not? You don't have to get too much more involved than that to dictate that it shouldn't be taught in public schools.
Well that's terrific, if you think kids in public schools ought to be sheltered from dangerous thoughts. Because if something
isn't the result of random natural processes, teaching someone that it is isn't a very good education, right?
Seriously, the underlying theory is pretty simple. If you come across a bridge made of concrete and steel, you yourself can detect that some external intelligence designed it, rather than assuming it's a natural geologic formation.
The ID folks take that notion into physics, and chemistry, and genetics, and astronomy, etc. etc. They create repeatable experiments following the protocols of the field they're working within.
Ten thousand years from now, will scientists dismiss claims that Mount Rushmore could have been carved by intelligent designers rather than formed by natural processes? The mindset behind that question is little different than determining how birds came to have wings.
Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2005 01:29 AM (7P5xE)
5
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Or in this case, stink to high heaven...no pun intended.
"Intelligent Design". Whoever thought THAT little catchphrase up is pretty smart. It's simply another way of trying to sneak creationism into public schools.
I agree with Kathy. Ya want your kids to learn about creationism? Send 'em to parochial schools or church.
Posted by: Pammy at September 28, 2005 09:12 AM (Vq20A)
6
Doug, ID is hardly a "dangerous thought." Again, if parents want their kids to learn it, that's fine with me. I have no problems with it. However---to reiterate this point one more frickin' time---this is NOT something that should be taught in public schools. It just shouldn't be. Even if it's non-denominational, it's a theory that is based in religious concepts. The law says no religion in public schools. Hence ID shouldn't be taught in schools. QED.
Lest you had any doubt about it, I, personally, believe the law is correct on this point.
Posted by: Kathy at September 28, 2005 09:30 AM (yBAYg)
7
Kathy,
In archaeology artifacts are frequently tested to determine whether they were created by natural forces or were created by man. When archaeologists test for this, they're not asking a religious question. They're just trying to determine the truth. That isn't any different than the questions ID scientists are asking. Religion has nothing to do with it.
I don't support the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools. But I find your reasoning, which is the same reasoning I see most other places, fundamentally flawed because it labels legitimate scientific inquiry "religious."
Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2005 10:38 AM (b+3Ky)
8
Kathy,
I disagree with two points of yours.
1. The establishment clause says that the Federal government shall not establish a state religion. It does not say that religion cannot be a part of government. The founding fathers WERE religious but having just escaped a government-created religion they wanted to make sure it didn't happen here. So your argument that it is illegal to have religion in a public school is flawed in my opinion(I will, however, assume it was well-intentioned).
2. If I were to concede that we can't teach any religion in school I would still have to disagree with the Islam argument. Yes, Islam has been the religion for a lot of people in history. So teaching that point is fine, but there is no need to teach the 5 tenets unless you also teach the basic tenets of Christianity when you teach the Crusades. You can't have your cake and eat it too (I know it's a bad pun but I couldn't resist).
Posted by: Dean at September 28, 2005 12:59 PM (bkg0p)
9
The ID folks take that notion into physics, and chemistry, and genetics, and astronomy, etc. etc. They create repeatable experiments following the protocols of the field they're working within.
Really? Which experiments? And were they repeatable or reproducible? I'd like to know, because I'm an expert in self-assembling systems (Ph.D. in Chemistry), and I've never seen any IDers posit experiments in my field, which ought to be a prime area for people who want to hold this particular theory up to serious scrutiny. That's what we scientists do, we take our pet theories and tear them apart, looking for the holes.
One problem with Evolution as a science is that the events postulated take place over long periods of time, so that falsification can be a problem. And without falsifiability, nothing can be claimed to be science. So, for a long time Evolution skated on the edge of the science / informed speculation boundary. Evolution is gaining more areas where it moves from speculation into science. Experiments do not have to be man made. Predictions about future discoveries also count as experiments, and those can be made within the framework of Evolution. Evolution Therory has predicted observed changes in populations:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#morphological_rates
If ID had any evidence from falsifiable experiments or predictions on its side, I'd say go ahead and use it in the science curriculum. But it doesn't. Not at this time. This is a great area to teach kids what science is, but ID is not the means to that end. There is enough confusion in kids' minds about what science is (and it ain't memorizing facts), that wasting time in science class on something that is demonstrably not science is a crime against society.
I happen to personally believe in something similar to ID, but I am intellectually honest enough to discount ID as science. On the other hand, even if one of my colleagues were able to set up a self-assembling system that begins to exhibit the charactersitics of living organisms, this would shed no definitive light on what happened at the event or events that led to life on Earth. (It would provide some pretty good circumstantial evidence for a purely mechanistic worldview, but not definitve proof). Neither ID nor Evolution can posit a means to set up a reproducible experiment to definitively show what went on at the moment of life's creation. Therefore, with regards to the "why are we here" question, neither theory is science. For now, science can't even ask that question. Science looks at the mechanics of things, not the ultimate whys. A lot of scientists go overboard and postulate an atheistic world view that is
also not science, but that does not then make ID science.
I'm not sure the Establishment Clause prevents a teacher from saying "this is what some people believe, take it or leave it", just as they teach the 5 tenets of Islam in History class. So teach ID in Social Studies, but leave it out of science class.
Posted by: John at September 28, 2005 02:59 PM (870vv)
10
The thing I love about about the IDers is that they always drag out "but Evolution is just a theory." All of science is just theories. Science gave up claims to knowing "ultimate truth of reality" back when Einstein put the knife the aether.
Even the "laws" - like electromagnetic attraction - are viewed to be just approximations of what is really going on good only over certain distances. (Electron-weak force models break down at sub-nuclear distances where the strong nuclear force takes over, etc.) And anytime science grabs something and says "it must be true - no matter the experimental results" we get bad science. The aether in the 1800s or dark matter today. (Please note there is no evidence for dark matter, in exactly the same way as there was no evidence for the aether. Both were introduced to make the researchers favorite equations hold true in the light of conflicting experiemental data or observations.)
No piece of science today will lay claim to the ultimate truth. Even if we get to a Unified Field Theorem describing all of physical reality, the most any scientist will claim is that the theorem will accurately model the experimental results for the known experiments... But then there will be people trying to do new experiements to either confirm or refute the existing model. (Actually that's true today, and has been true anytime since Einstein.)
And actually at the level of "what is science?" Science is attempt to explain the world WITHOUT reference to a supernatural being or force. ID violates the very reason science exists.
Discussions of ultimate truth belong in a religion class, not a science class.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at September 28, 2005 05:07 PM (actD3)
11
On this, one of the office libs and I are in complete agreement with you: if you want your kids to get religion in K-12, send them to parochial schools. (Hers went to the local yeshiva and mine will go to a school named after a pope and a saint.)
Posted by: LMC at September 28, 2005 08:35 PM (M2ovM)
12
All hail the
Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Seriously, Doug...In archaeology artifacts are frequently tested to determine whether they were created by natural forces or were created by man. When archaeologists test for this, they're not asking a religious question. They're just trying to determine the truth. That isn't any different than the questions ID scientists are asking. Religion has nothing to do with it.
True, the archaeologist isn't asking a religious question. The ID proponent in the classroom is professing a
faith; not making a scientific argument. Religion has everything to do with ID. Anyone who says differently, is selling something.
Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at September 28, 2005 10:16 PM (yBAYg)
13
John,
Really? Which experiments? And were they repeatable or reproducible? I'd like to know, because I'm an expert in self-assembling systems (Ph.D. in Chemistry), and I've never seen any IDers posit experiments in my field
Damn, this is getting old. If I do your research to keep up on your field of expertise, will you at least mow my yard in compensation? (Freakin' lazy-ass Phd's who want to impress with paper credentials instead of the quality of their intellect...)
No BS ... I really could point you to the people doing this research. But why should I? My point isn't that they're right. As I have stated on my own blog, they haven't even persuaded me. I object to people who don't even know about the actual research telling other people that it's not scientific. Because every single such charge I have seen has failed under close scrutiny - yours included.
Your comments make clear you don't even know the substance of the hypotheses and experiments behind ID. You're proceding on hearsay, and doing so with unquestioning confidence. Jebus. Psychology can exlain that much better than your chemistry PhD.
As for other issues you raised, if you want more about my view on this topic,
start here.
Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2005 11:13 PM (7P5xE)
14
The ID proponent in the classroom is professing a faith; not making a scientific argument.
True often enough. But this says nothing about the content of the ID research itself. If you dig in just a smidgen you will find a significant disconnect between "ID proponents in the classroom" and the actual researchers.
Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2005 11:20 PM (7P5xE)
15
Doug, the bulk of the "research" I can find on ID is delivered by
this nutjob.
Forget the bulk of Hovind's 'facts', few people with the ability to think for themselves get past the point wherein Dr. Dino tries to convince people that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. That is obviously bunk, and vast, compelling, independently verified research from a host of unrelated disciplines confirms this fact.
If there is research beyond Dr. Dino's out there that actually addresses ID within a scientific framework, please point me to it.
There is a concise, reasoned refutation of creationist theory
here (generously reposted from Scientific American) and an enlightening discussion of Hovind's so-called $250,000 challenge for evidence of evolution
here.
Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at September 28, 2005 11:43 PM (yBAYg)
16
By the way, no one here is saying that God didn't have anything to do with the creation of the universe, Earth, dinosaurs or the fungus in the drain. What we're saying is that to consider ID demands faith in a specific religious context as a pre-requisite. And that has no place in
public education.
Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at September 28, 2005 11:47 PM (yBAYg)
17
Doug, the bulk of the "research" I can find on ID is delivered by...
Jebus MRN, there comes a point where it's okay to admit you need help. Hovind isn't a real scientist. Do you really think that's all there is behind ID? Do you know how to conduct your own legitimate inquiry into this topic, or is this a cry for help?
I'm not trying to make you guys look bad in the course of this post, but to be honest, you're not helping me so far.
Posted by: Doug at September 29, 2005 12:32 AM (7P5xE)
18
Resort to ad hominem attacks is the first defense of the anti-scientific, Doug. DoesnÂ’t mean your arguments are invalid, but it certainly reduces their likelihood of objective truth, if past experience is any guide.
However, my question stands. I do read the literature pretty thoroughly – if anyone wants to publish in any field, they’ve got to – editors don’t let you re-hash old experiments or ideas in cutting edge journals. And in industry, we’re paid to make stuff you can patent – not stuff someone else has patented or published and made prior-art. There’s a huge incentive to read the literature for every research scientist. So don’t ever come out in an argument with a scientist claiming that they don’t read the literature. We do. Religiously.
I have never, never come across a publication in this field by any of the prominent ID proponents (most of whom, if not all of whom, are second or third rate scientists in their proper fields), nor have I ever seen them address this question adequately. By addressing the question, I mean: take the proper scientific attitude and admit: “this is what I believe, but this whole synthetic self-assembling area could blow some big holes in the irreducible complexity argument I’ve been using”. So the question I put to you is not an idle one: which experiments in self-assembling systems have been postulated by ID? I have not seen any experiments proposed in cosmology either (one of my hobbies). So I have some serious doubts about your claim that experiments have been postulated by IDers in other disciplines as well. But I’m not an expert there, so I’ll let other experts challenge you for biochemistry et al. That’s the difference between real scientists and pretentious blowhard “generalists” with or without scientific credentials. If you were a scientist, you’d know that extraordinary claims such as: “They create repeatable experiments following the protocols of the field they're working within.” require extraordinary proof on your part, not a retort of “I’m not going to do your research for you.” MRN actually did ask for help – “If there is research beyond Dr. Dino's out there that actually addresses ID within a scientific framework, please point me to it.” You dismiss him with more ad hominems. Why? We ask because we have not seen any serious work. I am a serious expert asking a serious question: where is this literature in my field, and what will those experiments prove?
I ask this, and do not dismiss you out of hand, because I do believe that there is publication bias in science. In the area of global warming, a lot of contrary evidence and analysis has a hard time getting published because of political orthodoxy. But I do not see that with ID because of the extremely, extremely poor level of scholarship, research and analysis techniques in the ID camps. ThereÂ’s just nothing there to suppress: it suppresses itself. Perhaps the scientific orthodoxy might try to suppress a good ID experiment, and IÂ’ll be there, ready to defend the IDer in that case. I have no doubt the ID camp will raise a hue and cry if that ever happens. But IÂ’m not holding my breath.
HereÂ’s a good example of that poor scholarship in the area IÂ’m most familiar with, irreducible complexity:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
Your behavior here is pretty typical of IDers in general. MRN seems to be, and I am, sympathetic to the concept of ID. You seem to admit that it is not yet science on your blog. I agree. However, when MRN and I express some pretty healthy skepticism about the scientific credentials, methods, and publications of ID, you attack your natural allies, or at least people who might be neutral in the fray.
Posted by: John at September 29, 2005 06:56 AM (YFWw+)
19
John,
Fair enough to note my snitty behavior. It was late and this is not the first time I've had similar frustrating exchanges. You caught some pent-up attitude you didn't merit from your comment. But a few things you ought to note:
A. I'm not an "IDer." When all is said and done, I don't believe they're right. Until I am convinced otherwise, I'm of the Gould/Eldridge Punk-Eek school of thought on evolution, and unqualified to comment on the detailed research into other fields. My concern is with people who don't actually know the research in question a priori concluding it's not real science and attemting to stifle their voices by channeling Spencer Tracy in Inherit the Wind (great movie by the way).
B. It truly is odd to me that you haven't looked into some of this research yourself yet seem to have very strong opinions about its merit. I have no idea if there are adequate answers to your specific questions, but if you'd like the e-mail addresses of people far more qualified to point you to the best resources available (and possibly engage in detailed dialogue about it) drop me a line. I'll behave myself, I promise.
C. Please stop sending me links to Talkorigins. To the best of your knowledge that's state of the art ID. I get it. No need to keep saying so. You might think that is a source held in high regard by the ID researchers I'm talking about, but you'd be wrong. I don't even know anyone who reads the site, let alone takes it seriously. In my own past I once had to deal with students who insisted evolution proved there wasn't a God. They were wildly wrong, and easy to mock, but they hardly established anything about evolution being in error.
Posted by: Doug at September 29, 2005 09:02 PM (7P5xE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obligatory Moment of Woe
No new
House episodes until November!
Damn you, Major League Baseball! Damn you to hell and back!
Yeah, I know I'll get wrapped up in the playoffs like everyone else, but damn. I just got House back and now...just like that...poof. He's gone.
Which leads us to the obvious conclusion: House is Keyser Soze.
Just try and tell me otherwise.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:22 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.
1
that explains a lot. Including the limp.
Posted by: caltechgirl at September 28, 2005 06:24 PM (Eb5t4)
2
nope, House is Doogie Houser all grown up...
see this side by side comparison: http://www.livejournal.com/users/crabbyolbastard/193328.html?nc=3
Posted by: Kat at September 28, 2005 09:13 PM (0yB4J)
3
Which oddly enough brings it all back in mobeus loop to me. I know the guy who played the "almost uncredited" part of Keyser Soze. The scene where he is shooting and all you see is his back with long hair..that's Scott Morgan. Used to work with em. Strange....
Posted by: crabbyolbastard at October 22, 2005 09:43 PM (0yB4J)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A-Frickin'-Men!
Just go and read already.
{h/t: Doug}
Posted by: Kathy at
10:22 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Yes, it was quite the retort. JB Clueless deserved it. I think ideological purity in private pursuits isn't necessary. We aren't programmed machines that will explode if there is an idiosyncracy in our record collection. I think Doug does a great job of explaining that. Music might contain politics, but that doesn't control our visceral responses to it.
Posted by: Uncle Ben at September 27, 2005 07:02 PM (/I1/i)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 26, 2005
A Little Help For a Friend
A request from Chrissy:
My mom and my best friend's (Susan's) mom are in DeRidder, Louisiana, a small town just above Lake Charles.
I have confirmed with the local electric company they will be out of power for two to three weeks.
Cameron and Lake Charles have been laid to waste.
I'm told by people there that DeRidder looks like a war zone.
My mom is freaking out a bit. While she has weathered many storms, none have come this close or caused this much damage. Then, there's that thing about being alone without my father (he died in December) standing over her to tell her what to do.
Susan's sister also lives in DeRidder and her house took a tree through the roof. Her mom took a tree to a shed.
Susan and I have been networking trying to figure out the next step. We need to get both of our moms out of the area until the power comes back on. There's still major power outages and gas shortages from Houston to Lafayette with roads also being closed through Houston, Beaumont, and Lake Charles.
If Susan's uncle from Tyler, a police officer, is not able to get enough gas to them in the next day or so, I will put together a truck with enough extra gas cans to take to the back roads to head that way. Both my mom's vehicles have gas we can syphon once I get there.
If anyone is between Houston and Lake Charles, please speak up and let me know what the gas situation is where you are.
If you have any information, go throw said information into the comments over at Fistful of Fortnights.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:54 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Bless you, Kathy!
Thank you.
I'm pleased to report I returned just after 3:30 this morning with mom. She's exhausted and not in the best of shape, but give her a few days and she should be on the mend.
I cannot tell you the things I saw on that trip.
Much love, lady.
Thank you again!
Posted by: Chrissy at September 27, 2005 10:38 AM (zJsUT)
2
I'm glad the feisty mom is ok! Take care of yourselves!
Posted by: Kathy at September 27, 2005 10:49 AM (yBAYg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 25, 2005
Required Reading
The
Financial Times profiles Paul Wolfowitz, the new President of the World Bank.
A sampling:
{...}An important part of this agenda is a focus on what the bank can do to help empower women in developing countries. Education and healthcare will remain priorities for the bank, but Wolfowitz is likely to focus its efforts on girls and women. “The role of women is something that has hit me very hard pretty much since my time in Indonesia, where you have a reasonably liberated female population in a predominantly Muslim country. And you can see that the country as a whole is the better off for it... It seems to me that it is an almost arithmetic equation that if half of the population is held back, then your development is going to be held back.”
Bank insiders say his thinking on this issue may have been influenced by Shaha Riza, a bank employee, Middle East expert and specialist on gender issues, with whom the divorced Wolfowitz has had a relationship for the past couple of years. “I have sympathy for someone who says that the Swedish model or the American model of relatively far-advanced feminism is not necessarily something that even women of other countries want,” he says. “But there is a point at which it is more than just a cultural thing and that is a fundamental violation of human rights and a fundamental denial of equality of opportunity, and when you do deny equal opportunity you are trying to run a race with one leg tied, sort of. And often your best leg.”
In Pakistan, last month, Wolfowitz heard a better analogy: at a meeting in the Punjabi village of Dhok Tabarak, a woman told him that development is like a cart: it has two wheels, and if one of the wheels is not turning you will not get very far. Wolfowitz was so taken with the metaphor that during the rest of his visit to Pakistan he quoted the woman on 20 or more occasions. After the first few times, he added a horse to the story, to represent economic growth. “If the cart does not have something strong to pull it - the horse is growth - then it does not matter how fast the wheels can turn.”
Of the three full days Wolfowitz spent in India, one day was spent talking to assorted groups of rural women about bank-sponsored development programmes. Women were also notably present at all his meetings in Pakistan and India and when I asked him if this was a deliberate policy that he intended to continue, he said that it was. “We can empower people simply by meeting with them; I think there’s a tendency to think that if the World Bank president meets with people then they must be important.”
Wolfowitz told me one day that someone had just described him as a feminist. He laughed, and said: “It is the first time in my life I’ve been called that, I certainly don’t think of myself in that way. Look, we are not talking about a particular cultural way of male-female roles, but you can tell when women are denied equal rights or equal opportunities and that is not only unfair to them, it is unhelpful to the whole society.”
Such sentiments from the former Pentagon hawk might sound odd to some in Washington, but they went down well in Hyderabad, where Wolfowitz one day spoke to a hall packed with 300 women from self-help groups across the state of Andhra Pradesh. The groups help women lobby together for health and education, and gain access to micro credit loans. “Who wants to tell me how the self-help group has changed their life?” Wolfowitz asked. All hands in the audience went up. Twenty women started to talk at once, each struggling to speak longest.
There was a lot of laughter and not much translation, but the cheerful mood was killed when the state’s chief minister rose to give a 20-minute speech about his administration’s achievements. The women listened in silence, but perked up when Wolfowitz began to speak again, clapping every time he paused for the translator. The loudest applause came at the end as he told them: “The thing that has impressed me is not just the money you earn but the way it helps you to make your children’s lives better. When I see how well the women are doing here, I think you have to teach the men to walk faster.”
Later, the chief minister asked Praful Patel, the bankÂ’s vice-president for south Asia, why Wolfowitz had received so much more applause than him. Patel said he thought the chief minister had talked at the women, while Wolfowitz had talked to them and asked questions, and that had made a difference.{...}
Go read the whole thing.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:44 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 812 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: RP at September 26, 2005 09:34 AM (LlPKh)
2
Yes, I think he is. One of his greatest challenges will be overcoming the cynics and time-servers in his own organization. I'm not sure how the hiring/firing process works in the World Bank, but to the extent he has control, I would hope he would be very ruthless in dealing with those who have attitude problems.
Posted by: David Foster at September 26, 2005 08:21 PM (7TmYw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 23, 2005
Oh, Brother!
I do believe I mentioned that one of the Cake Eater brothers, Stephen,
was in town the other night. Steve is the car dealer and when he got stuck here he was returning from getting his first look at his dealership in New Orleans. He was one of the business owners who was allowed to come back into town earlier in the week, to see what the situation was. Well, it wasn't pretty, to say the least. The dealership is, to put it bluntly, wrecked. If it wasn't nailed down, it was either picked up and thrown around due to the storm or someone tried to steal it. Any computers or electronics that didn't get flooded were looted. Cars were stolen, and in one memorable instance an air compressor was ripped off the little red wagon it had called home. If it was nailed down, well, then it was flooded with that murky concoction---and it was five feet deep. I saw the photos he took for insurance purposes and, well,
yuck covers it quite well. Not only was all the office furniture, paneling, drywall, wallpaper---and fax machines, copiers, etc. covered in that muck, think about what a service bay at your car dealership looks like and then think of those big canisters of motor oil and anti-freeze and the like---and then imagine them turned over and leaking goo everywhere. I could go on, but I think you get the gist. It's just a mess and a half.
Steve was very tired when he got here, and he was a wee bit dazed, but he had a lot to say about what it was like in New Orleans, how surreal it all was, etc. Yet he neglected to mention that he'd hooked up with a reporter from the Billings Gazette who did a story on the death and dismemberment of the dealership due to Katrina. He never mentioned it, but that stands to reason: he's got bigger fish to fry right now.
I'm just glad I didn't know his GM was packing during their trip. Sheesh.
Posted by: Kathy at
11:22 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.
Silly Germans!
Sheesh. After taking the summer off, and being all serious for their election, it seems like they're getting stupid again.
Thank effin' God. I was beginning to wonder what the hell was happening over there.
Anyhooo....today we have the story of a flasher in Berlin. He apparently didn't get the reaction he was hoping for.
Posted by: Kathy at
04:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.
In Praise of Autumn Fridays
It is absolutely gorgeous in the Twin Cities today. It's currently sixty-two degrees, and the breeze that is blowing is, for the first time since spring, a wee bit on the crisp side. The sun is shining and the sky is that gorgeous shade of deep blue you only see when the smog clears out. The trees are beginning to turn every so slowly and little hints of red and yellow stand out amidst all the green. The squirrels that (over)populate my yard are scampering around said yard, gorging themselves on acorns from the six oak trees we have, in between battles with each other. Earlier this morning, on the branches of the tree right next to my office window, I was privileged to watch yet another squirrel reenactment of
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as they chased each other, jumping from branch to branch. What this death match was about one can only guess, but I believe it has something to do with a female, following the rules laid down long ago by Mother Nature. The only difference between the squirrels and Chow Yun-Fat and Ziyi Zhang was that humans were much quieter. Squirrles are very noisy when they fight, filling the air with the quick crunching of claws meeting bark, as they scamper up the tree at lightning speed and then across the branches to meet their destiny.
I returned from Lake Harriet earlier and I was reminded of all the joys of a fall Friday when I walked past the local high school's football field. Apparently there is a game there tonight. I don't know who they're playing or what the team's chances for a victory are, but it's the first home game and I couldn't help but be a little excited for the people that were there: it's the first time they get to partake in the tradition. The cheerleaders were dressed in their school colors---purple and white---and were decorating all the entrances to the field with balloons and streamers. The marching band was on the field and it seems, after listening to them march around the neighborhood for the past two months, that they've finally got their stuff together. They were playing I Believe I Can Fly but they'd not only upped the tempo, they'd funked it up a bit as well. The tuba section was having fun on the field, and the drum line finally sounded as if they were one humongous drum, instead of fifteen poorly arranged snares and bass drums. It was a nice thing to watch. It reminded me of all the promise that beautiful autumn Fridays possessed in high school.
The day would start off slowly, but it would hold promise. A blue sky, a hint of warmth would soon be found when the sun worked its way toward its zenith. The grass was still green, but it had been cool enough to kill off some of the more annoying varieties of insects that buzzed about, bothering you. You'd drag yourself through whatever class you were dreading that day. Was it a test in Chemistry? Or was a paper due in Sociology? Or was Sr. Rosaria on the war path once again because you flubbed the translation of the one sentence of Caesar's Gallic Wars she'd given you. It didn't matter. There was the hope of the evening hours to get you through the rest of the school day, which always seemed like such a waste. Surely being stuck in school on such a gorgeous day was an affront to God. But since that creative excuse wasn't going to fly with the principal, Itsy Bitsy Betsy, also known as Miss Kish---the world's shortest school prinicpal, EVER---you instead focused on other things. You chatted with your friends about your plans for the evening. There was, as always, a football game to go to. You had to go to the game if it was a home game. There was simply no choice about it. After the game there was a dance at a rotating selection of schools. You worked on sorting out the day's truly important business: whose parents were going to drive you where so you wouldn't miss anything. And it was important you shouldn't miss anything...because Friday nights were when you got to go and ogle the boys.
As I've mentioned before, I went to a Catholic all-girls high school. Obviously, we didn't have a football team; but we had the boys' school down the road---and they had a football team. This school is conveniently called Prep, which is short for Creighton Prepatory School. At that point in time, Prep didn't have its own football field, so their games were held at UNO's field. For a few Friday nights every fall, we'd work our way over to UNO to watch Prep pummel whichever opponent they were up against that week. We'd find seats in the large stadium and then we'd sit there and watch the boys, while pretending we were really watching the game. When you're a freshman, you actually believe that some cutie is going to come on over and talk to you and you wait with bated breath for it to happen. By the time you're a sophomore, however, you've been disabused of that notion. Junior year is when it finally happens and it doesn't seem as interesting as you'd thought it would be. By senior year, well, you're a bit beyond it, or so you'd like to think.
Then, when the football team was done with their pummelling, you'd go and find the car of whomever the lucky parent was who'd pulled the mid-shift chauffeuring stint, and you'd be off to some high school gym to gyrate madly for hours on end. Omaha's a pretty Catholic town: there are---counting on fingers---seven high schools (that I can think of---there are more now) and each of them would rotate hosting a dance or two. So, you'd go and you'd pay five bucks to get into some high school gym where either a garage-band-done-good or a DJ awaited you. My generation apparently didn't have any problems with dancing. This was not a situation where the boys lined the walls and the girls were the ones on the floor. Nosireebob. Everyone got out there and danced and the only time you saw anyone on the sidelines was when they were winded and needed to take a break. You might have snuck outside to get some air with your friends and some boys may have followed, hoping to chat you up. Or you might have met someone while you were waiting for a coke in the cafeteria. You may have even gotten friendly enough with one of them to find a place for a quick make-out session, or you might have been wholly annoyed with one of them because they wouldn't leave you the hell alone. You might have found a new crush, or you might have been crushed by the one you fancied. It was an adolescent soap opera and I have to think it was just as amusing as hell for the chaperones to watch. But, no matter, because as always, time is fleeting. These things were always over with by midnight, so you'd round up your friends, you'd walk into the now quite chilly, pitch black parking lot to find the unlucky parent who'd pulled the chauffeuring late shift and you'd work your way home.
Sometimes you'd be highly satisfied with the evening. Everything would have gone right and you would have actually worked up the courage to talk to the boy you liked---or they'd finally gotten the clue that you liked them. But those were far and few between. The night would, most likely, be unsatisfying. Someone would start a rumor about you and when you finally heard it, it would make your face flush with embarrassment and shame. Some boy might break your heart by ignoring you. You might get into a fight with one of your friends. It didn't really matter what happened, but the posters for the dance should have had the warning "potential adolescent hell" pasted all over them. Yet, surprisingly enough, the potential for it to be an awful night didn't really hit you until it was all over with. Somehow, you always hoped for the best when you started off the evening.
I have to wonder what Friday nights are like for today's teenagers. Are they similar to the ones I endured, even though fifteen years has passed? Or is the entire process different? What do they do after football games nowadays? Do they go to parties? Do high schools even host dances anymore? Or have they canned that activity because it's just a lawsuit waiting to happen? It's all very curious. I'm sure, however, the overall emotional experience is the same. They're probably looking forward to the evening, and they have their hopes and expectations as I did. Some of them will wind up on the positive side of the evening, and some will wind up on the negative, because that's just the way the world works. Ah, anyway...I wonder.
But they'll at least have a football game. Thankfully that much hasn't changed.
Posted by: Kathy at
03:24 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1541 words, total size 9 kb.
1
Things havn"t changed over the past 50 some years, why now?
Posted by: Me at September 23, 2005 07:33 PM (YRG90)
2
That was a wonderful tribute and I enjoyed it thouroughly. Thanks, Kathy. Really good stuff.
Posted by: RP at September 26, 2005 09:37 AM (LlPKh)
3
In rural America, it's not only the kids at the game, but literally half the town. Everyone is there Friday nights. (Me and the hubby excepted, we're city folks after all.)
Games have been on a few weeks, and my kids go to them, but in reality, never to watch the game itself. It's all about the social scene. Skateboarding with pals for the Boy and hanging with friends for the Girl.
Out here, there isn't a dance every week. They're occasional, Homecoming etc.
High school and Junior High are still both soap operas with the same cliques we had. That will never change.
Posted by: Sandy at September 27, 2005 01:09 AM (hFk9v)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
96kb generated in CPU 0.0312, elapsed 0.1096 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.093 seconds, 227 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.