May 2004 Archives

Wow, I've never read a less informed defense of evolution by someone who appears so confident.

What does the "theory" of ID [Intelligent Design; I haven't read the whole Wikipedia entry, but it looks like a decent description, although quite biased -- MW] predict? NOTHING - it simply provides a post facto rationalization for some of the processes observed in biology. Just like "F=mv" vs. "F=ma", ID chokes on those cases that are explained elegantly by the theory of evolution.

Apparently, Gene Expression author "godless" isn't particularly familiar with typical descriptions of evolution. To quote some of Fred Reed's questioning of evolution:

So much of evolution contradicts other parts. Sparrows evolved drab and brown so that predators won’t see them. Cockatoos and guacamayas are gaudy as casinos in Las Vegas so they can find each other and mate. But…but….

The answers to these questions either lapse into a convoluted search for plausibility or else boil down to the idea that since guacamayas are as they are, their coloration must have adaptive value. That is, it is the duty of the evidence to fit the theory, rather than of the theory to fit the evidence. This is science?

Not remotely. (Some of Mr. Reed's questions are refutable in detail, but they give a general sense of the most persuasive arguments against evolution.)

I do not to deny that, as "godless" points out, the theory of evolution has led to some interesting lines of thought -- from molecular chemistry to computational algorithms (the utility of which he appears to vastly overrate) -- but that doesn't make the theory true. After all, one particular implementation of the theory of Intelligent Design, called Christianity, has had a substantial effect on civilization as well.

I could go through "godless'" post point by point, but I doubt I would convince anyone of anything, because -- as "godless" denies but Steven Den Beste accedes -- belief in evolution is based on faith. Despite what "godless" claims, evolution is not falsifiable, any more than is ID; absent a time machine or direct and convincing revelation, neither can be proven nor disproven. One is free to construe the existing evidence in the direction one finds most convincing -- in conjunction with other aspects of one's worldview -- but claiming that either theory is more fact than faith is intellectually dishonest.

(HT: Donald Sensing and S3.)

How come, even with all the mounting evidence (pun intended), no one is questioning the wisdom of having women serve in the same military units as men? The abuse in Abu Ghraib prison appears to be intimately linked to illegal sexual relations between solders in the Military Police unit supervising the captives.

(More of what I've written about women at war.)

Is the Catholic Church a purely political entity these days? If not, then why are its chief concerns about Catholics marrying Muslims apparently completely unrelated to theology?

The Vatican warned Catholic women on Friday to think hard before marrying a Muslim and urged Muslims to show more respect for human rights, gender equality and democracy.

Calling women "the least protected member of the Muslim family," it spoke of the "bitter experience" western Catholics had with Muslim husbands, especially if they married outside the Islamic world and later moved to his country of origin.

The comments in a document about migrants around the world were preceded by remarks about points of agreement between Christians and Muslims but they seemed likely to fuel mistrust between the world's two largest religions.

The document said the Church discouraged marriages between believers in traditionally Catholic countries and non-Christian migrants.

It hoped Muslims would show "a growing awareness that fundamental liberties, the inviolable rights of the person, the equal dignity of man and woman, the democratic principle of government and the healthy lay character of the state are principles that cannot be surrendered."

When a Catholic woman and Muslim man wanted to marry, it said, "bitter experience teaches us that a particularly careful and in-depth preparation is called for."

Wouldn't it be much more correct for the Vatican to completely repudate the practice, based on the fact that Muslims and Christians worship entirely different gods?

I'm not Catholic (but I know many of my readers are), and I haven't read the full paper. Am I wrong about what the Vatican appears to be saying?

Update:
Then again, here's the flip-side: I think it's perfectly appropriate for religious people to allow their religion to shape politics. So yes, it should be a one-way street. Humans make political decisions, and God makes theological decisions. It looks pretty clear to me.

The Roman Catholic bishop of Colorado Springs has said Catholics should not receive Communion if they vote for politicians who support abortion rights (search), stem-cell research, euthanasia and gay marriage. ...

"I think it is an outrageous intrusion into what is supposed to be the separation of church and state. It is frightening," said Michael Merrifield, a Democratic state lawmaker who is not Catholic but represents part of the heavily religious Colorado Springs area. "It goes against everything that we believe is important to democracy since we founded this country."

Well gee, I don't see any conflict-of-interests in Mr. Merrifield's positioning, do you?

And then there's Texas mayoral candidate Pastor Jim Norwood, who's taking pictures of pornography consumers and sending them post-cards.

Pastor Jim Norwood (search) started the practice of driving around with his camera taking photos outside of sexually-oriented businesses (SOBs) about five months ago. The reverend, who is running in Saturday's mayoral election, was able to access public vehicle registrations record, allowing him to get the addresses of the vehicle owners and send them postcards of his photos.

One side of the postcard shows the patron's vehicle parked outside the adult store. On the other side is written a note from Norwood: "Observed you in the neighborhood. Didn't know if you were aware there is a church in the area."

He says some postcard recipients have even come to attend his church. Interesting. Naturally, an attorney for the Sexually Oriented Businesses misses the entire point and tries to change the subject to one of taxes.

"You've got SOBs in Fort Worth. You've got SOBs in Dallas, in Houston, just about every metropolitan area. I represent some up in Utah. It doesn't seem to affect those towns," said Attorney John Gamboa. "What people don't understand is that it is a regular business that pays its regular real estate taxes, employment taxes, sales taxes, liquor taxes."

I'm not taking a position on the effectiveness of Pastor Norwood's approach, but it's certainly legal, and a good example of putting religious beliefs into political action. He isn't trying to pass a law against pornography, organize a boycott, or even publicly shame the customers (from what I can determine, anyway).

I've been thinking more about South America recently, so when I saw this image of the capability ranges of America's Marine Expeditionary Units it struck me as odd that none are within five days travel of the shores of our southern neighbors.

Scientists are wondering how humans affect cicada populations, but I think they're missing the boat.

Clay says cicadas can reach densities of up to a ton an acre, or 3,000 kg per hectare. He believes humans are altering the environment to make it more hospitable to cicadas, by creating little patches of forest that have lots of edges -- which the insects appear to prefer.

Understanding cicadas could help scientists understand other animals whose life cycles are affected by human activity, including white-tailed deer and the ticks that carry Lyme disease, Clay told a news conference at the National Science Foundation (news - web sites), which sponsors his work.

Sure, sure... but how mundane. I think there's a much more obvious influence.

For instance, when a male calls a female his buzz takes one tone, and the female makes a flicking sound to answer during a lull. The male's call changes substantially after that.

"He'll start pawing her front legs," she said. His mechanical-sounding whir will change again, to a kind of chuckling. "While he's doing that, he'll mate with her," Simon said.

The Big Fish

It's hard to be critical of a man who just had his son murdered, but Michael Berg is disgracing and dehumanizing his son when he blames President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld for Nicholas Berg's murder.

Nicholas Berg went to Iraq to find work, entirely of his own volition and not at the request of the American government. He went to try to take advantage of an opportunity created by the invasion; he went to make money, and to help out the people of Iraq. His intentions were good and honorable, and he made his own decisions. He saw the rebuilding of Iraq as a chance to do business, and to help his fellow-man, despite the obvious danger.

When Michael Berg strips his son of the dignity of free will, he turns his son back into a child. Nicholas Berg was a victim, but the guilty parties are the cowards hiding behind black scarves in the video, not any American officials. Michael Berg said this:

"My son died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. This administration did this," Berg said in an interview with radio station KYW-AM.

In the interview from outside his home in West Chester, Pennsylvania, a seething Michael Berg also said his 26-year-old son, a civilian contractor, probably would have felt positive, even about his executioners, until the last minute.

"I am sure that he only saw the good in his captors until the last second of his life," Berg said. "They did not know what they were doing. They killed their best friend."

That's absurd. Nicholas Berg was no Rachel Corrie. From other articles, it's clear that he supported the invasion of Iraq, and I highly doubt he would have been best friends with the inhuman monsters who murdered him.

Bill Hobbs points to some recent developments in the tiny, oil-rich African nation of Sao Tome.

It's important that -- although the focus of our attention must be on terrorist nations and the Middle East -- American should not lose sight of the rest of the world. I'm glad to see that our military is working with Sao Tome to protect their oil reserves, and I'd like to see America get more engaged in South America, too.

As Mr. Hobbs writes:

One of the more interesting and important - and, therefore, less covered by the American media - developments in American foreign policy is the United States' increasingly close relationship with the tiny island nation of Sao Tome & Principe, off the west coast of Africa, south of Nigeria and west of Gabon. Sao Tome is small, pro-American, and is predominantly Christian, unlike Nigeria, which is 50 percent Muslim is increasingly wracked by extremist Muslim violence against Christians.

Oh, and Sao Tome sits atop a whole lot of undeveloped oil.

Perhaps our enemies won't notice these fringe developments, and we should take advantage of whatever distraction the War on Terror affords us to flank our adversaries diplomatically.

SDB has led me to my new favorite linguistics blog: Amaravati: Abode of Amritas. I love linguistics, and have done quite a bit of study into languages (and language processing) over the course of my AI education, but I'm really just an amature enthusiast. For an interesting post, check out Amritas' explanation of why he thinks nouns and verbs are the only two universal lexical categories.

As SDB points out, computer-recognizable languages are far more primitive than human language. I don't think it's merely a matter of scale, either; I think human language is a powerful indication against the existence of strong AI.

Maybe I'm dense (I'm not a lawyer, after all, though I play one on TV), but how can Randy Barnett claim to believe in original meaning originalism and still argue that actions that were capital offenses when the Constitution was written and ratified are, in fact, Constitutionally protected rights?

Clayton Cramer has lots more, and expressed again some of the many pitfalls of a truly libertarian society. Since Mr. Barnett isn't up to the task, I'm eager for TM Lutas to address the following scenarios:

I'm told by a reader who has asked Barnett whether cannibalism laws could survive challenge under Barnett's theory that Barnett responded that cannibalism isn't the same as homosexuality, and expressing incredulity that anyone would ask the question. Very true. But if Barnett's theory is really intended as an all-encompassing theory of Constitutional interpretation--and not just a way to strike down laws that he doesn't like--then he needs to explain why consensual cannibalism laws, laws prohibiting sex with animals in the middle of Main Street, laws against molestation of children, and laws against child pornography are Constitutional, since they do not necessarily involve either physical or economic harm to others. (Yes, you can construct scenarios in each of these cases that do not involve physical harm to other people.)

Update:
Bill Wallo points out that we tried a more limited federal government under the Articles of Confederation, and it didn't work too well. Many of the problems were in the details, of course, not merely the high-level concept, but still an interesting point.

So I guess everyone (including Lynndie England) will now be willing to agree that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners was committed by the participating criminals entirely on their own initiative?

Something I just considered... none of the recent political polls could have possibly taken into account the opinions of the immense number of US voters who are currently living and working in Iraq. How many are there, including business-people and soldiers? A million? Half a million? Not an inconsiderable number, considering they're all likely to vote, and likely to vote for President Bush.

How will these Iraq veterans shape the future of American politics? Will they have as much influence over the next 30 years as the Vietnam vets have had over the last 30? Will presidential candidates in 2028 have to explain why they were or weren't in Iraq in 2004?

No surprise here.

Which Princess Bride Character are You?

One of my favorite movies, but it goes downhill once Vizzini is killed.

(HT: Maddy and mysti.)

David Bernstein asks rhetorically,

This seems like a good time to remind readers that, according to Newsweek Donald Rumsfeld argued for stripping Americans suspected of aiding Al Qaeda of their rights and holding them indefinitely as "enemy combatants." If the man can't be trusted with the rights of Americans, would you trust him with the rights of Iraqis?

Even if the Newsweek story is true, it has no bearing on my trust in Secretary Rumsfeld's handling of civil liberties in Iraq. Why? Because Iraq is currently a protectorate of the United States, not a part of it. Iraqis aren't protected by the Constitution, and don't have the same rights we do. For one thing, they can own machine guns, and I sure can't. For another, they can't vote (yet).

And is it at all odd for Mr. Bernstein to then, in a subsequent post, call on the FBI to use torture on suspects in "ticking bomb" scenarios?

TM Lutas responds to my earlier post on the dangers of libertarianism with some examples... but honestly, I think they do more to undermine his position than to support it. They don't seem realistic to me at all. Further, he would strip power from legislators but then invest even more power in judges. Libertarians seem to have a strong distaste for "judicial activism" and imperfect judges, but their dreams for society appear to rely almost entirely on civil lawsuits.

Take the drunk driving laws. In a libertarian society, public roads would be replace by private ones. Private road owners would need to carry insurance and, if they were willing to endure the cost in excess premiums, could allow drunks to drive on their road. This is obviously a dumb choice to make but libertarians would permit the theoretical choice while ensuring that people don't consider actually doing it by pinching them in the pocketbook, hard. And the pinching would occur in multiple directions road owner and driver, as well as surrounding property insurance. Driving in an area that permitted drunk driving would raise the cost of automobile insurance as well so even if the road owner is a crazy loon willing to take the financial hit in his own pocket, his customers are not likely to be willing to do the same. Even living on a property next to a road where the cars are more likely to veer off and into your house would increase pressure for a more sensible resolution to the situation than laissez *hic* faire.

But consider the implications of this example.

1. We'd need private insurance for everything.

2. How would drunk drivers get pinched hard? By lawsuits. If you think there are too many lawsuits now, just try to imagine how many there would be in a libertarian society. We'd need a huge number of additional judges, and in the end we'd have even more judicial legislation than we have now. Would these judges be elected? If so, how's that different from electing tyrants?

3. If the guy who owns the road near your house suddenly decides to allow drunk drivers, everyone who owns property nearby sees the values of their investments plummet. There might be financial incentives for him not to do it, but you know how crazy some people can be. Or, he might own adjoining property and be purposefully trying to hurt the value of his neighbors to increase interest in his own investment. The only recourse a homeowner would have would be to sue on some grounds... but how long would that take?

TM Lutas goes on to say,

What is attractive about libertarianism is that it would allow for superior alternatives to the current BAC test levels to emerge much more rapidly and spread quicker. That, and not some theoretical freedom to drive drunk, is what is appealing in the libertarian alternative to current drunk driving statutes.

But is that really true? None of these solutions emerged even when there was little government regulation, not at the local, state, or federal level; since 1980 (and the founding of MADD (not my favorite group, by any means)) drunk driving deaths have been reduced by 40%, largely due to regulation and law enforcement. Prior to that, drunk drivers who caused injuries were subject to civil suits (as they still are), but it didn't do much to discourage them. Why? Because people are generally terrible judges of risks and rewards.

My libertarian sympathies spring from a love for freedom, and if TML were really eager to argue for a right to drive drunk, I could understand that (although I'd disagree). From a purely pragmatic standpoint, however, it's clear that government regulation has made progress in reducing the number of deaths that had previously occurred without regulation.

(And don't argue that no one owned the roads before regulation -- the states and local municipalities (representing their citizens) could have acted as owners and exercised the powers TML described.)

There are certainly many areas where more freedom and less regulation would be beneficial, but I don't think it's true for every situation. Anyway, replacing excessive legislative power with excessive judicial power doesn't seem like a winning move to me.

What libertarians don't seem to get is that consensual governments are the organizational structure people have chosen to set up to manage their affairs. Libertarians would probably be pleased to have a giant corporation oversee all the roads in the country, but that's basically what the government is. The structure is a bit different, but those differences have been implemented because people think they have utility. Our government is hugely inefficient, but guess what, so are large companies. And so forth.

Philisophically, I think there's a maximum level of efficiency that can be attained by any human organization -- dependent on size and technology -- no matter what the structure is. Increased size increases inefficiency, and improved technology reduces inefficiency through improved communication. The rest is just gravy.

Update:
TML responds again and backs down a bit (with regards to libertarianism "at the most extreme margins"), but doesn't address my criticism of tyranny by judges (and insurance companies).

He also says,

Government ownership of roads does not mean federalized road ownership. It means public road ownership and public roads have a very old history in the US. There are very few private roads around in the age of automobiles and what few exist do not form a critical mass sufficient to justify the creation of an alternative system of regulation. If private roads are a mere appendix, they will just save themselves the effort and just mimic government rules.

But I fail to see how a small democratic municipality with sole authority over a road would act differently than a local private owner.

He also writes that government is slow to adopt new technology, but large corporations are the same in that regard. Technological retardation is, as with other things, largely a result of size, not structure.

Michael's Five Pound Stew

Ingredients:
4 tbsp oil
1/2 cup flour
1 1/2 tbsp garlic powder
1 1/2 tsp salt
1 tsp pepper
2 tbsp sugar

5 lbs sirloin steak, cubed
5 lbs potatoes, cubed (not too small!)
1 lb carrots, cut or mini
1 lb celery
1 lb peas
1 medium white onion
3 cans beef broth

If desired:
a bit more flour for thickening
1 tsp rosemary
1 tsp thyme
1 tsp sage

Directions:
0. Cube the meat and potatoes; chop up the onion, celery, and carrots.
1. Mix the flour, garlic powder, salt, pepper, and sugar together in a bowl, and then roll the chunks of meat around until they're all covered.
2. Put the oil in your (large) pot and boil it. Dump the meat in and brown it all for a few minutes; be careful to continue stirring to prevent burns. Dump in the onions after a little bit to fry them.
3. Lower heat. Pour in beef broth, carrots, and peas. Add rosemary, thyme, and sage, if desired. Bring to boil, then reduce heat and cover. Allow it all to simmer for 90 minutes.
4. Add potatoes and celery. Carrots and peas can be delayed to this step, if desired. Personally, I like my celery and potatoes firmer than my carrots and peas. Add a little more flour (3 tbsp or so) for thicker stew. Make sure you stir it in so you don't get lumps! Simmer for another 30 minutes or so.
5. Enjoy tasty stew. Serves one. (Or maybe a dozen.)

(... at least in a pure form, as I understand it.)

I've written before on why I'm not a libertarian, and Clayton Cramer gives many more substantial examples. I definitely have libertarian sympathies, and I think the American government is presently too big, inefficient, and meddlesome, but I'm not enthusiastic about some of the potential results of a pure libertarian system.

Libertarianism sounds good in theory, but in practice I don't trust humans not to devolve to the lowest common denominator once the threat of using physical force to enforce morality is removed. (And simulations support my skepticism.) The question then, as libertarians will be quick to point out, is who gets to decide what's moral? That's a good question.

Libertarians want to design a society that doesn't require any supervision. They want to devise a perfect and limited set of rules to govern humanity without modification forever. They (rightly!) don't trust future governments to use power in a limited way -- even if they happen to think the present government would use power wisely -- so they seek to limit the power of government as much as possible. It makes sense. But I don't think it'll work.

Instead, I think we need a government with a bit more power than a libertarian would prefer, and that we need to exercise constant vigilance to ensure that the government doesn't use its power wrongly. My approach isn't as nice and neat as the libertarian solution, and it requires ongoing effort, but it has the advantage (by my reckoning) of being possible (which makes it more elegant). To a great extent, libertarians (classical liberals) appear to live in as idealistic a fantasy world as do modern liberals.

Mr. Cramer describes some of the characteristics of a pure libertarian society.

If the objective were really libertarian--the only laws allowed would be those that punished one person directly injuring another--and the Constitution was amended (as it would have to be) to achieve this, I could be philosophic about it, I suppose.

There wouldn't be any laws against sex in public places, but there also wouldn't be any laws against carrying a gun for self-defense against criminal attack.

There wouldn't be any laws against child pornography, but there wouldn't be any copyright law, either, and a lot of pornography would be much less profitable without copyright.

There wouldn't be any laws against driving drunk (I mean, you haven't really hurt anyone until you have an accident), but then again, there wouldn't be any laws restricting machine gun ownership, either.

There wouldn't be any sodomy laws (not that I am a fan of those, anyway), but there also wouldn't be any law requiring you to hire homosexuals, or rent to them, either.

Mr. Cramer says more in an update to his post, and concludes with:

One of the great hazards of these wonderful ideologies is that the proponents of them are usually so middle class in their morality that they just can't imagine that anyone would actually do these things that right now are illegal. They become so enamored of their elaborate theories that they forget what sort of society they are going to create, when the only standard is physical or economic injury.

Donald Sensing refers to "the new erotic-worship genre" (not his term) and links to some Christians who feel that many modern worship songs are focused on the supposed-worshipper instead of on God. Rather than quote his quotes of other people quoting various articles, just follow the first link; I'll wait.

One of the posts he links to cites the song "Breathe" by Marie Barnett as archetypal of the "new genre".

This is the air I breathe, this is the air I breathe
Your holy presence living in me
This is my daily bread, this is my daily bread
Your every word spoken to me

And I--------, I'm desperate for You
And I--------, I'm lost without You

I happen to like the song, and I don't think it's particularly "erotic" (perhaps the writers were projecting their own emotions?). Both metaphors -- God's word as bread the Holy Spirit as the breath of life -- are directly from the Bible. As for emotion, compare it with the longing expressed in the Book of Psalms.

Psalm 5

1 Give ear to my words, O LORD,
consider my sighing.
2 Listen to my cry for help,
my King and my God,
for to you I pray.
3 In the morning, O LORD, you hear my voice;
in the morning I lay my requests before you
and wait in expectation.

And so on. I could go through the entire book and find dozens more.

As for eroticism, just go read Song of Solomon, which describes the relationship between God/Christ and his chosen people (Israel, and arguably, to some extent, modern Christians as well) using the metaphor of marriage.

Anyway, I agree that worship music is about God, not about us. In reality, singing is only one way to worship God, and not even the most important way. Perhaps one of the biggest failings of modern Christianity is mistaking mere singing for worship, of which it is only a part. More importantly, we should worship and honor God in everything we do, and in every aspect of lives. (Including the erotic.)

SDB has written about the current state of the world as a three-way war (my take), and Francis Porretto has upped the ante with two more sides! Mr. Porretto identifies the sides by their material goals rather than their philosophies, and to that end I think he is right in calling out Red China and the "Pacific Enterprise Bloc" as significant players, in addition to SDB's Empiricists, Idealists, and Islamists.

In a sense, both China and the PEB are Empiricists who just don't have the same goals as the Anglosphere (SDB's main Empiricist group).

Mr. Porretto also briefly mentions the various "Hispanic states" (presumably most of South America, and the like; is that the right term for the group?) as "uninterested in the war, incapable of taking a hand in it, or both", and perhaps Africa falls into the same category. Still, South America strikes me as far less backward and troubled than Africa, and I'd say they're closer to the PEB in their desires (to make money and to be left alone).

I think it would be very advantageous for the Anglosphere to court these Hispanic states through freer trade and cultural exchange. We spend a lot of time and money on our enemies, but these mostly-neutral states could be developed into strong allies over the next few decades if we play our cards right. We need a more workable approach to the War on Drugs, and we need open trade from Canada to Argentina.

You know, for whatever it's worth, the terrorists' plan is starting to work on me.

"My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Susan," the man said on the video. "I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah. I live in ... Philadelphia."

After reading a statement, the men were seen pulling the man to his side and putting a large knife to his neck. A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting "Allahu Akbar!" — "God is great." They then held the head out before the camera. ...

"For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, we tell you that we offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage with some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib and they refused."

"So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins ... slaughtered in this way."

If they're trying to make me hate them, it's working. I doubt I'm not the only American feeling this way, and if they expect us to pull out of Iraq when we get pissed off, they're mistaken.

Do they really want coffin after coffin of dead? How about if we just turn them all directly into greasy vapor? We can do it. And we will, if we have to.

I wish our government would focus more on making them afraid of us, rather than on trying to make us all buddies.

Two bloggers I much respect may both be misunderstanding a rabbi's denunciation of gun rights as idolatry. Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, the President of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations said,

Is the need for sensible gun-control a religious issue? You bet it is.

The indiscriminate distribution of guns is an offense against God and humanity.

Controlling guns is not only a political matter, it is a solemn religious obligation. Our gun-flooded society has turned weapons into idols, and the worship of idols must be recog