Friday, June 29, 2007

Bush and the American Military

I don't want to rehash material that other liberal bloggers have well-documented concerning Bush's doublespeak on being "pro-military" and concomitantly reducing a Congressional pay raise for the military, or talk about the VA and post-war programs for vets, or extending tours of duty...&c.

Instead, a question concerning how Bush's policies have affected the might of the military in terms of recruitment and allied support:
Its volunteer army is indeed stretched: it could not fight another small war of choice. But it can still muster 1.5m people under arms and a defence budget almost as big as the whole of the rest of the world's. And it could call on so much more: in relation to the country's size, its defence budget and army are quite small by historical standards. Better diplomacy would enhance its power.

One irony of the “war on terror” is that Mr Bush's hyperventilation worked against him in terms of getting boots on the ground: neither his own countrymen nor his allies were sure enough that they were really under threat. (And why should they be? An American-led West spent four decades tussling with a nuclear-armed empire that stretched from Berlin to Vladivostok; al-Qaeda is still small beer.)
Why are fewer men and women enlisting in today's military? Is it simply fear of dying in a time of war? In part...but I don't think that's the whole story.

The current administration abandoned Roosevelt's wise maxim, "Speak softly and carry a big stick," much to our country's detriment. People must remind themselves of a time when all-out nuclear holocaust was a very serious possibility, just around the corner, and not be deluded by buying into the bullshit "existential conflict of our generation" mentality. And I think that more people are waking up to that fact. We are not living in a time of "greatest threat", our military is needed much less today than at many times in our history.

The "war on terror" cannot be fought with guns. Terrorism is a tactic. It cannot be "defeated". Ideology cannot be shot with even the beautiful Heckler & Koch 416 (a superior arm over the standard Army-issued M4). And that's why fewer people want to buy into that rhetoric.

If we have no clear enemy and no clear strategy, if our young men and women are unsure of the motives of this war, and suspect an executive's stubborness is the sole reason for our continued conflict...they will not be impelled to risk their lives for such a failed policy. And thus it should come as no surprise when recruitment in 2005 was down 25%, or when 38% fewer black men enlist, or the growing ranks of thugs and criminals -- even gangs -- in our honorable services. It isn't that our country is being sapped of courage to fight. We're being drained of faith in our leaders to morally direct fighting in general, and to manage wars they've begun. We see through the veil, and the grand Wizard of Oz booming out stark warnings and spreading terror turns out to be just another power-hungry politician.


________________
Technorati tags:

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Saving the Earth with a smile: reducing your junk mail

You can do two things, right now, that will take you 3 minutes max, save a number of trees [over the course of years] PLUS save you time and effort for years to come*:
  1. Opt out of sharing your credit information via credit agencies
  2. Contact centralized direct mail service (DMA) to request removal of your info (costs $1)
_____

1) This will stop a huge amount of the junk mail that you get, especially the damned credit card, mortgage and insurance offers.

Call 1-888-5 OPT OUT (1-888-567-8688) 24/7, all you need is your name, current address, SSN & DOB.

2) Use the DMA Customer Assistance website to opt-out of general mailing lists using these directions. You can do it in 20 seconds with this online form. It only costs you $1, and it is well worth the price in terms of trees saved and frustration avoided.

_____

This saves trees and it saves your the aggravation of sorting out a pound of junk mail every day. Recycling the junk mail is not nearly as efficient or environmentally friendly as stopping it.

What a simple way to use 3 mins of your time for a good cause and out of self-interest. Do it.

Now.

For more suggestions on junk mail reduction, see here and here.

*(Some of the mail will stop within a week or two, but there is a lag time for you to see the total cumulative effect, since so many companies have been given your info. However, they all refresh their databases at least once every six months to troll for credit score changes, and so the effect will show up soon enough.)

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

So Depressing

So sad to read about Hein v. FFRF.

SCOTUS is just what the theocrats had wet dreams it would be -- completely unmoved by the idea that the Executive Branch using tax money to further religion is unconstitutional.

Taxpayers, he said, "set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur" by allowing such faith-based funding to continue, suggesting the federal government could build a national house of worship, or buy Jewish Stars of David and distribute them to public employees.

"Of course none of these things has happened," said Alito, and "in the unlikely event that any of these executive actions did take place, Congress could quickly step in."
*sigh*

Things very similar to this have happened -- the government funds appropriated for "abstinence-based sex ed" have been used to promote religious ideology over scientific fact at the expense of the health of millions of people. The exponential rise of AIDS in Africa can rightly be framed as a serious implication of such policies, in concert with Vatican dogma against condom usage.

Alito is the author of the unitary executive legal theory which all but confers dictatorial powers to the President, which he has cited numerous times in his usage of "signing statements" to bypass him having to actually obey the law. This should come with little surprise. Everyone knew that Kennedy was the swing vote.
________________
Technorati tags: , , ,

Monday, June 25, 2007

My submission to Seed Magazine's writing contest

I just submitted my entry to the Seed writing contest.

Read it here.

(or, R-click and "Save As" [Word 97-03 document (.doc, 1.3MB)])

"Analyzing Scientific Literacy in the 21st Century: Approaches and Considerations"

You'll need the password to open it: 0opeyx88888

Again: You have to open it read-only. I will put up a .PDF if and when it gets published.

Contest details:
Seed is pleased to announce the Second Annual Seed Science Writing Contest, presented by Honeywell.

Throughout the 20th century, science changed our perspective on the world. It altered our sense of individual identity, compelled us to environmental consciousness, and shaped our view of the cosmos. Its legacy is apparent in what we learned: the three Rs, our As, Ts, Cs, and Gs, the consequences of splitting the atom, that the solar system is 4.6 billion years old...

Today, the mantra of competitiveness has gained new momentum in the US, reinvigorating a discussion about education and the public's understanding of science. Science is high on the agenda of the European Union. And China and Africa have identified science literacy as a cornerstone of their respective development strategies. This begs the question:

What does it mean to be scientifically literate in the 21st century?

How do we measure the scientific literacy of a society? How do we boost it? What is the value of this literacy? Who is responsible for fostering it?

Essay submissions will be judged by a panel of Seed editors and special guests. Winning entries will be published in Seed magazine.
________________
Technorati tags:

Dick "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is not torture" Cheney

From the WaPo blogs:
From that moment, well before previous accounts have suggested, Cheney turned his attention to the practical business of crushing a captive's will to resist. The vice president's office played a central role in shattering limits on coercion in U.S. custody, commissioning and defending legal opinions that the Bush administration has since portrayed as the initiatives, months later, of lower-ranking officials.

Cheney and his allies, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, pioneered a novel distinction between forbidden "torture" and permitted use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" methods of questioning. They did not originate every idea to rewrite or reinterpret the law, but fresh accounts from participants show that they translated muscular theories, from Yoo and others, into the operational language of government.

This is just really hard for me to fathom. How do they even pretend there is a non-semantical difference? They don't, really. They just want to avoid the word "torture" because of its connotations, not because it is, like, ya know, EVIL or anything.
The vice president's counsel proposed that President Bush issue a carefully ambiguous directive. Detainees would be treated "humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of" the Geneva Conventions. When Bush issued his public decision two weeks later, on Feb. 7, 2002, he adopted Addington's formula -- with all its room for maneuver -- verbatim.
This, folks, is the very heart of "legal wiggle room". No absolutes here. Bushco is praised for their "moral absolutism" against the godless relativists on things like stem cell research, gay marriage, etc. They keep it simple, stupid, by saying, "Yes," and "No," but not when it comes to torture.

Then, it's to a certain extent, and consistent with principles rather than particulars.

How people can claim that they are religious, and love God and humanity, then claim Bush is too, and that torture is okey-dokey, is beyond my comprehension.
This previously unreported meeting sheds light on the origins of one of the Bush administration's most controversial claims. The Justice Department delivered a classified opinion on Aug. 1, 2002, stating that the U.S. law against torture "prohibits only the worst forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" and therefore permits many others. [Read the opinion] Distributed under the signature of Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, the opinion also narrowed the definition of "torture" to mean only suffering "equivalent in intensity" to the pain of "organ failure ..... or even death."
Well isn't that nice. 1) Gonzo's name isn't on there. 2) Torture is now redefined, just as "truth" has been for six years.
When news accounts unearthed that opinion nearly two years later, the White House repudiated its contents. Some officials described it as hypothetical, without disclosing that the opinion was written in response to specific questions from the CIA. Administration officials attributed authorship to Yoo, a Berkeley law professor who had come to serve in the Office of Legal Counsel.
Turns out not to be hypothetical at all.
The vice president's lawyer advocated what was considered the memo's most radical claim: that the president may authorize any interrogation method, even if it crosses the line of torture. U.S. and treaty laws forbidding any person to "commit torture," that passage stated, "do not apply" to the commander in chief, because Congress "may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield."
The law doesn't apply to them. Has anyone NOT fuc#in' gotten this, yet? These people truly think they are above the law in every important sense.
That same day, Aug. 1, 2002, Yoo signed off on a second secret opinion, the contents of which have never been made public. According to a source with direct knowledge, that opinion approved as lawful a long list of specific interrogation techniques proposed by the CIA -- including waterboarding, a form of near-drowning that the U.S. government classified as a war crime in 1947. The opinion drew the line against one request: threatening to bury a prisoner alive.
What, Dick, you lost your balls when it comes to burying them alive? Why commit one war crime but not another? The law doesn't apply to executives like you and King W.

Impeach.
________________
Technorati tags:

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Deep Thought

From Jason Rosenhouse:
As regular readers of this blog are aware, I spend a considerable amount of time attending creationist conferences and presentations. And since I am cursed with both the ability and the willingness to look at things from the perspective of people with opinions different from my own, all of this exposure occasionally leads to bouts of Stockholm Syndrome. Maybe, I start wondering, it's unfair for me to go into their hidey holes for the sole purpose of later writing snide accounts of my experiences. Maybe I should just leave them alone. If they want to live according to their own idiosyncratic religion, who am I to pass judgment on them?

Then I see things like Men in White, and like a bucket of cold water I am reminded of a fundamental truth of creationism. They are not wasting even one single second worrying about presenting their opponents fairly, or of understanding the views they criticize with such venom. There is no stereotype so crass, no argument so foolish, and no misrepresentation so egregious that they won't use it if they think it will give them a rhetorical edge. There isn't a college professor, scientist or teacher on the face of the Earth who behaves anything like the caricatures on the screen, but one suspects that fact means nothing to them. Their shameful behavior does not justify similar behavior on the part of their critics, of course. But it is useful to be reminded that while I worry about fairness and open-mindedness, there is absolutely none of that sentiment coming the other way.
I feel his pain.
________________
Technorati tags: , ,

Saturday, June 23, 2007

"God Hates the World"

This brought tears to my eyes. But for all the wrong reasons...especially the little child at the end singing about how it's too late to change his mind.



"...PROUD SINNERS!"
________________
Technorati tags: , ,

Stem cell op-ed 'toons

They say picture = 1000 words. Since I've already put in the latter...










________________
Technorati tags:

Friday, June 22, 2007

Let's play "pin the tail on the logical flaw"

BushCo brag about the president's bold "science over ideology" approach to stem cells. [*gag*]

They feel the president "supports" some research -- privately funded, while opposing federally funded research. The rationale for opposing the funding of the research is that it is murder. But the logic is deeply and hopelessly flawed: if stem cell research is murder, then how can the president have two separate policies -- condoning some forms of what he has termed murder?.

Why do they support privately-funded stem cell research, since it is still murder?
Yesterday, Tony Snow said the White House wants to “encourage” privately-funded embryonic stem-cell research. He practically boasted about the “billions of dollars available in the private sector to make such research possible.” All of this came just minutes after Snow said the president believes this research “involves…the taking of a human life.”

That’s the real contradiction.

Kevin’s right, banning this research outright would take the affirmative passage of a bill, which falls outside the president’s purview. But therein lies the point — if Bush really believed that the privately-funded research was literally slaughtering untold thousands of human lives in this country, he’d ask Congress to do something about it.

But he doesn’t. On the contrary, his spokesperson boasts about how great all this private investment in mass murder is.
So long as theocons run the GOP, the health needs of millions of Americans will be subservient to their narrow-minded dogmas. Should we be surprised at this late date with the recurring Alice in Wonderland-esque reasoning of these people? I'm not.
________________
Technorati tags: ,

A flash of inspiration

Seattle's the Stranger sent 31 writers to 31 different churches (spanning Islam, Christianity, Judaism & Bahai) on the same Sunday to come back and write of their experiences.

I was just inspired. Would it be a good idea for a freethought group to send groups of 2 & 3 members to different churches (importantly, spanning different faiths) and come back and write of their experiences and impressions? Maybe select an atheist, agnostic & believer for each team?

Come back and report the good, the bad and the ugly? hmmmm....*pensive chin rub*
________________
Technorati tags: , ,

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

For ammo against idiots

To battle misinformation:
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/stem_cell_research

I remember a while back when some Christian groups tried to respond to the first Bush veto of stem cells by putting out this atrocious defense of it by saying that, yes, the embryos will die anyway, but that we should adopt as many as possible...then, stop letting women get in vitro fertility treatments. Even Republicans like Orrin Hatch are against Bush on this issue, along with 60% of Americans.

It is only the slimiest scum -- the Religious Right -- to which Bush panders with these vetoes.

Religion really does have utter control of people's two most important possessions for survival: their brains and their genitals.

The creator of 50,000 billion billion stars (more than the number of grains of sand on earth) cares what people do with their pee-pee parts more than curing Parkinson's. What a dick. [applies less to God than Bush]
________________
Technorati tags: , , , ,

This is worth reprinting in its entirety

It's right on the money:

Red States not doing so well on health care, wages and education

By John Aravosis (DC)

Three Democratic issues, and on each issue, the GOP states are at the bottom of the barrel. Yet they still vote Republican because stopping a gay couple from getting married matters more to them than keeping their children alive, getting them a good education, and then a good job. You deserve the government you get.
The intellectual and financial bankruptcy of base that = the Religious Right will catch up with the GOP soon enough. A base like that falls into an unstoppable downward spiral eventually. Oh, wait...that was years ago.
________________
Technorati tags:

7-year old hellfire preacher

Gag.

Meet the next Benny Hinn. Marjoe got started even earlier.

And Roanoke, of all places...geez.
________________
Technorati tags: ,

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

If you need some action...

Use this map to guide your relocation decisions:



Even if you have no "game" whatsoever, the sheer numbers have to play into your hands at some point. (HT: Ed)
________________
Technorati tags:

Perfect Characterization of the GOP

http://ihateronpaul.com/
________________
Technorati tags:

Courtesy the General


Indeed.

Gay marriage probably killed those dinosaurs off (around 4,000 years ago).
________________
Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Saturday, June 16, 2007

[we have] "a growing sense of confidence in our new attorney general."

Guess who said that? And guess why?

Before I tell you, I want to tell you that at the time this was said, the Iraq war was about 2.5 years old, and the first signs of Bush's plummeting popularity were beginning to show. Given that, an apropos offhand remark that also comes from the WaPo article in which the title quote is spoken sheds light on the priorities of this administration, and to whom they've pandered away all competence and credibility:
"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."

Among friends and trusted colleagues, an experienced national security analyst said, "it's a running joke for us."
Why did the FBI agent say this? Because the AG was diverting resources away from fighting terrorism in order...wait for it...

...to fight...

...porn.

Not child porn. Consenting adults, legal porn.

And the FRC -- the Religious Right's most powerful Washington lobbying arm -- was ecstatic, and they were the ones with the "growing sense of confidence" in Alberto Gonzalez. My how the times change.

This was enough of a priority of the Bush administration to pull good agents off of cases involving threats of death and destruction to our country in order to search out people who make erotica involving urination and bondage. This is your president, America. God bless that motherfucker.
________________
Technorati tags: , ,

An RR story to make the blood boil

From http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/11146.html

Millions of dollars in hard-earned tax dollars being flushed down the tubes.

Another tactic for ID Creationists

Their newest trick? Bullying school libraries into accepting copies of their junk science books. Luskin screams bloody murder [faux discrimination] when librarians refuse to stock the dreck, and contacts school boards to intimidate those librarians (of intellectual integrity) into shelving them.

If they can't get in the valid front door (developing a real science of IDC), they'll try the back (sneaking it into classrooms ala Dover), then get desperate and crawl through the basement window (making sure their pseudoscience is in every school's library). I'd say the next step is to "inform" sympathetic teachers of the books' existence, once stocked, so they can "loosely suggest" to their students they ought to check out "both sides" of the evolution "debate." Lovely.

Sounds a lot like Dover, doesn't it? They don't learn. Keep the crap out of schools.
________________
Technorati tags: , , , ,

Friday, June 15, 2007

OMGZ

There really are no words for this.



See more here and here.
________________
Technorati tags: ,

So does college education correlate to loss of religion, or not?

No, according to a new study.

Percent of Young Adults Reporting Religious Declines, by Level of Education

Educational Attainment

Decline in Attending Services

Decline in Importance of Religion

Disaffiliation From Religion

Didn’t attend college

76.2%

23.7%

20.3%

Attended, but earned no degree

71.5%

16.3%

14.6%

Earned associate degree

60.3%

15.1%

14.4%

Earned at least a bachelor’s degree

59.2%

15.0%

15.0%

So with all the talk about supposedly liberal, anti-religious professors, why do the young adults who don’t go to college suffer more of a religious loss?

Regnerus said that what the study suggests — and his personal experience confirms — is that while there are plenty of non-religious professors around, they aren’t trying to discourage any students from practicing their faith. “Of course there are some who are hostile to religion. But they don’t teach that. They teach their discipline,” Regnerus said. The attitude, he added, is: “Whatever I think about evangelicals, when I go to teach quantum physics, I teach quantum physics.”

I guess PHC won't have as much business if parents aren't driven by fear that little Johnny and Susie will quite possibly burn in hell if they attend a godless secular university. They should get to work spinning this, somehow.

Well, at least liberalism is still alive and well at college, and that's enough, [they hope] right?
________________
Technorati tags: , ,

Studies on the death penalty

There are subtleties and intricacies involved in every intellectual debate. In the debate over death penalty, there are moral, financial, legal and empirical concerns. We must consider whether it is morally correct to kill people for crimes committed, whether it is cost-efficient, legally sound (this would include the ability to eradicate killing innocent people), and whether it has the intended effect, if any, to deter crime or otherwise improve society.

I will stake out at the fore that I am against the death penalty.

It seems that those who argue that it deters crime rely almost entirely upon econometric analyses in which questionable "correcting variables" are introduced and regressions are done that can always be likened to "fitting the data to the presupposed conclusion", or,
Statistician Francis Anscombe (1973) demonstrated how bizarre the Flatland assumption can be. He plotted four graphs that have become known as Anscombe’s Quartet. Each of the graphs shows the relationship between two variables. The graphs are very different, but for a resident of Flatland they are all the same. If we approximate them with a straight line (following a “linear regression equation”) the lines are all the same (figure 2). Only the first of Anscombe’s four graphs is a reasonable candidate for a linear regression analysis, because a straight line is a reasonable approximation for the underlying pattern.


The data on capital punishment and homicide, when plotted in figure 3, look a lot like Anscombe’s fourth quartet. Most of the states had no executions at all. One state, Texas, accounts for forty of the eighty-five executions in the year shown (the patterns for other years are quite similar). An exceptional case or “outlier” of this dimension completely dominates a multiple regression analysis. Any regression study will be primarily a comparison of Texas with everywhere else. Multiple regression is simply inappropriate with this data, no matter how hard the analyst tries to force the data into a linear pattern.

Unfortunately, econometricians continue to use multiple regression on capital punishment data and to generate results that are cited in Congressional hearings. In recent examples, Mocan and Gittings (2001) concluded that each execution decreases the number of homicides by five or six while Dezhbaksh, Rubin, and Shepherd (2002) argued that each execution deters eighteen murders. Cloninger and Marchesini (2001) published a study finding that the Texas moratorium from March 1996 to April 1997 increased homicide rates, even though no increase can be seen in the graph (figure 1). The moratorium simply increased homicide in comparison to what their econometric model said it would have otherwise been. Of all the econometric myths, the wildest is this: We know what would have been.

This is from a professor of sociology at Rutgers, one who, I'm sure, is familiar with statistical analyses. But he dismisses the sorts of analyses done which point to a deterrent effect because he believes that there are overwhelming evidences that there simply is no such thing. He believes that the regression analyses which purport to show an effect of this sort are "rigged" by the variables introduced by the analyst.

Since this is outside my area of expertise, I will simply cite some references below. The only papers I could find purporting support for a deterrent effect were econometric in nature. All of the sociological studies I found were pro-abolitionist.

One rather interesting factoid I found while searching for papers was a study done in the Netherlands in 2003 which found that about 35% of the citizens there disagreed with the country's abolitionist stance. They found that the 35% was largely comprised of the young and the uneducated, and blame attitudes of dissatisfaction with the judicial system on support of the death penalty. (DOI):
It is shown that support can be modeled quite well, partly in terms of general attitudes to criminal justice, partly in terms of political and sociodemographic parameters. Within the criminal justice attitudes complex, more support is found among those endorsing harsh treatment of offenders, those willing to grant far-reaching powers to justice authorities, those believing that the government is not delivering on the topic of crime fighting, and those who are concerned about the level of crime. Within the political context, more support is enlisted among people who abstain from voting and those who vote at either extreme of the political spectrum as opposed to central parties' supporters. In sociodemographic segments it is the younger and poorly educated who are the strongest supporters of capital punishment. It is suggested that endorsing capital punishment can be better understood as an expressive act, displaying dissatisfaction with judicial and political elites in the country.
It sounds like the more willing you are to give up liberties in favor of security, the more likely you are to favor the death penalty. A telling, and unsurprising, indicator of underlying attitudes. If you're willing to give up your own liberties, it is unsurprising you're willing to throw another's' life under the bus as well. I've had my say...read the below papers for a good idea of where current research stands.

PRO-Abolition:
  1. ...THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the American Psychological Association: Calls upon each jurisdiction in the United States that imposes capital punishment not to carry out the death penalty until the jurisdiction implements policies and procedures that can be shown through psychological and other social science research to ameliorate the deficiencies identified above.
  2. "Since 1973, over 120 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. (Staff Report, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil & Constitutional Rights, Oct. 1993, with updates from DPIC). In 2000, 8 inmates were freed from death row and exonerated; in 2001 – 2002, another 9 were freed; and in 2003, 12 were exonerated. In 2004, there were 6 exonerations." (Death Penalty Info)
  3. "Consistent with previous years, the 2004 FBI Uniform Crime Report showed that the South had the highest murder rate. The South accounts for over 80% of executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions, again had the lowest murder rate." (Death Penalty Info)
  4. "According to a survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies, 84% of these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. (Radelet & Akers, 1996)" (Death Penalty Info)
1) Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts
Michael L. Radelet, Ronald L. Akers
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), Vol. 87, No. 1 (Autumn, 1996), pp. 1-16
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1143970 FULL-TEXT (.pdf)

2) Capital Punishment and Homicide: Sociological Realities and Econometric Illusions
Ted Goertzel, Ph.D. Sociology Department -- Rutgers U
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-07/capital-punishment.html FULL-TEXT: (.pdf)

3) The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates
Michael L. Radelet; Marian J. Borg
Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26. (2000), pp. 43-61.
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.43 FULL-TEXT: (.pdf)
excerpt -- "...Overall, the vast majority of deterrence studies have failed to support the hypothesis..."

PRO-Death Penalty:

4) Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data
Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul H. Rubin and Joanna M. Shepherd
American Law and Economics Review V5 N2 2003 (344-376)
http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/2/344 FULL-TEXT: (.pdf)

5) The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a "Judicial Experiment"
Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Joanna M. Shepherd
Economic Inquiry 2006 44(3):512-535; doi:10.1093/ei/cbj032
http://ei.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/3/512 FULL-TEXT: (.pdf)

6) Does Capital Punishment Deter Homicide?
[A Response to (2) above]
http://libertycorner.blogspot.com/2004/10/does-capital-punishment-deter-homicide.html
excerpt -- "...Now, I must say that I don't care whether or not capital punishment deters homicide. Capital punishment is the capstone of a system of justice that used to work quite well in this country because it was certain and harsh. There must be a hierarchy of certain penalties for crime, and that hierarchy must culminate in the ultimate penalty if criminals and potential criminals are to believe that crime will be punished. When punishment is made less severe and less certain -- as it was for a long time after World War II -- crime flourishes and law-abiding citizens become less secure in their lives and property."
________________
Technorati tags: ,

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Darn you, Mikey Weinstein

For working hard to take away the government's right to use the military chaplaincy as a tool of the Religious Right. Darn you and your book, With God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military.

With God on Our Side is shocking exposé of life inside the United States Air Force Academy and the systematic program of indoctrination sanctioned, coordinated, and carried out by fundamentalist Christians within the U.S. military.

It is also the story of Michael L. Weinstein, a proud Academy graduate and the father of two graduates and a current cadet, who single-handedly brought to light the evangelicals' utter disregard of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state that is so essential to the nation's military mission. Weinstein's war would pit him and his small band of fellow graduates, cadets, and concerned citizens against a program of Christian fundamentalist indoctrination that could transform our fighting men and women into "right-thinking" warriors more befitting a theocracy. In the process, he would come face to face with religious bigotry and at its most extreme and fight an unrelenting battle to save his beloved Academy, the ideals it stood for, and the very future of the country.

An important book at a critical time in our nation's history, With God on Our Side is the story of one man's courageous struggle to thwart a creeping evangelism permeating America's military and to prevent a taxpayer-funded theocracy in whichonly the true believers have power.
Hey, didn't I just mention the problem with church-state entanglement in our military a few days ago on a related vein? Yep.
________________
Technorati tags: , , ,

Pentagon report paints bleak assessment of escalation - "surge"

Rather than giving the GOP optimism, the numbers and facts are bleak on Bush's escalation policy:

The 46-page report, mandated quarterly by Congress, tempers the early optimism about the new strategy voiced by senior U.S. officials. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, for instance, in March described progress in Iraq as "so far, so good." Instead, it depicts limited gains and setbacks and states that it is too soon to judge whether the new approach is working.

Sectarian killings and attacks -- which were spiraling late last year -- dropped sharply from February to April, but civilian casualties rose slightly, to more than 100 a day. Despite the early drop in sectarian killings, data from the Baghdad morgue gathered by The Washington Post in May show them returning to pre-"surge" levels last month.

Suicide attacks more than doubled across Iraq -- from 26 in January to 58 in April -- said the report, which covers the three months from mid-February to mid-May.

Violence fell in Baghdad and Anbar province, where the bulk of the 28,700 more U.S. troops are located, but escalated elsewhere as insurgents and militias regroup in eastern and northern Iraq. In Anbar, attacks dropped by about a third, compared with the previous three months, as Sunni tribes have organized against entrenched fighters from al-Qaeda in Iraq, the report said.

Overall, however, violence "has increased in most provinces, particularly in the outlying areas of Baghdad province and Diyala and Ninewa provinces," the report said. In Diyala's restive capital of Baqubah, U.S. and Iraq forces "have been unable to diminish rising sectarian violence contributing to the volatile security situation," it said.

(also see the US/Iraqi deaths up to April '07)
________________
Technorati tags:

Final note on Behe & the new book

I mentioned a few days ago that Behe's book had already been battered by experts, and now Prof. Lynch documents the deafening silence on the part of creationists in the way of responses to the book. Both Lynch and PZ think, and I agree, that a lot of the problem is that Behe's god of the gaps is a *very small one* -- Behe accepts almost everything about modern evolutionary biology, and thus most creationists will now feel quite uncomfortable taking sides with him. As Prof. Jerry Coyne put it in his recent review:

For a start, let us be clear about what Behe now accepts about evolutionary theory. He has no problem with a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth, nor with evolutionary change over time, nor apparently with its ample documentation through the fossil record--the geographical distribution of organisms, the existence of vestigial traits testifying to ancient ancestry, and the finding of fossil "missing links" that show common ancestry among major groups of organisms. Behe admits that most evolution is caused by natural selection, and that all species share common ancestors. He even accepts the one fact that most other IDers would rather die than admit: that humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees and other apes.

Why does Behe come clean about all this? The reason is plain. There is simply too much evidence for any scientist to deny these facts without losing all credibility. "Intelligent design" is desperate for scientific respectability, and you do not get that by fighting facts about which everybody agrees. But with most of evolutionary biology accepted, what's left for a good IDer to contest? Behe finds his bugbear in evolutionary theory's view that "random mutation" provides the raw material for evolutionary change.
Basically, this is the sole point of disagreement Behe finds with evo bio. Behe goes to great lengths to give the "designer" full credit for the lethal design of malaria and other parasites -- IOW, he gives a lot of substance to the "Argument from Evil Design" that I mentioned a long time ago.

This bothers most creationists. They don't like to think of their loving god as having designed retroviruses to efficiently kill us (and other apes).

Then, to add insult to injury, he accepts the common ancestry of man & apes, an old earth, and speciation. No wonder so few creationists are willing to wade in and defend him from the critiques of his book. They couldn't do it with a clear conscience, because they probably see him now as almost as bad as one of those "godless evolutionists" that they see themselves fighting against.

In closing: the next time you hear a creationist cite Behe, Darwin's Black Box, or The Edge of Evolution, immediately bring up the fact that Behe accepts common descent and nearly everything within modern evolutionary biology. Then, the creationist must focus on the sole argument that Behe makes which he would still agree with Behe on -- that mutations don't provide enough substance for natural selection to act upon. And this is where 99.9% of them will lose interest in defending the argument, due to lack of knowledge and the overall hollow ringing of such a victory (should they claim one), and jettison Behe in favor of ye olde-time creationists, like Ken Ham and Henry Morris.
________________
Technorati tags: , , , ,

"I can be your facebook stalker..."

Funny video -- see it here:

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

New Barna Poll on Christian Trends

A while ago, I analyzed some leading indicators about the growth of Christianity in today's world. I was responding to a claim that today's Evangelical kids are leaving the fold at a faster-than-ever rate as they grow up. My conclusions at the time were:

First, the numbers for the rise and fall of Christianity's numbers are all over the map, but two cited trends are ubiquitous: i) the rise of fundamentalist sects, and ii) the demise of "liberal" and Catholic sects in the modern world. While the latter seems logical enough, the former is a bit suspect to me. According to Mission Frontiers, Christianity is growing on the global scale at approximately 2.6% per year, while the population growth (globally) is around 1.6%. That means that at best, Christianity is enjoying a worldwide 1% increase. What we find with all these numbers, though, is a huge upsurge in the population of fundie/charismatic believers in 3rd world countries -- the Catholics' previous stronghold is being assaulted by Evangelical missionaries. How much of the net 1% increase is only in 3rd world countries?
Now, a new Barna poll seems to confirm this suspicion. The title of the article says it all, "Most Twentysomethings Put Christianity on the Shelf Following Spiritually Active Teen Years." The caveat in buying this is what I said a long time ago: you have to carefully examine how Barna defines a Christian. Oftentimes, their criteria are so strict that many people who I would call "serious Christians" are cut from the poll. For example, they may be asked, "Do you believe that all Scripture is inerrant?" And when they respond, "No," they're not considered Christians.
The intensity of religious commitment is lower among young adults, but not as low as might be assumed. Among those in their twenties and thirties, 6% have beliefs that qualify them as evangelical. This is statistically on par with the level among today’s teenagers (5%), but about half the rate of those over age 40 (12%). One-third of young adults (36%) qualify as born again Christians, which is slightly lower than the 44% of those over 40. (In the Barna survey, evangelicals and born again Christians are defined based upon religious beliefs and commitments, not based on the terms people use to describe themselves.)
This is how Barna's "4% of teens have a Biblical worldview" poll was conducted.
Barna's definition of a biblical worldview included a belief that absolutes exist and a belief that the Bible defines them. Additionally, the definition stipulated a belief that: Christ lived a sinless life; God is the "all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He stills rules it today"; salvation is by grace and not by works; Satan is a real being; Christians have a responsibility to witness; and the Bible is "accurate in all of its teachings."

The research found that those who attended college were more likely to have a biblical worldview than those who did not (6 percent versus 2 percent). Married adults also were more likely to have such a worldview (5 percent for married people versus 2 percent for singles). Also, 10 percent of Republicans but only 2 percent of independents and 1 percent of Democrats had a biblical worldview.
I would say that the 6% figure quoted is thus likely far too low.

In the new poll, they conclude that 81% of 29 years olds were "churched" as teens, but only 20% are still "spiritually active" and 61% disengaged in their twenties. There are other international polls that confirm this is a worldwide trend:

Australian Youth Follow The Secular Trend
Aug. 11, 2006

Less than half Australia’s young people say they believe in a god, and many believe there is little truth in religion, a new study has found. The three-year national study, a joint project between Monash University, the Australian Catholic University and the Christian Research Association, found many young people live an entirely secular life.
Spanish Youngsters Have Had It With Religion, Too
Aug. 11, 2006

A poll of 1,450 young people in Spain shows that most believe that religion is of little importance and has no place in schools. The survey of people aged 15 to 29 shows that attitudes have changed radically since the era of the dictator Franco. Then, homosexuality was banned. Now gay marriage is legal, with 80 percent of those who were asked agreeing with the change in the law.

A third of those polled declared themselves non-believers, with the majority of the remainder stating that religion had little relevance in their lives.
(more)
Despite these trends, we must be careful to reject the hasty generalization that "religion is dying" -- because it's not, (neither is atheism) and because many people have fallen into this trap before, especially claiming that "science is destroying religion."

I also want to reaffirm something I've said before -- I don't seek the demise of religion. I am not even sure that all religion is bad or harmful to humanity. If we call ourselves freethinkers, then we ought to have an evidentialist approach to such questions, and SFAIK, no such evidence exists. What I would love to see is the demise of anti-intellectual elements of all religions.
________________
Technorati tags: , ,

Monday, June 11, 2007

What a Lame-ass Ending

But, business-wise, a smart one -- leaving so many options for a future movie, the Sopranos' final episode was the epitome of anticlimactic. I was frustrated at the end, but I am also hopeful b/c I think this means they're going to do more with it.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Two Sobering Reports

I) Poverty in America | with 12 steps towards a solution
  1. One in eight Americans now lives in poverty
  2. One third of all Americans will experience poverty within a 13-year period. In that period, one in 10 Americans are poor for most of the time, and one in 20 are poor for 10 or more years.
  3. At the turn of the 21st century, the United States ranked 24th among 25 countries when measuring the share of the population below 50 percent of median income.
  4. The richest 1 percent of Americans in 2005 held the largest share of the nation’s income (19 percent) since 1929. At the same time, the poorest 20 percent of Americans held only 3.4 percent of the nation’s income.
II) 5 Myths about Immigrants and Health Care
  1. U.S. public health insurance programs are overburdened with documented and undocumented immigrants.
  2. Immigrants consume large quantities of limited health care resources.
  3. Immigrants come to the United States to gain access to health care services.
  4. Restricting immigrants’ access to the health care system will not affect
    American citizens.
  5. Undocumented immigrants are “free-riders” in the American health care system.
________________
Technorati tags:

Why Madison was Right on Military Chaplains

Because of the intrinsic potential to use the post as taxpayer-funded proselytizing for one religious viewpoint, rather than supportive of the disparate religious views in our service corps.
[Madison] conceded the strength of arguments for military chaplains, especially for soldiers far from home, but he persisted with his general principle: "that it is safer to trust the consequences of a right principle than reasoning in support of a bad one" (quoted, p. 82 -- RELIGION AND THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 1774-1789: CONTRIBUTIONS TO ORIGINAL INTENT by Derek H. Davis. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. 309 pp.)
And we see this borne out in reality, again.
________________
Technorati tags: , , ,

Saturday, June 9, 2007

Say No to the Land Bridge

Hilarious. Damn those cavemen. White man go home. Watch it here.


________________
Technorati tags:

Religious Book Sales

The IHS:HNN reports on the -10.2% drop in sales from 2005 to 2006 in religious books as indicated by the report of the AAS. Truthfully, it seems they IHS:HNN "spun" this when really it is a non-story. They try to make it sound positive for the drop in those books, concomitant with the rise in sales for "The God Delusion", "God is not great"...etc. The first issue is that I am not sure that books on atheism are not actually included in this same category. The second is that statistically, religious book sales have grown at 3x the rate of other sales from 2002-06.

You can get the full details in the .pdf, which shows the following numbers:
________________________________________________________
2002: 556799
2003: 836312 | change from previous year: +50% | all books change: +1.5%
2004: 888145 | change from previous year: +5.6% | all books change: +2.9%
2005: 829273 | change from previous year: -6.1% | all books change: +5.5%
2006: 744687 | change from previous year: -10.2% | all books change: -0.3%
________________________________________________________
compound change from 2002-2006: religious +7.5% | all books +2.4%


Honestly, it seems like nothing to me. If anything, religious reading has been slightly down for two years, but after the huge bump in 2003, it has still grown 3 times faster than all other book categories. I was a bit miffed to read this poor a presentation by the IHS:HNN.
________________
Technorati tags: ,

Friday, June 8, 2007

ID-Creationism really does make otherwise-smart people very dumb

Michael Behe has produced another dreck of a book, The Edge of Evolution: sThe Search for the Limits of Darwinism, which PZ has already taken a stab at (part 1, part 2) and Mark Chu-Carroll shreds the probability argument of. Now, the poor man is pummeled in peer-reviewed literature on his own turf -- biochemistry, by Sean B. Carroll. The sorts of errors he makes, in his own field, in arguing against evolution are nothing short of humiliating:

This lack of quantitative thinking underlies a second, fatal blunder resulting from the mistaken assumptions Behe makes about protein interactions. The author has long been concerned about protein complexes and how they could or, rather, could not evolve. He argues that the generation of a single new protein-protein binding site is extremely improbable and that complexes of just three different proteins "are beyond the edge of evolution." But Behe bases his arguments on unfounded requirements for protein interactions. He insists, based on consideration of just one type of protein structure (the combining sites of antibodies), that five or six positions must change at once in order to make a good fit between proteins--and, therefore, good fits are impossible to evolve. An immense body of experimental data directly refutes this claim.

Very simple calculations indicate how easily such motifs evolve at random. If one assumes an average length of 400 amino acids for proteins and equal abundance of all amino acids, any given two-amino acid motif is likely to occur at random in every protein in a cell. (There are 399 dipeptide motifs in a 400-amino acid protein and 20 mult 20 = 400 possible dipeptide motifs.) Any specific three-amino acid motif will occur once at random in every 20 proteins and any four-amino acid motif will occur once in every 400 proteins. That means that, without any new mutations or natural selection, many sequences that are identical or close matches to many interaction motifs already exist. New motifs can arise readily at random, and any weak interaction can easily evolve, via random mutation and natural selection, to become a strong interaction (9). Furthermore, any pair of interacting proteins can readily recruit a third protein, and so forth, to form larger complexes. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that new protein interactions (10) and protein networks (11) can evolve fairly rapidly and are thus well within the limits of evolution.

Is it possible that Behe does not know this body of data? Or does he just choose to ignore it? Behe has quite a record of declaring what is impossible and of disregarding the scientific literature, and he has clearly not learned any lessons from some earlier gaffes. He has again gone "public" with assertions without the benefit (or wisdom) of first testing their strength before qualified experts.
Should we really be surprised that the creationists' arguments are getting worse and worse, and their arguments poorer and poorer? How could they not, given the slow steady advance of knowledge that further shores the validity of evolution every day?

We see unbelievable stupidity crop up like this again with the Disco Institute's new "textbook".

I noted that Ralph Seelke is one of the authors of this"textbook" put out by the Disco Institute in an attempt to supplant quality texts (like Miller's) with their own dreck, to circumvent the issue of promoting creationism by substituting science with BS. He testified in the KS Kangaroo Court hearings, and so I checked out his webpage, which contains some materials which advertise his Christian background and anti-evolutionary positions. I was blown away with the paucity of his argumentation to reject evolutionary biology.

Note, in particular, his Why I am a doubter of evolution- 11/06. On slide six, he says:
•The main way evolution works is through random processes at low probability- ~ 1 in a million is a common probability that a mutation might occur.
•So if you need one mutation, the odds are one in a million; if you need TWO- the odds are now one in a TRILLION!!!
Unbelievable. I can't believe this man is a tenured professor.

First issue -- the only time you multiply probabilities is when they are independent, which is obviously not the case in something like a frameshift mutation or gene duplication.

Second -- 1 in a million is the probability that *A* mutation might occur? This is absolutely ridiculous. What he means is that this is the probability for a mutation *for each nucleotide*. And, considering that there are 3B of them in humans, this corresponds to 3000 mutations in each genome. Then, remember that this is per replication event = per cell.

How many cells are there in the body...how many replication events per cell...?

Hopefully you get the picture here.

This is such a bad argument I really couldn't believe that this man is a professor of anything, much the less microbiology!

From the peer-reviewed literature:
Many previous estimates of the mutation rate in humans have relied on screens of visible mutants. We investigated the rate and pattern of mutations at the nucleotide level by comparing pseudogenes in humans and chimpanzees to (i) provide an estimate of the average mutation rate per nucleotide, (ii) assess heterogeneity of mutation rate at different sites and for different types of mutations, (iii) test the hypothesis that the X chromosome has a lower mutation rate than autosomes, and (iv) estimate the deleterious mutation rate. Eighteen processed pseudogenes were sequenced, including 12 on autosomes and 6 on the X chromosome. The average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately 2.5 x 10(-8) mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation. Rates of mutation for both transitions and transversions at CpG dinucleotides are one order of magnitude higher than mutation rates at other sites. Single nucleotide substitutions are 10 times more frequent than length mutations. Comparison of rates of evolution for X-linked and autosomal pseudogenes suggests that the male mutation rate is 4 times the female mutation rate, but provides no evidence for a reduction in mutation rate that is specific to the X chromosome. Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common.
You really do have to be dumb to reject evolution these days. There's just too much evidence for any other explanation.
________________
Technorati tags: , ,

The "Intelligent Designer" is kinda dumb...

Since He...uh, I mean, it, put nervous system genes in sea sponges.

Obviously, evolutionary change explains this very well -- the components necessary for nervous systems must have been present as precursors in our ancient ancestors. The idea is that co-option, or exaptation, confers upon existing genes new functions. Why do sea sponges need them if God "designed" everything that way? For those animals that have no need for the function, why in the hell would they need the genes, if they were specially created? There is no logical answer.

Ed has an excellent discussion of this.
________________
Technorati tags: , , , ,

Big surprise: 2/3 of Americans believe in a bronze-age myth

From the latest USA Today/Gallup poll: 66% of people think that 6-day creationism is "definitely" or "probably" true. *sigh*

Is it surprising, given how many people in our society are scientifically illiterate? For Zeus' sakes, 30% don't know that the earth orbits the sun, instead of the other way around!?!?!?! Why do we care what the "average American" thinks of evolution or any other scientific concept, given such crass ignorance?

I was surprised to see that only 15% would let a presidential candidate's pro-science stance hurt them, while 30% say that creationism would hurt that candidate's credentials.
________________
Technorati tags: , , , , , --

Thursday, June 7, 2007

Perhaps Bush mentioned the missiles to Putin to distract from climate change?

I can't think of a better way to get everyone's mind off his rejection of Blair's proposal and further solidifying his intention to do nothing about global warming.
________________
Technorati tags:

Interesting Parallel

And one I'd never considered before: that between feminism and atheism.

From Jessica Valenti's new Full Frontal Feminism (p.6):


Sound familiar? People consistently ask why freethought/atheist groups exist, and what motivates people to join them (FAQ #4, 6). Honestly, this is a very valid question, and some people disagree that there is an equally valid answer.

And then she says (p.7):


Admittedly, this is slightly out-of-context. She's talking about the stuff women are taught regarding feminism being untrue, not about gods.

But there are many parallels, if you think about it. Feminists and atheists are generally maligned and stereotyped as angry, snobbish, and politically dangerous to people's liberties. These falsehoods are useful rhetorical tools for demagogues like Religious Right leaders.

So perhaps freethougtht groups ought to carefully monitor just how modern feminists get people involved and enthused about their causes. We could learn something from them...

food for thought.
________________
Technorati tags: ,

Time to repeal failed "don't ask, don't tell" policy

See this, and watch the video.

I like the vacuity of logic in what Giuliani said, how it's "not the time" for this policy to be revised, in the middle of the war. WTF? It matters most right now to keep patriotic Americans who have crucial skills that keep our troops alive, rather than kicking them out for what they do in the bedroom. It won't matter in a time of peace, Rudy. Moron.
________________
Technorati tags:

Boy, do I feel for them *muffles laughter*

Those poor ol' anti-choicers, who want to control women's medical decisions, they're having a tough time these days:

As they gathered Tuesday for a national strategy session, anti-abortion activists faced an unexpected revolt in their own ranks.

Some of the biggest groups in the movement, including Focus on the Family and National Right to Life, are under attack from fellow activists who accuse them of turning the cause into a money-grubbing industry.
Nooooo...surely not! Surely Dobson and the Religious Right have no interest in money, since Jesus went on and on about how hard it was for a rich man to get into heaven and the Bible says the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil! Falwell's ministries only pulled down a paltry $200M / annum, and Dobson only makes around $300 K himself in his $200M FoF empire (plus $30M for the FoF "Action" political branch), just chump change.

They are also "pro-life", after all, so much so that they don't want the sperm of AIDS-infected persons to suffocate in a rubber, but be liberated to make more little born-again babies!

Read more at the WaPo. HT: DefCon

***UPDATE: You have to read this to believe it. Christian anti-choice group American Life League's youth outreach director says, QUOTE, "It is shameful that Christians would rally around the physical needs of the poor." OMGZ

This idiot needs to go read his Bibbel.***
________________
Technorati tags: , , ,

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

"Calling all frauds, calling all frauds..."

The "Creation Museum" is looking for a geologist Ph.D. with a decided lack of integrity and scientific understanding.
________________
Technorati tags: , , , ,

Monday, June 4, 2007

What I Don't Understand About Iraq & Terrorism

How stupid are people when things like the JFK plot happen, and yet they turn around and look at you with a straight face and say, "We're fighting them there [Iraq] so we won't have to fight them here," or, "If we leave [Iraq], they'll follow us home..." ???

Wake up morons.

Terrorists didn't stop trying to do things in the US when we invaded Iraq. Instead, Iraq gave them a "cause célèbre" to increase their recruiting and funding for missions both domestic and foreign. So it helps them "follow us home" and weakens our ability to "fight them here."
________________
Technorati tags:

Sunday, June 3, 2007

Shannon Spaulding: Valedictorian != Intelligent

This is a gem. A local HS graduation is turned into a revival by the class valedictorian.

"I want to tell you that Jesus Christ can give you eternal life in heaven," Spaulding said before the crowd. "If we die with that sin on our souls, we will immediately be pulled down to hell to pay the eternal price for our sins ourselves."
She says that, then exposes the vacuity of her skull by following up with:
Spaulding told Channel 4 she was not aware of the controversy and stands behind everything she said.

"I was not trying to force anything on anybody. I just wanted to tell them something I knew was important to me and wanted to have them a chance to hear," Spaulding said.
Riiiiiight...masochists out there can listen to the whole 20 minutes of mind-numbing regurgitation of her childhood indoctrination sessions here. What's hilarious is imagining if an atheist got up and spent their 20 mins talking about the mythological roots of Christianity and the nonexistence of god. The RR would storm the stage and fire every superintendent in sight.
________________
Technorati tags: ,