What is in the water on C Street?

Some epidemiologist ought to investigate this. There is a building on C Street in Washington DC which houses the offices of a fervent evangelical Christian contingent of conservative politicians, who are all, of course, paragons of probity. Except…something funny has been going on. Three of them have been publicly humiliated for their inability to keep their pecker in their pants.

Leisha Pickering said in the lawsuit filed this week that her husband and the woman dated in college, reconnected and began having an affair while he was in Congress and living in a building where several Christian lawmakers reside on C Street near the U.S. Capitol. Chip Pickering is the third Republican with ties to the building at 133 C Street SE to find his personal life making headlines in recent weeks, after Nevada U.S. Sen. John Ensign and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

…

He cast himself as a defender of decency, particularly on television and the Internet, and was among House members urging then-President George W. Bush to declare 2008 “the National Year of the Bible.”

Another lawmaker who lived at the C Street house, Ensign, a member of the Christian ministry Promise Keepers, stepped down from the Senate Republican leadership in June after admitting he had an affair for much of last year with a woman on his campaign staff.

Just days after the story broke, South Carolina Republican Gov. Mark Sanford admitted an affair with a woman in Argentina. He apparently never lived in the house, but has said he turned to “C Street” for counsel and solace while having the affair.

They’re Christians, so it is simply inconceivable that they could have lapsed so far from the strict morality of their faith unless something underhanded is going on: some liberal probably spiked their water supply with Viagra, or sprayed aphrodisiacs into the air ducts.

BioLogos sans Collins

Francis Collins will be stepping down from his role at the BioLogos Foundation, as part of the process of becoming the head of the NIH.

This is only a minimal step, however, and it really doesn’t address any of my objections to the guy. The foundation and its web site will still be going on, and you know that once he finishes his tenure at NIH, he’ll just step back into it. I’m more concerned about whether he’ll be injecting religion into his politics on the job.

Ben Stein sinking ever lower

Several people have notified me that this ugly mug is appearing in the ads on this site:

i-128301787d009edf1aff3fa19cb48515-stein_ad.jpeg

Yep, Ben Stein is hawking “free” credit reports on my site. Only…they aren’t free. They aren’t useful. And Ben Stein is being an exploitive douchebag.

A few points are worth noting here. First, the score itself is not very useful to consumers. What’s useful is the report — if there’s an error on the report, then the consumer can try to rectify it. Secondly, and much more importantly, if you want a free credit report, there’s only one place to go: annualcreditreport.com. That’s the place where the big three credit-rating agencies will give you a genuinely free copy of your credit report once a year, as required by federal law.

You won’t be surprised to hear that freescore.com is not free: in order to get any information out of them at all, you have to authorize them to charge you a $29.95 monthly fee. They even extract a dollar out of you up front, just to make sure that money is there.

Stein, here, has become a predatory bait-and-switch merchant, dangling a “free” credit report in front of people so that he can sock them with a massive monthly fee for, essentially, doing nothing at all. Naturally, the people who take him up on this offer will be those who can least afford it.

The level to which Stein has now sunk is more than enough reason — as if the case for the prosecution weren’t damning enough already — for the NYT to cancel Stein’s contract forthwith. It’s simply unconscionable for a newspaper of record to employ as its “Everybody’s Business” columnist someone who is surely making a vast amount of money by luring the unsuspecting into overpaying for a financial product they should under no circumstances buy.

Who in their right mind would accept economic advice from Ben Stein, anyway?

Why do they hate the manimal?

It’s happening again. The Republicans are tilting at one of their favorite windmills, the mad scientists’ dream of creating an unholy union between beast and human to produce a slave race of soulless monsters. They have introduced legislation to ban human-animal hybrids. And it’s even bipartisan! They’ve got 19 Rethuglicans, like Sam Brownback, the ignoramus from Kansas:

What was once only science fiction is now becoming a reality, and we need to ensure that experimentation and subsequent ramifications do not outpace ethical discussion and societal decisions. History does not look kindly on those who violate the dignity of the human person.

And they’ve also got 1 Dimocrat, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana:

Here in the United States, we simply cannot open the door to the unethical blending of humans and animals, which the British government seems intent on doing. It creates an unnatural species and is a clear line we cannot cross.

One teensy little problem: these clowns do not understand the science. We actually aren’t planning to creating a slave-race of beast-men; the technology isn’t there, for one thing, and for another, that’s really not at all an interesting goal. No one is planning on operating on any human persons, or even violating them; the focus is all on cells and molecules. This is routine stuff. In one hand, you’ve got a dish full of human cells — it doesn’t talk, it can’t sign a consent form even if it had the capacity to understand one — and you want to know what makes them tick. In the other hand, you’ve got a collection of hard-won tools you’ve gathered from work in mice or worms or flies; interesting vectors, genes that act as indicators or switches, ways to basically reach into a cell and toggle states. Scientists have had these for years, and we’ve regularly used these tools to manipulate cells and puzzle out what happens.

Another example: we want to know what genes on different human chromosomes do, but it is highly unethical to do random mutagenesis on human gametes, bring them together, and then raise up the fetus in a volunteer’s womb to find out what interesting ways it might go kablooiee. One technique that has been used is to make mouse-human hybrid cells: use a little ethylene glycol to weaken the cell membranes, push a mouse cell next to a human cell, and presto, they fuse. They then recover and go through cell divisions, and the hybrid cell begins to lose pieces of the unnatural excess of chromosomes it’s got. You can then screen the resultant cells and correlate the presence or absence of gene products with the presence or absence of specific human chromosomes.

I know. It sounds so nefarious.

One more example: scientists have made transgenic pigs carrying five human genes. The idea is to create animals that can be a source for xenografts — transplanted organs — in humans with a reduced level of rejection. These pigs would become illegal under the Brownback bill, because they mingle a blessedly human H-transferase gene with pig cells. This is not to argue that there are no ethical considerations in these kinds of experiments, since there certainly are: we can argue about the ethics of creating species of pigs with the specialized purpose of providing organs for human use (it’s about as great a moral dilemma as raising pigs for meat), and there’s also the concern that hybrid pigs will also be dangerous incubators for training viruses to respond to human epitopes. But the ethical debates aren’t the domain of crude science-fiction versions of the science that these clueless lawmakers think them to be.

I’d like Brownback to answer a simple question. Does putting the human insulin or growth factor gene into E. coli violate the dignity of the human person? If it does, he’s suggesting shutting down a good chunk of the pharmaceutical industry. And Ms Landrieu: what is an “unnatural species”? If they’re unnatural and we can’t cross that line, then we certainly don’t need legislation to enforce it.

I don’t know why she bothered to complain about the British government, unless she’s using just plain old conservative xenophobia to stir up votes. American scientists have been using hybrid cells and have been introducing cross-species genes into cells for a long, long time now.

Ireland has a blasphemy law

And it’s a strange thing. It’s a law that slaps anyone who offends “a substantial number of the adherents of a religion” with a €25,000 fine — which is equal to most of my yearly salary, and also means I’m one of the few people that one could make a good case for having committed blasphemy. I guess I won’t be vacationing in Ireland any time soon.

Fortunately, some people are speaking out against the law, especially Atheist Ireland. Join in if you can, work to repeal this medieval nonsense.

Collins gets panned almost everywhere

I’ve been wrestling with how to respond to the imminent appointment of Francis Collins to the NIH, and it’s tough. The problem is that he has excellent qualifications for the position of chief paper-pusher and technician-wrangler, but that his position on religion is just plain weird. He’s a lovable dufus with great organizational skills whose grasp of the principles of science is superficial. But you can’t just reject the guy because he’s religious — we’re in big trouble when we start using a religious litmus test for high political positions.

Oh, wait…we already do that. You know if someone with equivalent prestige and administrative credentials was even half as vocal about atheism as Collins is about Christianity, there’s no way she would even be considered for this appointment.

Anyway, I was on The World Tonight Redux with Rob Breakenridge, a radio program out of Canada to talk about these issues the other night, and I listed a few reasons why Collins was a poor choice.

  • He’s a big-science guy, who headed the National Human Genome Research Institute. I have some concern that he has a mindset that may not promote the diversity of scientific research — he represents a very narrow, gene-jockey style of research, which is valuable and does churn out lots of data, but I’ve often found exhibits a worrisome lack of understanding of the big picture of biology. I’d have liked to have seen a leader with more breadth: someone with an appreciation of systems biology, or environmental biology, and a little less shackled to the purely biomedical side.

  • He doesn’t understand evolution. He has said that he thinks humans are no longer evolving, that junk DNA is functional, and he can’t understand how altruism could have evolved. RPM summarized these deficiencies well. I know he argues well against the specifics of intelligent design, but ultimately, he’s following the same gods-of-the-gaps formula that the Discovery Institute does, as this article on Slate explains:

    This formula offers a convenient litmus test for where Collins falls on a variety of questions: If a given problem appears to be merely unsolved, then he’ll leave it to the realm of science; if, on the other hand, Collins deems a question to be unsolvable, it’s fair game for inclusion in a spiritual interpretation of the universe.

    That’s not what I want to hear from someone with such a visible position in science.

  • His website, Biologos, is an embarrassment of poor reasoning and silly christian apologetics. It’s awful. His logic is a joke, and all it really shows is that Collins is a man blinded by faith to the absurdities of his convictions. That he even asks “At what point in the evolutionary process did humans attain the ‘Image of God’?”, or “Was there death before the Fall?”, among many other similar absurdities, is a revelation. These are questions that don’t even have any meaning outside the scope of a specific, very narrow religious view.

    It’s also another difficult issue for me. I’m the last guy who’s going to say someone should be denied a position because he maintains a controversial website. However, it’s not the controversy that annoys me (it’s also not particularly controversial among the American mainstream — it’s more like a site that panders to a religious bias), it’s the stupidity.

  • This is a big one for me: he will use his position to act as a propagandist for Christianity, entirely inappropriately. We already saw this in the announcement of the completion of the draft of the human genome project, where he actually brags about getting Clinton to include religious language in his speech, and where he himself made claims about the DNA sequence being “the language of god”. The head of the NIH isn’t just an administrative position; it’s a political position, and the appointment of a loudly evangelical Christian to that spot is sending a political message. There are enough of us even louder atheists out here who will make a stink over any attempt on his part to use the accomplishments of science under the NIH to proselytize, that he’s going to have to be very cautious in his statements from now on.

Finally, my objections rest on an important word: integrity. Collins hasn’t got it.

I don’t mean integrity in the sense of being honest and having strong moral principles; I think Collins is entirely sincere, and he doesn’t seem to be the type to have ever crossed any lines of ethical behavior, except perhaps in his taste in music.

I mean integrity as in the condition of being unified, unimpaired, or sound in construction. He’s a jumble of intellectual contradictions, and when you read any of his interviews, he comes off as an amiable lightweight. I’d rather have someone who can think like a scientist in charge than yet another Jebusite with an evangelical agenda.

Jerry Coyne,

Steve Pinker, and

Eric Michael Johnson all have interesting things to say on this subject. I have no hope that any of this will make a difference, however; Collins will obligingly appeal to the superstitions of congress and sail through any confirmation. I had higher hopes for Obama, but at this point, I can only despair of the kind of president who would consult the Pope on bioethics. I’m beginning to feel he will not hesitate to sacrifice reason on the altar of religious conformity.

Collins to head NIH

Oh, great. He’s been appointed by Obama.

He’ll do a fine job…he’s a competent administrator. I think we can trust him to manage the institution smoothly.

We can also trust him to drape Jesus over every major announcement, use the office as a platform for promoting religiosity, and otherwise taint the whole business with embarrassingly inane nonsense…just as he did with the human genome press conference. Isn’t it about time our government promoted secular values that work over these antique and ineffective superstitions that just make their proponents look goofy?

Old wounds

Remember the Viet Nam war? I know, we’ve been suffering with the most recent military cock-up, but it’s still worth looking back at what evil old Tricky Dick was up to. A new batch of tape transcripts from White House discussions about the war have been released, and wouldn’t you know it — Nixon was engineering the defeat, putting pressure on the South Vietnamese government to accept a settlement that would lead to failure, but would at least postpone defeat until after the American elections.

Did I really need to be reminded that practically my entire lifelong exposure to American politics has been a history of contemptible screw-ups?

What is it with atheists and GLBT folk?

There is a strange correlation: most of the atheists I know are straight, yet when I post a pointless poll like this one, I know with near certainty which way the godless hordes of Pharyngula will try to skew it.

Do you agree with President Obama’s decision to extend certain benefits to gay partners of federal employees?

51.38% Yes
48.62% No

It goes further, too. We atheists tend to strongly favor women’s rights and equality in the marketplace, yet only about half of us are female. I could bring up an article like this one, in which conservative democrats demand that abortion services not be provided under universal healthcare, and I know how most of the progressive godless readers here will respond: with anger. You won’t be voting for Reps. Dan Boren (D-OK); Bart Stupak (D-MI); Colin Peterson (D-MN); Tim Holden (D-PA); Travis Childers (D-MS); Lincoln Davis (D-TN); Heath Shuler (D-NC) Solomon Ortiz (D-TX); Mike McIntyre (D-NC); Jerry Costello (D-IL); Gene Taylor (D-MS); James Oberstar (D-MN); Bobby Bright (D-AL); Steve Driehaus (D-OH); Marcy Kaptur (D-OH); Charlie Melancon (D-LA); John Murtha (D-PA); Paul Kanjorski (D-PA); and Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA) in the next election. Hey, Colin Peterson is my state representative; I’ll be writing him a pissed-off letter when I get home, and he has lost my vote.

It’s not just a selective reading on my part. Other sources, like Lavender Magazine, have noticed that the atheists in their communities have a rather reliable political and social position. Here’s a review of Atheists Talk radio (which is no more, I’m sorry to say).

Many radio programs broadcast locally are queer-inclusive. But aside from KFAI’s Fresh Fruit, which is total queer content, no program is as fully queer-supportive as Atheists Talk. Large time chunks have been devoted to Wayne Besen, the Fagbug, and Project 515. Plus, an organic queer sensitivity weaves throughout other segments, because of the atheist and democratic value that separates religion and state.

Host Mike Haubrich thinks “religious institutions that suppress the rights of GLBT folks are using their beliefs as justification for an underlying homophobia. By using the Bible as an absolute moral guide in legislating issues related to marriage and other societal benefits that should be recognized as being granted by such a basic document as the Declaration of Independence, they are demonstrating precisely the effects of church-state entanglement that James Madison was warning against. The state should not be used as a sledgehammer to enforce a particular religious code, and an individual’s sexuality should not be subject to the whims of religious interpretation.”

Contributor August Berkshire observes, “Americans are proud of our ideals of liberty and equality. Why then are some people shocked when these ideals are applied to people of color, women, and sexual minorities? Are some citizens ‘more equal’ than others?”

People dependent on religion like to claim that atheism is just another religion, and they argue that we can’t know that we’d have a better society if we got rid of god (and usually go the other way and claim we’d be immoral without our imaginary cosmic policeman in the sky), but you know, I look around at all the atheist communities springing up around the country, and I see the people who are most committed to tolerance and equality joining them, and I am convinced. A godless America would be a better America, one more committed to the Enlightenment ideals that accompanied its founding, one that would actually have some ideals and principles that would make it a better place to live for everyone.