So you think slavery wasn’t at the heart of the Confederacy…

Then you must read this wonderfully written piece in the Atlantic. The author’s argument is powerful, but the section with the excerpts from the declarations of seccession by various southern states settles the facts of the case. Here’s what Mississippi had to say:

…Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin…

If you think that’s bad, read Texas’s:

…in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states…

But it hasn’t ended yet! There’s an ongoing effort to couple the Tea Baggin’ movement with Confederate goals, with just a little revisionism.

“The War Between the States was fought for the same reasons that the tea party movement today is voicing their opinion. And that is that you have large government that’s not listening to the people, there’s going to be heavy taxation,” Fayard said Monday from his home in Duck Hill, Miss. “And the primary cause of the war was not slavery, although slavery was interwoven into the cause, but it was not the cause for the War Between the States.”

The primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. And unsurprisingly, racism is also a significant element in the Tea Party movement. We’re still fighting that damned war.

Mike Huckabee endorses my candidacy for the presidency

I’m a shoo-in now. Although my mind may have just blown up.

In what may come as a surprise for some, Huckabee agreed that an atheist could be fit to serve as president. “I’d rather have an honest atheist than a dishonest religious person,” he said.

Don’t worry. He didn’t mean it. He’s actually just doing some sneaky sniping at Mitt Romney. He continues with a clarification of what he really meant.

It’s better to have a person who says, ‘Look, I just don’t believe, and that’s where my honest position happens to be. I’m frankly more OK with that than a person who says, ‘Oh, I am very much a Christian. I very much love God.’ And then they live as if they are atheists, as if they have no moral groundings at all. That’s more troubling.”

I think it’s nice if a person believes in God. I’d hate to think somebody was making decisions who thought that he couldn’t be higher than himself.

See? He still equates atheism with a complete lack of moral grounding. He’s still a slimebag.

Let’s hide that embarrassing conflict in American culture

i-024386b5e6ebd393af1c6383a3124484-badstats.jpeg

For many years, the NSF has been producing a biennial report on American attitudes (and many other statistics) about science called Science and Engineering Indicators. This year, as they have every year, they got the uncomfortable news that a majority of our compatriots reject human evolution and the Big Bang (that last one might have been partly because of the dumb way the question is phrased). What’s different, though, is that for the first time the NSF has decided to omit the fact.

This is very strange. It is a serious problem in our educational system that so much of the public is vocal in their opposition to a well-established set of ideas — these ought to be relevant data in a survey of national attitudes towards science. Why were they dropped? It isn’t because of an overt whitewash to hide our shame away, it seems — instead, it sounds like it’s an accommodationist’s discomfort with highlighting a conflict between religion and science. At least, that’s how I read the excuses given. John Bruer, a philosopher who led the review team on this section of the report, is open about his reasoning.

Bruer proposed the changes last summer, shortly after NSF sent a draft version of Indicators containing this text to OSTP and other government agencies. In addition to removing a section titled “Evolution and the Big Bang,” Bruer recommended that the board drop a sentence noting that “the only circumstance in which the U.S. scores below other countries on science knowledge comparisons is when many Americans experience a conflict between accepted scientific knowledge and their religious beliefs (e.g., beliefs about evolution).” At a May 2009 meeting of the board’s Indicators committee, Bruer said that he “hoped indicators could be developed that were not as value-charged as evolution.”

Bruer, who was appointed to the 24-member NSB in 2006 and chairs the board’s Education and Human Resources Committee, says he first became concerned about the two survey questions as the lead reviewer for the same chapter in the 2008 Indicators. At the time, the board settled for what Bruer calls “a halfway solution”: adding a disclaimer that many Americans didn’t do well on those questions because the underlying issues brought their value systems in conflict with knowledge. As evidence of that conflict, Bruer notes a 2004 study described in the 2008 Indicators that found 72% of Americans answered correctly when the statement about humans evolving from earlier species was prefaced with the phrase “according to the theory of evolution.” The 2008 volume explains that the different percentages of correct answers “reflect factors beyond unfamiliarity with basic elements of science.”

George Bishop, a political scientist at the University of Cincinnati in Ohio who has studied attitudes toward evolution, believes the board’s argument is defensible. “Because of biblical traditions in American culture, that question is really a measure of belief, not knowledge,” he says. In European and other societies, he adds, “it may be more of a measure of knowledge.”

I’ve emphasized the key phrases in that summary, and actually, I rather agree with them. These are issues in which ignorance isn’t the fundamental problem (although, of course, ignorance contributes), but in which American culture has a serious and active obstacle to advancing scientific awareness, the evangelical stupidity of religion. That is something different from what we find in Europe, and it’s also something more malevolent and pernicious than an inadequate educational system.

It seems to me, though, that that isn’t a reason to drop it from the survey and pretend it doesn’t exist and isn’t a problem. Instead, maybe they should promote it to a whole new section of the summary and emphasize it even more, since they admit that it is an unusual feature of our culture, and one that compels people to give wrong answers on a science survey.

Maybe they could title the section, “The Malign Influence of Religion on American Science Education”.

I also rather like the answer given by Jon Miller, the fellow who has actually conducted the work of doing the survey in the past.

Miller believes that removing the entire section was a clumsy attempt to hide a national embarrassment. “Nobody likes our infant death rate,” he says by way of comparison, “but it doesn’t go away if you quit talking about it.”

Exactly right. But if we do talk about it, we end up asking why it’s so bad, and then we make rich people squirm as we point fingers at our deplorable health care system. And in the case of the question about evolution, we make religious people, and especially the apologists for religion, extremely uncomfortable, because they have been defending this institution of nonsense that has direct effects on measurable aspects of science literacy.

Unfortunately, Bruer has also been caught saying something very stupid.

When Science asked Bruer if individuals who did not accept evolution or the big bang to be true could be described as scientifically literate, he said: “There are many biologists and philosophers of science who are highly scientifically literate who question certain aspects of the theory of evolution,” adding that such questioning has led to improved understanding of evolutionary theory. When asked if he expected those academics to answer “false” to the statement about humans having evolved from earlier species, Bruer said: “On that particular point, no.”

What was he thinking? The question on the NSF survey is not asking about details of the mechanisms of evolution, so his objection is weirdly irrelevant. I don’t know if he’s hiding away any creationist sympathies (that phrasing is exactly what I’ve heard from many creationists, after all), but it does reveal that he’s not thinking at all deeply about the issue. And for a philosopher, shouldn’t that be a high crime?

Bhattacharjee Y (2010) NSF Board Draws Flak for Dropping Evolution From Indicators. Science 328(5975):150-151.

But you’d think they’d be proud!

Baltimore has a very sensible ordinance that requires pregnancy counseling centers to plainly state what services they provide.

The ordinance requires that a “limited-service pregnancy center” post an easily readable sign, written in English and Spanish, stating that the center does not provide or make referrals for abortion or birth-control services. A center failing to comply within 10 days of being cited could be fined up to $150 a day.

That’s perfectly reasonable, even if the center is directly opposed to abortion — they could cheerfully put up a sign bragging that they do not abort adorable little babies, and take some pride in their position. But no, that’s not what they want to do. We’ve got a ‘counseling center’ here in Morris, for instance, that provides no real help at all. They’ve got little signs around that say something like, “Pregnant? We can help!” with a phone number, and when some frightened teenaged girl calls, their sole purpose is to make sure she does not get an abortion. Stating their position up front and diminishing confusion is exactly what they don’t want — they want their clients confused and worried, susceptible to the lies they’ll tell them.

So perhaps you will be as unsurprised as I am to learn that the Catholic Diocese of Baltimore is suing the city, claiming oppression because they are asked to be clear in the range of services they will offer.

Thomas J. Schetelich, chairman of the board for the Center for Pregnancy Concerns, said that the ordinance singles out the Catholic Church for its anti-abortion stance. The nonprofit, anti-abortion organization receives donations from religious groups supporting women who plan to take their pregnancies to term and operates three of the four local centers.

“Frankly, we would expect our city government to be supporting our sacrificial efforts rather than trying to hinder,” Schetelich said. “We’re disappointed that our stand for life draws opposition.”

Please note: they are talking about four referral centers. They have hired a battery of lawyers to oppose the posting of four signs that state exactly what they regard as a positive, noble, tenet of their faith, that they do not condone abortions. What’s the gripe? If they think it’s an unfair burden to have to pay for four signs, I suspect that if they asked Planned Parenthood or other such organizations, or even asked the community at large, people would chip in to send them a few hundred dollars or a few thousand dollars, even, to make their own damned signs.

This is simply the Catholic Church suing for the right to keep people in the dark, as they have for so many centuries.

They have no grounds for complaint. As a NARAL director explains,

“This law empowers women by giving them full information up front about what to expect from a limited-service pregnancy center,” said Jennifer Blasdell, the organization’s executive director. “This provision does not ask a facility to provide or counsel for any services they find objectionable, but only asks them to tell the truth about the nature of their services.”

By the way, our local example of anti-abortion ignorance is called the Morris Life Care Pregnancy Center, and it is somehow affiliated with the Morris Evangelical Free Church, our local festering canker of wingnut inanity. They don’t seem to provide any material services at all, other than advice, AKA browbeating and misleading. I am amused to see that they are hosting a father-daughter chastity ball (although they don’t call them that anymore), which is rather creepy.

However, I do commend them on one thing. Right there at the bottom of their web page, they clearly and honestly state this:

“This center does not offer abortion services or abortion referrals. This information is intended for general educational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional medical advice.”

I can’t complain too much about them, then — I disagree vehemently with their opinions, but as long as they’re not pretending to be offering real medical advice and don’t pretend to offer services that they’re actually going to be telling their clients to avoid, they have every right to express their beliefs.

I hate to say this, but the Baltimore Diocese could learn something about honesty from a loony rural Protestant church that teaches that the world is only 6000 years old.

They’re crazy over there in Wisconsin

It’s true — here in Minnesota, we’re always talking about them dingbats next door in Wisconsin, and they are — we live in a place where all our children are above average, dontchaknow, and the only way that is statistically possible is if some place nearby is all below average. So we love to rag on them. Until they mention Michele Bachmann and then we have to hang our head in shame and slink away.

Anyway, the latest news from our neighbor to the east is that some cheesehead named Scott Southworth is trying to strongarm teachers into not following the sex education guidelines, threatening them with jail time if they say anything about condoms.

Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender. It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks.

OK, but mixed alcoholic drinks are legal, and lots of people consume them…and so will many of those kids, hopefully once they’re of legal age but not before (although we know many of them will jump the gun — and think of all the awful pina coladas and over-strong rum & cokes they’ll slosh down if not properly trained. Think of the children!) There’s nothing wrong with urging responsible restraint in both alcohol consumption and sexual behavior, while also explaining what they actually, honestly are.

Unless, of course, you’re a conservative kook who thinks the solution to every peril is to keep everyone in a state of maximal ignorance. Case in point: when this bill to teach medically accurate information about contraceptives in sex ed classes was introduced, every single Republican voted in lockstep against it.

This is more like telling kids who are too young to drive about using seatbelts. It’s not telling them to get in an accident, it’s telling them to take precautions in case something happens. And in the case of sex, we know a collision is pretty much inevitable at some point, so we should be offering information and sensible safety in those years when they are at greatest risk.

We have seen evil, and it is us

Here is why we need Wikileaks — because when our soldiers carry out Collateral Murder, we should know about it. Good journalism should be exposing this stuff for us.

This is a video shot from an American helicopter gunship in Iraq. It shows real human beings being shot to death. I wish I could unwatch seeing it now, so be advised before you click on that play button…it is horrific.

A couple of Iraqi journalists working for Reuters are slaughtered in the above clip, gunned down from a distance by American troops who claim their cameras are weapons, that they’re walking around with AK-47s and RPGs…which I simply don’t see anywhere in the clip. I see a small group of civilians casually walking down a city street.

Perhaps the killers were merely mistaken, as happens in war. Perhaps they had better views of weaponry than can be seen in this video. But that doesn’t explain what happened next, when a van pulls up to help a wounded man and they open fire again, fully aware of what was going on below them, and fire several bursts into the people and into the van.

Maybe they could see weapons more clearly than I can. But then how did they fail to notice two small faces peering out of the passenger side window of the van? They shot journalists and children, all the while laughing and congratulating themselves on the ‘nice’ pile of bodies they had produced. And when they see soldiers on the ground rushing injured children to aid, they say, “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.”

I am ashamed. We are the storm troopers, the murderous invaders, the butchers of children, the laughing barbarians. We aren’t in Iraq to help those people, our troops are there to oppress them…when we aren’t gunning them down outright.

Oh, and go ahead, turn on your TV news. The top stories on CNN are the iPad, Jessica Alba planning to adopt a baby, and Tiger Woods. Doesn’t that fill you with confidence?

(via John Cole)

Tarryl Clark for Congress

Let’s hope Tarryl Clark can pull it off: she’s the Democratic candidate running against Michele Bachmann. She has a fairly sensible, centrist agenda so maybe it will work…but then, they could pull a mangy muskrat out of the Mississippi and run it against Bachmann, and it would be an improvement.

She doesn’t have a catchy campaign slogan yet, though. May I suggest “Tarryl Clark: Not Crazy” as a possibility?

Dont speed in Seattle!

I’ll be visiting the family in the Pacific Northwest later this summer, and I’m going to be very, very careful on the road. The police are authorized to torture you for traffic violations; the courts have recently decided that a case of a pregnant woman who was tasered for refusing to sign a traffic ticket was a fair use of force.

The woman was driving her 12-year-old to the African American Academy in Seattle when she was pulled over on suspicion of speeding in 2004. The child left the car for school and a verbal spat with the police resulted in the woman receiving three, 50,000-volt shocks, first to her thigh, then shoulder and neck while she was in her vehicle. An officer was holding Brooks’ arm behind Brooks’ back while she was being shocked.

Brooks gave the officer her driver’s license, but Brooks refused to sign the ticket — believing it was akin to signing a confession. She was ultimately arrested for refusing to sign and to comply with officers asking her to exit the vehicle.

You know what the police should do in these cases? Add penalties to the ticket, refer it to the courts, and hit her up with extra fines. Wrestling her out of the car and zapping her with intent to cause pain is a bit out of line, and really didn’t contribute to the enforcement of the law.

The court’s decision is bizarre.

The majority noted that the M26 Taser was set in “stun mode” and did not cause as much pain as when set on “dart mode.” The majority noted that the circuit’s recent and leading decision on the issue concerned excessive force in the context of a Taser being set on Dart mode, which causes “neuro-muscular incapacitation.”

Stun mode, the court noted, didn’t rise to the level of excessive force because it imposes “temporary, localized pain only.”

So it’s OK for the police to cause pain for traffic offenses? Maybe they should be equipped with cattle prods.

Hilarious hypocrisy

This is classic wingnuttia. The Tea-partiers are complaining bitterly that Democrats are making unfounded accusations of racism.

“These people could be anybody. I wouldn’t put it past the Democrats to plant somebody there,” Mr. Robertson said. “They’re trying to label the tea party, but I’ve never seen any racial slurs.”

The post has a terrific punchline. It’s a picture of Mr Robertson.

i-9110fad2d89a30be5445c8ee06aa5bc0-tpartier.jpeg

I suppose his quote could have been honest. After all, he was standing behind the sign.

That settles that then, I hope

That recent episode in which hackers broke into computers at East Anglia University and extracted private email from climate researchers was the subject of much triumphal rejoicing by the climate change deniers. The UK set a parliamentary Science and Technology Committee to review the affair and see if there was any substance to the claims of the denialists, and the report of the inquiry has been released.

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—”trick” and “hiding the decline”—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.

The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. But this was not an inquiry into the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built.

Well. Case closed, right? Or is this another sign of the Global Conspiracy to Hide the Truth™?

The committee did have one mild criticism of the Climate Research Unit. They said that while the policy of holding some of the raw data privately is in line with common research practice and not grounds for complaint, they would like the policy to change…and I agree. Openness is always good in science.