You know how I mentioned the other day that a snowblower was a romantic gift? Don’t look if you’re squeamish, but here’s an x-ray of a snow-blower related injury. Actually, the x-ray isn’t so bad, but the picture below it, in which the fingertip was yanked off, pulling the whole tendon with it like pulling the laces out of a boot, might really ruin the romance for you.
Ouch.
The latest edition of the Tangled Bank is at Ouroboros. And if that isn’t enough science blogging for you, this has also been a good week for these other excellent carnivals:
The man who wrote the email that got Chris Comer fired spills his guts on the issue.
He seems curiously proud of the fact that he’s pro-science and that he thinks the Texas Education Agency’s position of “neutrality” on evolution is ignorant humbuggery.
All good fanboys and girls will now clap their hands and squeal with joy: Peter Jackson has signed on to make The Hobbit.
He’s my favorite kind of Santa.
Here’s an interesting question: “if you could take a pill which enhanced attention and cognition with few or no side effects, would you?”
Shelley says yes. Janet says no. I say it depends on that qualifier, “few or no side effects” — if that were true, I’d say “Yes! Gimme more!” This is no dilemma at all.
Of course, that’s cheating. There’s no such thing as a drug that has no side effects. The real dilemma would crop up if a cognitive enhancer were available that did have problematic side effects — then my worry would be that pressure to succeed in my classes would be driving students to harm themselves in substantial ways. That happens already. Students take no-doz or skimp on sleep to do well, so there is some unavoidable harm from the stress of learning.
So that’s the information I need before I can make any decision — this is an issue that requires weighing costs and benefits, and telling me there is no cost simplifies it too much. For instance, caffeine has costs, but they’re low enough that my choice is to drink in moderation, but not to give it up altogether.
Textbook selection by the South Carolina State Board of Education has been held up because of baseless objections by creationist reviewers. Does this sound familiar? It’s what triggered the Dover trial — clueless school board members rejecting standard biology textbooks because they wanted something more…biblical.
During October and November, the texts approved by the state Evaluation Committee were sent out for public review to 28 sites – mostly colleges and universities with teacher education programs. It was during this period of time, that Ms. Kristin Maguire (or one of her colleagues) apparently contacted two outside referees to review the texts, a Dr. Joseph Henson and a Dr. Horace D. Skipper.
Skipper and Henson are young-earth creationists. Dr. Skipper is listed on the Institute for Creation Research website among the colleagues of Carl Fliermans, an ICR “Associated Scientist.” Henson is on the faculty at Bob Jones University. According to his testimony on the BJU website, “Through his high school years, [Henson] did not believe evolution because of his religious upbringing, his familiarity with the Genesis accounts of Creation and the Flood, and because he did not take biology in high school. However, during his college years he entertained ideas about theistic evolution and other compromising positions in an effort to reconcile the Bible with what was considered science… These questions, along with the commandment in 1 Peter 3:15, prompted him to study, think, and pray on his own, as well as consult believers knowledgeable in science and philosophy who upheld the absolute authority of the Bible. These years of struggle resulted in a firm belief in the biblical account of Creation.”
Real winners there; there objections at that link are funny. Ken Miller’s response to the creationist criticism of his textbook is an entertainng read, too.
I was looking forward to the movie, I Am Legend, that is coming to Morris in the next month or so, but the first review I’ve seen is not promising. I’ve read the book and the previous film adaptations; the original I Am Legend by Richard Matheson is a classic with an excellent twist, raising the troubling question of just who the monster is. The first movie, The Last Man on Earth, with Vincent Price is also good, and sticks to the story fairly faithfully.
The one most people have seen, The Omega Man, is awful. It throws away the ending of the story with its disturbing attempt to make people think and instead makes the protagonist a self-sacrificing hero who saves humanity … and the ending, with Charlton Heston bleeding and dying with his arms flung wide in the standard position of dying messiahs everywhere, was a self-parody of seriousness that had audiences laughing when I saw it — it turned the whole movie into a low-rent Christian allegory.
The new movie with Will Smith looked promising. The ads have all focused on the post-apocalyptic desolation of the protagonist’s situation, and since they restored Matheson’s original title (which was actually highly relevant to the ending), there was hope that it might actually be worth seeing.
Unfortunately, it’s more Omega Man than Last Man on Earth (that link contains many spoilers, beware). Worse, the Christian allegory has been expanded to consume all, and it’s set up as a conflict between evil science that creates plagues that destroy humanity vs. vague mystical prophecies and the salvation of mankind through faith.
Ugh. This is a disappointment. I’ll probably go see it anyway because I trundle through almost every movie that comes to Morris, but I expect to start gagging halfway through it now … at least it’s always good to go into a movie with low expectations. Alas, the high production values I’m seeing in the trailers probably means I won’t even get a laugh out of the ending — it takes monumental cheesiness, as The Omega Man had, to redeem a bad movie with at least a little amusement.
It takes the conservative ideologues at NRO to add that special frisson of stupidity to the reviews.
Shhhh. The end of I Am Legend is religious. And the beginning of the movie is anti-science. The military is a force for good, too. Shhhh. Our little secret. And what must be surprising to those on the Left, a movie that’s anti-science, religious and pro-military earned close to $80 million over the weekend. It is frustrating that none of the pre-release hype focused on the conservative aspects of the film, however.
Yay! It’s a plus that the movie is religious, pro-military, and anti-science! And for that extra dollop of idiocy, the guy brags about how a religious, pro-military, and anti-science movie can bring in the big bucks, and then notes that that agenda was never mentioned in the advertising. Duh.
I’ve been selected, along with the Clintons, as the personification of evil.
It’s too bad this spectrum is flawed. Evil should be on the left, as everyone knows, and red (as in “red state”) has become the new, good, patriotic color.
I did not bite the head off that chicken.
Popular Mechanics has sorted through the various presidential candidates web sites for information on their stance on various science-relevant issues (and on gun control…how that ended up in their matrix is a mystery, and I presume there is just some gun fanatic on their staff). They have produced a
table listing various science issues for each candidate with check marks indicating whether they have declared anything on the subject. You can’t get their positions from the table — a check just means there is more information available — and you have to click through each to figure out what they’re saying.
Right away you’ll notice that pretty much everyone is ignoring space technology (sorry, Phil). The Republicans have little interest in science education, and when you click through, they’re usually just mouthing platitudes, like “encourage students to pursue science careers”. The Democrats are much, much better — they make more points and offer some specifics. Clinton wants to restore the OTA and improve the science advisor’s access, as does Edwards; Edwards also want to increase NIH and NSF funding and remove research restrictions, and invest more in teacher training and pay. Obama wants to double research funding. Richardson wants to hire and train 100,000 new math and science teachers.
Anyway, it’s a useful guide to what the politicians say they want to do, and gives a peek into their priorities. It looks like if you’re pro-science, you ought to be a Democrat; if you’re pro-gun, you need to vote Republican, or for John Edwards.
