My wife forced me at trowel-point to work in the lawn this morning. We’ve got a big patch that was torn up by a backhoe in order to replace a broken water line, and she bought a lot of topsoil that needed to be spread over it, and we got some prairie wild grass and flower seed that we sowed over it.
My boots were caked with mud, clay, and gravel. My back is aching. I’m sweaty and dirty. I think I’ll go walk a kilometer or two and hope I can scrape off some of the residue.
Awww. Some Trump apparatchiks are feeling uncomfortable.
I have a source inside the Trump regime who feels, in their own words,
a little disillusioned.This person says they signed on to the Trump team because ofDEI going too farand becausewoke culture was dividing the country,but is now concerned about theblatant criminal behaviorof Donald Trump. Really? His last administration didn’t show you that? Well, OK.
DEI never went too far. If you think it did, that says more about you than it does about the policies, which were all about reasonable recognition of disparities. Everyone complaining about DEI are simply bigots who resent any awareness of their privilege.
Woke culture was not and is not dividing the country. If you want to be concerned about any attitudes, wake up to the culture of greed and so-called rugged individualism. What divides the country is that some people are incapable of sharing the wealth. We’re the richest country in the world with huge numbers of the poor, and a government that likes the idea of starving them to death as a tactic to end poverty.
The problem here, dear reporter, is that your source is a colossal asshole who cannot be trusted. They do not like the corruption, but the instant a trans person or a black person wanders into view they’ll go running into the arms of their orange Daddy. Screw ’em.
Back in December, there was a race for committee leadership in congress that exposed the flaws in our gerontocracy. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (age 35) ran for the house Oversight Committee lead against Gerry Connolly (age 74), a guy most of us had never heard of, who looked his age and was particularly cadaverous since he had been suffering from esophageal cancer. If they had any plans for the future, Ocasio-Cortez was the obvious choice…but the equally old Democrats all voted for Connolly. This was insane, short-sighted, and stupid, and additionally was incredibly selfish of Connolly, but I guess power demands its perks. Democrats said he was “feisty”. “Feisty” is kind of a death sentence as far as I’m concerned.
Now Connolly has predictably died.
In addition, since Trump’s ascendancy to peak corruption in January, two other aged Democrats have flopped over dead of old age: Raul Grijalva (age 77) and Sylvester Turner (age 70), both of whom had been diagnosed with cancer. The Democrats are losing representation and votes to inescapable mortality. All of them may have been the very best liberal politicians, but good intentions do not impress the grim reaper.
We cannot make an unconstitutional decree that people above a certain age may not run for office, but the Democratic party could decide to purge the party leadership of all those ancient gomers at, for instance, the age of 65. They wouldn’t be kicked out of the building, but they would be required to make room for a younger generation. I think that would revitalize the party, and encourage people to retire at a reasonable age.
I’m 68. I can say this. I’d be accommodating if I were forced to step down from my position, IF the US provided for a livable retirement wage (retiring senators and representatives have no worries there) and IF the US supported the educational system well enough that they could maintain staffing (again, congress is never going to be left short-staffed).
Take the hint, Chuck Schumer (age 74).
I’ve posted a new video, but I’m making it complicated to see.
OK, I’ve put it on my Patreon account. If you’re a sponsor, you can watch it there right now, ad-free. I’m going to be doing that from now on, I think. Join and you get it before everyone else!
It’s going to go live on YouTube at 6pm Central time today, so if you’re patient, you can get it for free there. YouTube will stick a few ads in it, I’m sorry to say.
Or if you don’t want to wade through this video nonsense, I’ll post a transcript right here at 6pm, so you can just read the damned thing. That’s especially good if you don’t think my amateurish video abilities are worth a half hour of your time
The video is a dissection of Bret Weinstein’s conversation with Joe Rogan about Tucker Carlson’s idiotic denial of evolutionary biology, so it’s not as if this is essential stuff. I try to explain why Weinstein’s vague handwaving about mysterious “layers” of genetic information that no one knows about except him. Here’s some news: we do. We don’t know everything about information in the genome, but we know enough to be aware that it isn’t magic.
Anyway, check back in about 6 hours for my explanation.
I live in a small town, a town where very little changes from day to day. I walk downtown almost every day, and almost a week ago I noticed something in a parking lot.
They’re still there. They are becoming part of the unchanging substrate of small town life.
I had to look more closely. After all, maybe they contained feet and I would become part of a rural murder mystery! Television and novels tell me that happens all the time.
They don’t contain feet. They seem to be stuffed with damp, moldering leaves, which is a little odd, but not sufficient to warrant calling in a small town sheriff.
They seem to have been worked hard — the leather is stretched and scuffed, the seams are loose but still holding everything together. They’re in the kind of shape where, if they were my boots, I’d start thinking I definitely need new shoes, but I’d tell myself I could keep using them for one more year. Which I’d tell myself again every year for a couple of years.
I checked. They wouldn’t fit me. They were much too large and very wide. In fact, I was surprised by how big they are. Whoever owned them had to be at least 300 pounds, and I could tell these boots had a hard life every day. Maybe they’re relieved to be resting in an empty lot, soothed by the rain, communing with the bugs that come around to visit.
It’s weird. Somedays I’m intensely curious about where they come from, who left them there, why they abandoned them here, what kinds of interesting things their owner did while wearing them…other days I’m like “Hello, boots. I wouldn’t mind joining you sometime. Tell me about the life of an old boot decaying on the pavement.”
This post has no significance, I’m just contemplating some soggy old boots.
I have evidence of my father’s criminal past. I wonder if I carry Criminal Genes?
James Clayton Myers, 1952
He was a good looking rogue, I’ll say that for him.
Most of that is a lie, though. He liked fishing, and would play hooky to go down to the Green River and fish for steelhead, or hike up into the mountains for trout, but he didn’t own a gun (never liked them at all), so the only way he could have attempted murder is by whipping the game wardens with a fishing pole.
I think his inmate number is fake, too. He lived at 106 E. Willis St., so that’s where the first part of the number comes from.
I also think he was closer to 5’8″, if that.
The person who has been appointed to oversee immigration in this country is a world-class moron, and is obviously unfit for the job.
In a recent Senate hearing, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem made a concerning misstatement regarding the constitutional principle of habeas corpus. When Senator Maggie Hassan inquired about its meaning, Noem responded:
“Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.”
Senator Hassan promptly corrected her, stating, “That’s incorrect.”
If you know what habeas corpus is, raise your hand. Congratulations, you’re better qualified for appointment to the highest positions of authority in the United States than is Kristi Noem.
I think “habeas corpus” is the nickname she gave to the open gravel pit behind her house where she has the corpses of her family pets and horses.
Get out there and celebrate bees! I’d like to. I tried. But right now we’re drowning in near constant rain and drizzle and cool temperatures, so all our bees are hiding. We’ve planted lots of bee-friendly flowers in our yard, but they haven’t blossomed yet.
I guess I’ll have to settle for this poor photo I took last year.
My excuse is that I’m usually looking for spiders, and it’s pure chance that I might click the shutter when a bee wanders by. Still, I appreciate them, especially since they can be a good source of spider food.
And then they came for the bookstores. As usual, Texas Republicans lead the way in oppression and ignorance.
A bill has been introduced to the Texas Legislature that could result in bookstores facing fines and legal costs if they place material deemed “obscene” within access of a minor.
House Bill 1375 was proposed by state Representative Nate Schatzline, a Republican, who said it is needed to keep “harmful material” away from children. Critics argue it would force bookshops to self-censor or risk potentially devastating lawsuits.
In recent years, a number of Republican-controlled states have passed laws banning school libraries from holding certain books that they regard as inappropriate.
The Texas Legislature in 2023 passed a bill forbidding school libraries from having any book among its stacks that “describes or portrays sexual conduct” in a “patently offensive way” that are not required by the curriculum.
PEN America recorded 3,362 instances of what it classified as book bans across the U.S. in the 2022-23 academic year, a 33 percent rise from the previous year.
House Bill 1375 would make commercial enterprises, such as bookstores, liable for “damages arising from the distribution, transmission, or display of harmful material to a minor.”
This would include when such material is “readily accessible to minors” or “includes a minor’s visual image, audio voice, or participation in any manner.”
Any business found to have broken this law could have to pay damages and would be liable for associated court costs and legal fees.
The library in my town has a vast collection of paperback cowboy and romance novels. We have a bookstore of sorts that specializes in gaming, D&D, and comic books. Can I deem those as “patently offensive”? Those romance novels feature a lot of heaving bosoms and passionate kisses, definitely a portrayal of “sexual conduct”. Can we shut them all down? (Don’t laugh, I’ve heard that one of our city council members actually wants to close the library).
When I was a kid in the 1970s in Washington state, my local library had copies of Playboy and Playgirl openly displayed in the periodicals section, and they had a good collection of underground comics — it’s where I read R. Crumb. I read them there, for the articles, you know, and look how I turned out. And then look at Ted Cruz. Do you really want to be like Texas?
Jeanson, the creationist who got a Ph.D. to be better able to pretend to be a real scientist, is whining because he can’t get no respect.
Today, creation scientists like me are prohibited from running academic labs. They are denied government funding for their projects. They are forbidden from publishing in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. In short, creation science is excluded from every stage of the scientific process.
To clarify, scientists who happen to be creationists are allowed to run academic labs, to receive government funding, and to publish in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. But only if they never promote creationist conclusions.
Why? Because mainstream scientists are convinced that creationists don’t do science. The specific, technical manifestation of this view is the claim that creation science doesn’t make testable predictions.1 For creation science to be considered science, creationists would have to put in print predictions that future experiments in the lab and in the field could demonstrate to be true or false. In other words, creation science has to be, in theory, able to be disproven. It’s not that evolutionists are waiting with bated breath for creationists to meet this standard. No, they’ve concluded that creationists have not met this standard and never will.
I know the feeling. I can design bridges, I can draw pictures of bridges, I can make predictions that my bridges will not fall down, but do the engineers regard me as a fellow engineer? No. They refuse to let me build my fabulous trans-atlantic bridge, not matter how beautiful my balsa wood model is.
And then they laugh and show that my calculations are all wrong, and do more calculations that show my design is unstable and will fall down. It’s a conspiracy, I tell you, they’re out to get me.
Jeanson has been making predictions. Unfortunately, it’s not enough to make predictions, they also have to be justified and tested multiple times. My balsa wood model of a trans-atlantic model is a “prediction” that could be “tested”, but the fact that it doesn’t fall down when I troop trained mice across it does not mean I am a great engineer. Not even the fact that I dressed them up as clowns matters.
He whines that his mice in clown clothes haven’t been appreciated by the scientific community.
The problem for the evolutionary community? I’ve been publishing, testing, and fulfilling creation science predictions for over 10 years. My early work focused on the origin of species. I made predictions about their genetic rates of change (i.e., mutation rates) and about genetic function.2 I also predicted the genetic mechanisms by which species would form and how fast new species would appear.
That’s nice. I’m sure it impresses the rubes. But when scientists assess his predictions, they all fall apart. Here’s an example from Dan Stern Cardinale:
His books have not been reviewed kindly, either.
Nathaniel Jeanson’s Replacing Darwin could be called pseudoscientific, but arguably this may be unfair. Pseudo comes from the Greek pseudēs for ‘false’ and pseudos for ‘falsehood’. Labeling Replacing Darwin as pseudoscience suggests the participation in a deliberate lie and at the moment I’m unwilling to offer that suggestion. I am happy to grant Jeanson his sincerity. Because the bulk of the errors in Replacing Darwin are errors of omission I lean towards describing it as quasiscientific. Quasi is Latin for ‘as if’ and it is indeed as if what you are reading in Replacing Darwin is science. It is in fact only partially and ostensibly science.
I am also willing to be generous and accept that the majority of these omissions are simply due to an author with no actual expertise in the field he is writing about. The subject of Replacing Darwin is rooted in population genetics, biogeography, ecology, phylogeography, speciation, molecular evolution and systematics, none of which are fields where Jeanson possesses any professional expertise.
I am also unaware of Jeanson ever having someone with any actual expertise in these fields reviewing either his book or any of his articles published on the Answers in Genesis website. As far as I know he’s only had his fellow like-minded creationists chime in on his work or at best someone with some molecular biology background who he has described as a friend and theistic evolutionist. His only attempts at outside reviewers are high-profile popularizers of evolution like Richard Dawkins or P. Z. Myers. With the exception of Jerry Coyne he apparently never solicited a review from anyone with active research in the fields the book covers, despite the fact there are thousands of working population geneticists and systematists out there.
I am embarrassed to note that Jeanson’s Ph.D. was in the field of developmental biology, just like mine, and just like that Intelligent Design creationism fraud, Jonathan Wells (is there something about this field that attracts cranks and kooks? Don’t say yes). The thing is, as I can testify from personal experience, is that developmental biology does not require in depth training in phylogenetics and population genetics. I look at cells and organisms changing over time, I don’t do the mathematics of allele frequencies! So why is Jeanson publishing all these poorly done, deeply flawed analyses of population genetics?
Now I’m worried that if I actually knew anything about materials science & load capacities & stress distribution & geology of the ocean floor, my trans-atlantic bridge might actually have a few problems.
Scale it up, and New York to London, easy!
