Dear Abiogenesis

There's a tactic creationists use in their manufactuversies that I find particularly dislikable. I'm not talking in this case about their tendency to use statements by noted scientists completely out of context to make it appear they support the creationist position, despicable as that is. It's not the discounting of evidence that doesn't meet their view, or the different standards they apply to proving actual facts as opposed to "revealed truth", or the way they claim to want to "teach the controversy" about evolution as opposed to their real aim of making science education consistent with a literal reading of the book of Genesis. It's this:

They use language to score cheap shots rather than to make a real point.

Here's a classic example: someone refers to a living creature, which is a perfectly commonly used word in English. The creationist points out that a "creature" is part of "creation" and asks "how can you have a 'creation' without a Creator?". Zing! The scientist is left to either explain just how stupid the argument is and why it is so stupid, express his disgust at the level of the argument, or let it go by. In the creationist's own mind, however, s/he scored a rhetorical point. Why win the argument by boring old facts when you can do it by rhetoric?

Here's another one. In online discussions on evolution, some creationists will point out that evolution is clearly impossible because if you take evolution far enough, there must have been some time before there was life and then some time after there was life. Therefore life came from non-life (abiogenesis) and this is clearly impossible! After all, maggots do not spontaneously erupt from dead flesh and fleas do not spontaneously occur in sterile sand. All life comes from previous life. Thus evolutionary theory is a house of cards that falls at the first wind.

Although it isn't.

First, the creationists refuse to accept that evolution by variation and natural selection does not depend on a particular starting point. The evolution of, say, the horse can be inferred from the fossil record regardless of eohippus's ancestor. Thus as far as proving evolutionary theory is concerned it's irrelevant (though incredibly interesting) if the first "life" on Earth was the result of local chemical processes, "spores" carried through space, or someone's manufactured work. Once the first self-replicating entities exist in the correct conditions, a combination of variation and natural selection would lead to speciation.

Second, this particular "point" assumes that living things are fundamentally different from non-living things. If you look at a living thing like, say, a cow and a non-living thing like, say, a rock, those differences seem pretty clear. Cows eat, excrete, make noises, move, generate methane and so on while a rock just sort of sits there and erodes. A cow is composed of a variety of different cells that coordinate to produce the aforesaid activities while the rock is composed of a relatively limited number of compounds and crystalline substances that don't do much but react to chemicals in the environment. Some have gone further and decided that there must be some form of "life force" (possibly or possibly not the same thing as a soul) that differentiates living things from non-living things. Thus a cow and a dead cow are different because one has life force and the other doesn't.

Unfortunately, the line between "living" and "non-living" is fuzzy and relatively arbitrary. While it appears obvious in one limit case (a cow vs. a rock) when you get to the other limit (a virus vs. a solution of the same proteins and nucleic acids one would have in the virus) it's far less clear. A virus is little more than a string of nucleic acids surrounded by protein. As part of its normal reproductive cycle it loses its protein shell, reproduces the nucleic acid strings, and spontaneously recreates its protein shell. One does not need to hypothesize some mysterious life force for this; this is entirely explainable in terms of chemistry.

One can easily imagine that multiple types of self-replicating chemicals could arise from natural processes. In a suitable environment the chemicals that were better at reproducing would become more common than those that weren't. As they reproduced they would incorporate changes due to chemistry and physics - some would improve their reproductive capability, some would "kill" the reaction completely. It is certainly conceivable that these compounds could self-organize (as shown by current work on nanotechnology) into increasingly complex systems with increasingly interesting emergent behavior. At some point these crossed the fuzzy boundary between "non-life" and "life" and the tools of chemistry and physics become too cumbersome to explain their behaviors. Thus we apply a different science with a different set of tools: Biology.

So the next time someone tries the argument that life can't come from non-life, ask just how, precisely, life isn't controlled by chemistry (which is controlled by physics) and just how a self-replicating set of molecules isn't life.

Trying terrorists

There's been a decision that certain people being held at the prison at the US Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba will be tried in a criminal proceeding in Federal court in New York. By "certain people" I mean, of course, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who will reportedly be tried for the little matter of conspiracy to ram airplanes into buildings on US territory in September, 2001 which he, reportedly, admitted to while incarcerated.

Recent news reports state he will plead "not guilty". The President and Attorney General of the United States have expressed confidence that he will be convicted and either incarcerated for the rest of his life or put to death.

Now, I am not a lawyer (I know a few lawyers, but that's neither here nor there) and have no special knowledge of the law. Most of what I know of the law comes from what I read in the newspapers and from a high school civics class. However, here are some measures I expect the defense to take:

1. Argue for a change of venue on the basis that they can't possibly get a fair trial there in the former shadow of the World Trade Center.
2. Argue that the US has no jurisdiction over a foreign national performing acts in a foreign country.
3. Demand that all statements collected from the defendant before being read his rights under the US Constitution be suppressed.
4. Call as witnesses as many people who were on staff at the Guantanamo Bay prison as possible to discuss the conditions at the prison and how the defendant was treated. Following this, the defense will state that any evidence collected at the prison either from the defendant or from other prisoners is hopelessly compromised and demand it be suppressed. The defense may suggest that charges be pressed against the personnel of Guantanamo.
5. Call as witnesses the policemen in Pakistan who captured and detained the defendant in order to prove that at every step of the way he was abused and mistreated.
6. Call for a complete examination of every Truther conspiracy theory, the goal being to shift the blame from the defendant to, well, anyone. Israelis, CIA, Cubans, little green men - all will get their day in court. Perhaps even Pat Robertson's statement that this was God's retribution for tolerating homosexuals and Ward Churchill's essay that the "little Eichmanns" had it coming will get brought into the mix.

And if all that fails and it appears they can't shed responsibility, the defendant will claim to be a soldier in asymmetric warfare fighting back with the only weapons at his disposal and, thus, not subject to one nation's criminal courts. Did the US try Tojo in criminal court? Hirohito? Goering? Mussolini (well, maybe that's a bad example)? And was he not, based on his view of American foreign policy, justified in striking back at the oppressor?

Circus, anyone?

A Ration of Words

There are a few words that are used in the news these days that I do not believe what they think they mean. Here are some examples.

Rationing: In the current health care debate there are claims that a government run system will necessarily lead to reationing health care. This is countered on the other side with the notion that health care is already rationed in two ways: insurance companies deny claims under certain circumstances leading to no service being performed, and people who can't afford health care don't buy it. While there is a point to the former, in the common usage of the word "rationing" the second isn't a valid example. the common view of rationing is that it involves someone limiting how much you can buy. Taking World War II as an example, the ration stamp system limited how much of particular commodities you could buy regardless of whether you could afford them and regardless of availability in the store. There's a difference between deciding not to pay the price for something and being told that you are not allowed to buy it.

Responsibility: Frequently terrorist groups are quoted as taking responsibility for acts such as murders and bombings. And, golly, isn't it great they stood up and showed such responsibility! English has a better word - it's called blame.

Execution: The news has taken to calling acts of murder, particularly ones performed with a pistol at extreme close range, as "executions" or as "execution style". This conflates an act of murder with an act performed by the State as punishment for a crime. We wouldn't say a mugger fined his victim; we don't say a kidnapper incarcerated his captive until the bail was paid. I'm unaware of any state in the US that uses a pistol at close range as the chosen method of execution. It's time to move "excecution" back to the legal realm (unless you're talking about executing a process, which is different).

The big questions

Something people often complain about science is that it doesn't deal with the really hard questions. Scientists are busy with trivia like figuring out what the universe is made of and the human genetic and epigenetic code, but don't pay attention at all to questions like:

• Where did I come from?
• Why am I here?
• Where do I go when I die?

I think with science we can certainly answer those questions to a reasonable degree of precision, and the answers are along the lines of:

• Your mommy's belly. You see, when two adults love each other very much...
• Because the wave equations that describe every particle in your body have the greatest probability density at your current location.
• If you're like most Americans, a cemetery.

Cemeteries have been much in the news this year. Several have been accused of selling occupied graves to new customer which has created outrage - especially since these cemeteries catered to historically oppressed minorities. Other stories involved cemeteries that were no longer maintaining their site, either because they could no longer afford to or because the cemetery had long since been abandoned. And naturally, there were pre-Halloween articles of teen vandalism causing a surprising amount of damage - valued in the tens of thousands of dollars.

However, the entire concept is suspect and built on what appears to be an unsustainable business model. The buyer of a cemetery plot believes that they're paying for exclusive use of the ground along with gardener and maintenance services - forever and free of property taxes. Their descendants in 10 or 100 or 1000 years will be able to walk through the well manicured, park-like site to visit the grave with its marker only slightly worse for wear due to weathering.

Historically, only the outrageously wealthy and well connected (think "pharaoh") have been able to get this kind of treatment when they die - and even they can have their corpses dug up and shown in exhibitions worldwide after their civilization transforms to something completely different, their religion vanishes, and their writing becomes unknown and cryptic. For most people, graves historically were temporary locations. The body rotted in the earth or in a tomb and within a few years when the space was needed again the bones were either shoved aside or preserved in some manner. Hence the ossuaries all over Europe and the catacombs of Paris. Alas, poor Yorick indeed!

In some of America's oldest and most historic cemeteries the markers don't match the graves. Church cemeteries are abandoned when the church leaves or goes under; municipal cemeteries are abandoned if the town dies. Private cemeteries, which gain their funds from selling graves and other services, have no viable business model when they fill up. The notion that ones corpse will rest in peace eternally without company in a spot in the ground is becoming non-viable, and it's time for a new - or perhaps old - model.

Penalties - death and otherwise

One of the arguments that's used against the death penalty is that an innocent person could be put to death by the state. This, of course, is why there are so many appeals in the process, so many checks, and so many last moment stays of execution from either the governor or the Supreme Court. The thought of executing an innocent person in error should give us all pause, and it's reasonable to make every effort to determine guilt before carrying out a death sentence.

But is that sufficient reason to eliminate the death penalty? If so, what about a life sentence? Is it acceptable to keep an innocent person in prison for 25 years or more? What if the prosecutor and police actually withheld evidence of innocence in order to make the case?

According to a case now before the Supreme Court, this very scenario occurred and, according to Iowa law, the State can deprive an innocent person of liberty for 25 years (or more!) and once they let that person go, why, no harm, no foul. The freed person goes along his/her way and just starts over where they left off, 25 years ago.

Of course, he might never have won the appeal to prove his innocence before dying in prison because as a person only serving a life sentence without parole there's no real urgency, right?

Some would argue that an innocent person could be paid reparations for the prison time. Apparently not in Iowa, even in the case of prosecutorial misconduct.

So why is the chance of killing an innocent person so heinous that it's a conclusive reason to eliminate the death penalty if it's perfectly acceptable to deprive an innocent person of his/her liberty - and quite possibly let him/her die in prison?

Whither Afghanistan

The other day I happened to hear a discussion with legendary reporter Helen Thomas, who has covered the White House since the Kennedy administration. She commented that she would like to hear President Obama explain why we are at war in Afghanistan.

Now, I presume that by this question she's hoping to get the administrations goals and preferred outcomes, and that she hasn't forgotten why we went there in the first place. However, her question follows a line of other Afghanistan doubters who make the following points:

• We're losing.
• By historical parallel, it's extraordinarily difficult to win in Afghanistan, so we won't win either.
• The US has no pressing national interest in Afghanistan.
• The US popular support for the war is waning.

Let me address those in order.

We already won. Or more precisely, the alliance of people we supported toppled the Taliban thugs who were running that country. Mullah Omar would be captured, jailed, and perhaps executed if the winners hadn't deferred to the position of a "holy man". And we did it quickly, within weeks. The only reason we consider the war still on is because it's politically expedient to do so - it makes it easier to get the funding needed to try to rebuild the country.

The historical parallels are instructive, but fall apart in one major point: the United States doesn't want Afghanistan - the Soviet Union and Britain did. While we objected to the Taliban government, we did nothing about it until they were shown to be willingly harboring people who killed thousands of Americans and who planned to kill more. There are only three reasons it matters to the US who runs Afghanistan now - we want them to be friendly to us, we don't want them to offer safe haven to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and because we don't want other countries laughing at us behind our backs ("hey, did you see the bozos the Americans left in charge of Afghanistan? What a bunch of maroons!").

Which takes us straight to pressing national interest. We're pretty darned certain that the old Afghani government provided a safe haven for terrorist groups to operate openly and train people who intended to overthrow various countries by force and violence. There's apparently reason to believe that some of their leadership is still there or in Pakistan. Maybe we should try to make sure that after we leave Al Qaeda won't just set up shop again so they don't fly airplanes into more of our buildings or any of a hundred other ways to kill thousands of Americans. I'm just saying.

And on waning popular support: this is probably true, according to all the polls. If support gets too low, that will pretty much kill the effort. On the other hand, popular support is not a tremendous predictor of success (just how popular was "the surge" in Iraq before it started showing results?). US leadership does need to do a better job of saying what they're trying to accomplish, why they're doing it, and what it will take.

I'm hoping that, or something like it, would be President Obama's answer to Ms. Thomas.

I was watching the Nova episode Monster of the Milky Way today (featuring, amongst others, famed science fiction author Gregory Benford). This was a pure astrophysics romp showing the people, events, and theories that describe the very nature of galaxies. They discussed neutron stars, black holes, the big bang - frankly, all of what we think of as reality.

Partway through was a description of tidal forces around a black hole which, as it turns out, are very similar (though dramatically bigger) to the tidal forces around neutron stars. And "Neutron Star" is a very good story by Larry Niven which provide and excellent explanations of tidal forces around very massive objects.

There was also a discussion of the black hole that apparently sits in the middle of our galaxy - indeed, in the middle of all galaxies - which Larry Niven also described in A World Out of Time.

Niven was not, himself, mentioned in this - and indeed shouldn't have been as he's not a researcher in this area. However, I could not help but be reminded of his work as I watched this highly informative and entertaining episode.

It's a gas!

I have long believed that hydrogen and oxygen - two of the most common elements in the universe - would one day be the fuel and oxidizer that replaced all other major energy sources. Together they can be burned for heat; by itself hydrogen can be fused for even more heat. The biggest problem is getting the hydrogen, which on Earth is mostly locked up in various compounds.

One technique is using electrical current to break it out of water (hydrolysis) which can be carbon free if you generate your electricity from non-carbon sources. This is done on an industrial scale, and the raw feedstock is abundant, but it takes so much electricity that - so far - it's too expensive to compete with other fuels. Additionally, hydrogen is relatively difficult to work with and can leak out of what would otherwise be considered air-tight containers.

Of course if you could only generate the hydrogen as you needed it where it was needed, then you wouldn't need to store and transport large quantities. You'd only need to store water, which is relatively well behaved and easy to control. Of course, that only makes sense if you want to use the actual gas (say, as fuel for a torch), since there's no point using electricity to split water to recombine to run a machine (say) when you could use the electricity directly.

Yet there are those who claim it does make sense. They claim that something called "Brown's Gas" or "HHO", which is produced by hydrolysis, can be used to boost automobile and truck gas milage. The claim is that the output of a portably hydrolysis unit run by the vehicle's alternator can be run into the fuel stream and will dramatically improve gas milage.

Now, from a strict thermodynamic sense this is ludicrous. It takes more energy to create electricity to split water than you can get in useful work from burning the resulting gas. Yet the internal combustion engine is not a simple heat engine, but a complicated machine. Look at hybrid cars - they manage to get better fuel economy using large batteries that get charged by the gasoline engine and the brakes. Is it possible that these systems are somehow using energy that's otherwise wasted and using it for useful work?

Or consider: only 21% of air supports combustion. Is it possible these portable hydrolysis units - producing an entirely combustible output - is increasing the amount of fuel burned and, thus, increasing the engine's efficiency?

Google produced a lot of qualitative analyses - really opinion pieces no more rigorous than this one - on both sides of the discussion. There are some reports of great results; there are a discussions on why those results are bogus. There are a surprising number of really dopey claims about "Brown's Gas" which, some claim, is in some way different from a mixture of molecular hydrogen and molecular oxygen and is imbued with strange powers - but I digress.

Couldn't someone, I wondered, do a real, rigorous test to settle this once and for all? If it actually worked such a study would be a boon for humanity.

Fortunately someone did. Popular Mechanics ran an article describing the results of what appears to be a very rigorous and repeatable test and the results were:

These devices do no good whatsoever.

This is indeed a blow to those who want to be able to improve their gasoline use by spending a couple thousand bucks, and to those who want to meet that desire by selling a device to do it. But then, isn't it better to know?

A competitor by another name

The last few weeks I've heard a number of people talking about "the public option" that either should or should not be part of the health care "reform" plan that Congress will likely start working on again if ... er ... when they come back from recess. And I've noticed something I think is odd.

Regardless of their views, speakers have chosen to treat this new health plan (or extension of Medicare, whichever) as if it were simply a non-profit competitor to the existing health insurance companies. People in favor say such a competitor will keep private insurance honest; people opposed say that without needing to make a profit, they'll be able to undercut the for-profit insurance companies.

Now, I suppose that the "public option" could be just what they describe. After all, the US Post Office currently runs on a similar basis - it receives no subsidy, it makes its own money, and competes with a variety of very profitable message delivery companies (though I've yet to see someone else offer the equivalent of the first class letter. This used to be reserved to the post office by law - I'm unclear on the current status). Heck, the Post Office could be said to run at a disadvantage - no Congressman is going to prevent UPS from closing a package drop-off point, but the Post Office needs to fight a political constituency when it wants to close a branch.

But it need not be. Consider that as a government entity it, or the organization that backs it, can:

1. Operate at a loss indefinitely. Congress can choose to subsidize it forever.
2. Set the rules that its competitors must follow. Imagine if Yum! brands could set the operating rules for McDonald's - even if the rules were to be applied absolutely the same to both, could we expect that they wouldn't give, say, KFC some advantage?
3. Demand that doctors, labs, hospitals, and other providers not only accept its standard payment schedule but, if times are tough, accept less than they're owed as payment in full. All without declaring bankruptcy, simply because the government decides it doesn't have enough money.

It's also obvious - because people have come out and stated it - that some backers of the "public option" do so because they believe it will eventually become the single payer and that existing private health insurance will be eliminated - maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of our lives.

So why are people understating the level of competition that this could be?

Should the government get out of it?

In a post titled "Why not same-sex marriage?" Lee of Lee's Blog rather convincingly argues that the State should get out of the marriage business altogether. I won't try to paraphrase what is a well thought out, well stated position - go read the post, I'll wait.

Lee does not argue the financial drain, but I will. The government registration of marriage and enforcement of its terms (such as laws against adultery or bigamy) are an obvious cost. While the state does receive fees from the issuance of marriage licenses and from performing divorces, I suspect that these don't cover the cost of trying and jailing the few whose betrayal of the marriage vows is so egregious as to require the gentle ministrations of the law.

So why not just eliminate marriage as a legal institution? Change the laws to ensure that any group in any living arrangement who choose to call themselves a "family" (a term in law) with the same total income and the same number of people pay the same taxes and receive the same assistance. Change the inheritance laws to eliminate the spousal preference - or to extend that to any person whom the deceased specified (premortem, preferably). Demand that institutions cease using the pointless - and no longer state issued - marriage license in determining default medical power of attorney, joint ownership of property, ability to live in the United States, and all other rights and benefits that currently come with a licensed marriage.

Why aren't people demanding that instead of demanding that marriage be expanded to include the arrangements that they desire?

Because it's a non-starter, that's why. There's a constituency that believes that marriage is so good, so important, so (if you'll pardon the expression) sacred that any attempt to eliminate it as a legal institution (never mind that it would still be a social convention and a religious sacrament) would be met with instant ridicule and attack. A person who spoke up this way in a public forum would be booed and shunned; a politician who attempted to enact it would be drummed out of office - and possibly excommunicated.

Why is that? I believe that would be a fascinating field of research (which I have to believe someone has already looked into). To speculate, this comes from three areas:

1. Care of Children: Rearing a child, much less 20 or 30 (see Bach, Johann Sebastian), is a time consuming and expensive proposition. While it is certainly possible for one person to do this "solo" (often with hired help, assistance from family and friends, or governmental assistance), it is far easier when done by at least two adults. By placing legal roadblocks on a parent (let's face it, this usually means a guy) walking away, the state has done its part to help.
2. Religion: Major religious sects recognize marriage and set rules for it. Given a choice, the adherents to those religions will demand government enforcement of those rules. While these may be watered down somewhat due to multiple religious traditions, certain basic rules (you can't leave once you're married, you can't have sex with someone not your spouse if your spouse objects, etc.) will be the law of the land.
3. The power of sex: even today, marriage and sex go together. The marriage license is not only a license to have sex, it limits who a married person can legally have sex with. While one might "hike the Appalachian Trail" (if you know what I mean), if one is caught doing so one might go directly to jail, lose one's possessions to one's spouse, or both.

I don't think it's likely that the State will get out of the marriage business.

When the police come to my door

Here are the standard disclaimers - I wasn't there. I don't know what really happened. Not being African American, I can't really understand. There is a tremendous chasm of mistrust between members of minority groups and the police.

But...

If a policeman comes to my door, tells me that there's been a report of a break-in, and demands I prove I live there, I will say:

"Why, thank you officer, let me pull my identification out very slowly. Here, you can see that my government issued ID has this as my address. I'm awfully glad you take the report that my house has been broken into seriously, and I'm so sorry you had to come out of your way for nothing. May I please take your name and badge number so I may write your captain a note commending you for your prompt and courteous action?"

Or I will say, "look out, officer, he's got a gun!", as appropriate.

If I have been treated in a manner I find needlessly discourteous, I will report it to the officer's superiors after the fact. But I'm not going to provoke someone who has the authority and means to put me in the pokey. Or shoot me.

Cross Race and Same Sex

Something some in favor of legally recognized, sanctioned, and licensed marriage between between people of the same sex have expressed varying degrees of astonishment, disappointment, and anger at African Americans who do not favor such legally recognized, sanctioned, and licensed marriages.  This has led to many harsh words.  Are these justified?

To those who believes that legal marriage should obviously apply to any two people who choose to be married and that laws that don't apply equally to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples are discriminatory, anything that prevents a same-sex couple from marrying is the equivalent of anti-miscegenation laws.  Contrary positions would be the equivalent of racism.  As African Americans have been sorely hurt in the US by racism for hundreds of years, they should be natural allies - and failing to agree is hypocritical.

Those who believe that by definition marriage is between exactly one man and exactly one woman (at any one time) have a fundamentally different view.  To begin with, sex (from the genetic basis to physical characteristics) is a well accepted distinction between people.  By contrast, race and ethnicity are arbitrary constructs.  Anti-miscegenation laws had to be enacted because it was quite obvious that people of different races could marry; until very recently, there was no effort to create anti-same-sex-marriage laws because, well, the very definition of marriage didn't allow for that in a fairly fundamental way.

Of course, there are some parallels.  Socially, couples that cross different ethnic groups are more accepted than at some earlier times in US history (though there are still groups within society who  disapprove of these) - the same is true of same-sex couples.  While most religions recognize inter-ethnic marriages, some don't; one might argue the opposite for same-sex marriages.  However, it is neither a well justified assumption that African Americans must be in favor of same-sex marriages, nor is it good politics to take people to task for a betrayal that is only in the mind of the beholder.

Here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine

Lee at Lee's Blog wrote a well reasoned and insightful commentary quoting from some of my posts starting with "What's love got to do with it?".  In the first of these posts, Lee posits that the legal marriage has significantly less meaning than it had in previous American history.  And this is doubtless true - before the 1960s, divorce was difficult (and frequently scandalous) and sex outside of marriage was scandalous (and frequently difficult) by current standards.  The term "palimony" was coined (and apparently abandoned - but the concept remains) since the '60s, and fatherhood rights for unmarried male parents have been repeatedly sought in the courts.  Many employers now provide benefits to unmarried partners.

So what is that piece of paper, really?

Aside from it being a "permanent" contract (in the sense that it has no defined term and requires deliberate court action to end), it's legal shorthand for many things including:

• a quick way for one (or in some jurisdictions, both) parties to change her (sometimes his) legal name
• a different set of tables on income taxes
• a presumption of parenthood for children (unless proven otherwise)
• a defense against having to testify against another person in a court of law, sometimes
• a default way of passing on someone's assets after death
• a way to expedite someone's application to come to or remain in the country
• a default power of attorney
• a default combining of assets and incomes

There are also a lot of things that aren't necessarily set by law but by convention and policy - things like who can visit in a hospital (e.g. family members), who can make funeral arrangements, who will necessarily be included in a social invitation (when spouses are invited someone might still be forgiven for not inviting the significant other of an unmarried person), and so on.

Get government out of it

I've recently seen several people say things along the lines of "government should get its hands off of marriage" and "government has no business saying who can or can't get married".  It's an interesting idea.

The law defines marriage, assigns conditions on who can get married and under what circumstances, licenses marriages, defines who can administer the oaths and witness the signing of the license, and has processes for the dissolution of the marriage.  It also provides legal acknowledgement of the marriage, enforces some of its obligations, and provides certain privileges (tax and otherwise).  The law is, of course, written by the various legislative bodies, enacted by the various executive office holders, and interpreted by the courts.

So when someone wants the government to get its fingers out of marriage, what would that mean?  Can the government license marriage without defining it?  Well, no, not really - how would you know what had been licensed?  How about without regulating it?  Are there any examples of anything that's licensed but not regulated?  None I can think of.

Assume that the government chose to no longer define, regulate, or license marriage.  Marriages would become a matter of personal contract.  While there might be boilerplate that's common to many such contracts, the specifics would be infinitely variable.  Weddings would be a matter for lawyers, divorce would be a matter of contract law.   Woe to the aggrieved spouse without a signed, witnessed copy of the marriage contract (as amended) with all pertaining codicils.

How about those legal privileges?  They are arbitrary, based on the expected definition of marriage.  If any arrangement can be called marriage, would the people (who are the ultimate authority behind the government, after all) be willing to give special consideration to, well, anyone who says they're married?

You lie down with dogs

Did you ever notice that there are people out there who will try to convince you (and the world) that you believe in things you just don't believe in?  It's one thing when that person is not a member of your group and is doing it out of ignorance or malice, but...

What about when it's someone who is, at least nominally, a member of your group?

There are two major categories of people in this category:

• Overt - people who say that you, as a member of a common group, must believe in x or behave in y way.
• Implied - people associated with your group who, by their actions, somehow reflect on the motives, actions, and beliefs of the entire group.

Can you reasonably expect that everyone will understand that these people do not represent your views?  Sadly, no - unless you loudly and publicly reject these people as your representatives.  This burden especially falls on those in minority groups within the society.  Yes, it may seem unfair.  Yes, members of the majority may have an easier time of it because there are more examples of people who don't agree.

But it's important that when someone, by his/her/its speech or actions, claims that you believe something you don't it's time to speak out.  I'll start.

Pat Robertson is nominally a Christian minister and claims to understand what God says and to know how other Christians should act.  He's made statements to the effect that various disasters were caused by America's choice to not persecute homosexual people.  Pat Robertson does not speak for me nor, I hope, for God.

In the recent "tea party" tax protests there were people with signs equating President Obama, his policies, and his actions with Adolph Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust.  I don't know that I agree with any of the protestors views, but just in case - these guys are jerks and they don't speak for me.

Next?

Pirates II

The US Navy has captured a real live pirate, though there is some concern that he may be below the legal limit (do they have to throw him back?).  There is much talk of bringing him to trial, and some people see an issue here.

Fortunately, the issue is not jurisdiction.  Piracy is specifically addressed in the Constitution, and pretty much any country has jurisdiction to prosecute acts of piracy on the high seas under international law (as I understand it).

No, the issue is "what do we do when he gets out of jail."  Somalia is, after all, practically without a government.  Once the pirate has completed his sentence, the US can't possibly repatriate him without someone to hand him back to.

That strikes me as odd thinking, because:

1. If the pirate had gotten away, or if the navy had let him go, he would have gone to the vary place that has no government to receive him.  It's not like he doesn't want to go there, nor that he has a well reasoned fear of persecution.
2. If the prosecution does its job properly, we won't have to worry about this for a very, very, very long time - if, indeed, ever.  Who knows, perhaps Somalia will have a government by then.

I can't understand why the question, "what will we do with him after his sentence is up" would even be a consideration when deciding whether to prosecute.

Pirates!

As you may be aware, pirate attacks have been on the rise. Recently the crew of the ship Maersk Alabama managed to take their ship back from the pirates who attempted to capture it, though their captain, Richard Phillips, was taken and is being held hostage by the pirates.

Interestingly, there's been criticism of the crew for fighting back.

The logic of this criticism is:

• the pirates only want the money.
  
• fighting back is likely to damage the crew, the ship, or the cargo.
  
• if crews fight back, pirates are likely to become more violent.
  

I reject this criticism.

I certainly do believe that people who are in fear for their lives and safety cannot be judged for doing what they feel they need to to preserve same.  There's no shame in realizing you're outmatched and doing what you need to do to preserve your life, sanity, and various body parts.  If someone in such a situation chooses to cooperate with his/her captors in the hope of survival, that's what they need to do.

That said....

The standard advice to someone in a potentially violent situation has been, "give in".  If someone tries to rob you, give in - you shouldn't risk your life for the money in your wallet.  If someone tries to rob your business, give in - your customers and employees are more important than the till.  If a pirate boards your ship, give in - the ransom the company will pay is less important than your life and safety.  If someone hijacks your airplane, give in - the airlines will pay a ransom and you'll be inconvenienced for a few hours (or days), but that's certainly not as important as your life.

Except when it isn't.

What happens when you think someone wants your wallet and they really want to rape you?  Or when you think they want to ransom you and they want to maim you?  Or they want to hijack you, and really want to use your vessel as a weapon?

A relatively modest proposal

Here's an idea for the state legislatures to consider as long as they're revising marriage laws - limited term marriages.

One of the characteristics of civil marriage is that it is a permanent contract.  "Permanent", in this case, means "until formally dissolved by court action".  Pretty much any contract can be dissolved by court action, though I'm aware of few that can only be dissolved by court action (and while death may them part, there are specific legal obligations that carry on after death).

So why not create limited term marriages, perhaps with an automatic option to renew (for some new term) at the end of the term?  Consider the advantages:

• Divorce rates would plummet.  If people were married for, say, 5 years (with an option to renew) people who discovered they didn't get along would simply decline to renew at the end of the term.
• Marriages that do end could do so on a much less confrontational, far more friendly fashion.  No need to prove infidelity or irreconcilable differences, and no need to build up hard feelings staying together with no hope - just don't renew, everybody walks away, life goes on.
• Spousal abuse could be significantly reduced if the abusing spouse realizes that the abused spouse has an out - especially if abuse becomes a condition for immediate dissolution of the contract.

So why not marriage contracts of 5 years, 1 year, or even 90 days?

There's nothing halfway about Iowa

The Iowa supreme court will make it legal for a person of one sex to marry someone of the same sex later this month.  There are two obvious interpretations of this:

1. Marriage is a legal recognition of the love and commitment of one person to another, regardless of the gender of either, and the court has extended this to a group that has historically been discriminated against.  As such it has righted a historical wrong.
2. The court has redefined marriage in a fairly significant way.

Some of those in favor of interpretation 1 have argued that if someone can't marry someone of the same sex, then that's tantamount to saying "gay people can't get married" and that's discrimination.  

In fact, gay people can get married - to a member of the opposite sex just like anybody else.  If precedent can be believed, this has been part of a standard definition of marriage for at least 1,000 years (I'm being conservative here).  That's a considerable amount of precedent for the Iowa court to overturn.

In fact, there is considerably more precedent, both in North America and globally, for polygamy than for "gay marriage".  The former is accepted in many countries around the world, and has been accepted in parts of North America, whereas the latter has been out of favor legally for at least 1,000 years in every place I can think of.

Always Is Greedy

AIG will be receiving thank you notes from countless politicians (and possibly a few fruit baskets as well) for giving them something to yell about that all their constituents can agree with.  I refer, of course, to the news that they've been forced - forced, I say - to pay the very employees who drove the company under "retention bonuses".  According to the latest reports 73 people received more than (cue Doctor Evil) "One Million Dollars."  One person received 6.4 million dollars; seven received more than 4 million dollars each.  That's just a bonus.  One designed to make these people stay!

And apparently 11 people left anyway!  Some retention bonus!

I'm shocked - Shocked! - to find that amazing amounts of money are being paid to executives (everybody who isn't a clerk or a teller in these kinds of companies is an executive) for no particularly good reason.  This is a symptom of a larger problem of executive compensation - boards of directors have an inflated sense of the importance of the "superstar" executive and are willing to pay ridiculous sums - win or lose - to get them.

Unfortunately, that's not the scary part.

Several U.S. Senators, including Senator Charles Schumer and Senator Harry Reid have vowed to get that money back from these (as yet) unnamed AIG scum via very specific changes to the tax code.  And that worries the Dickens out of me.

While I can see no justification whatsoever for AIG paying these people these extravagant boni, and these people helped bring down not only the AIG holding company but contributed to our current global economic crisis, they didn't, well, break any law.  That we know of.

The thought that Congress could create a tax law designed to extract money from 73 (or slightly more) specific people should give us all pause.  It's extortion at best.  If they succeed, then we can truly believe that no man's life, liberty, or property, is safe while the Congress is in session.

It's the equivalent of a fine imposed when someone hasn't actually broken a law, nor had a trial, nor had any right to appeal.  It's a special tax tailored to NOT conform to any notion of equal protection.  Created AFTER the money has been "earned".  And that's only if they do it right.  If they do it wrong (and, seriously, what do you think are the odds of Congress doing it right?) it goes much broader, affecting who knows who, with who knows what impact.

Do we really want Congress to have that authority?

March 18 update:  According to AIG's current CEO, Edward Liddy, the people who created the credit default swaps that have been so damaging to AIG (and others) are no longer employed by AIG and did not receive retention bonuses.  In response to his statement, I provisionally retract the statement "the very employees who drove the company under".

Nobody ever asks what I think is the important question

Today I happened to view a discussion (it was billed as the Miller Center Of Public Affairs National Debate Series, but the participants themselves said their positions differed so little that it was more a discussion) on infrastructure, especially in line with the economic stimulus package.  It was moderated by Robert MacNeil, and featured the governors of Pennsylvania and Skynet ... sorry ... California, and two experts in the field.

Overall, the discussion was reasonable, but I found myself constantly questioning certain statements that were allowed to pass unchallenged - for instance:

The statement was made that there wasn't enough link between usage and charges, and (when asked) that this was evidenced by the gasoline tax:  the federal rate has not changed since the early 1990s, and apparently many states have reduced their gasoline taxes over that time.  What was not said was what that tax should be and what was the basis for that claim.  A great many things are significantly cheaper today than they were in the early 1990s (just as a great many things are more expensive).

The statement was made that the US should invest in a high speed rail system, and that it was the only major industrial country that has not.  France's high speed rail was given as an example.  I've been on French trains, and they're very nice and relatively convenient.  I'm entirely in favor of high speed trains.  That said, where do they propose that the American high speed rail system go?  Have they noticed that France has a population of about 65 million in an area of 260,000 square miles, while the US has nearly 5 times the population and nearly 15 times the area, or that the distance between Calais and Marseilles is 665 miles - 80 miles closer than Houston is to El Paso?  A line between New York and Los Angeles - a very busy air travel route - would be substantially more expensive than any French line - with the possible exception of the Chunnel.

The statement was made that there should be a master infrastructure plan (perhaps a series of 5 year plans, but that's just my interpretation) for the US and that the decisions be taken out of the hands of the politicians.  This is an amazing thing for a state governor to say, and I have to ask: suppose that plan, based on the priorities of the country and a clear examination of all the options, didn't include anything for your state?  I have to believe that any truly comprehensive, prioritized plan must exclude some states - suppose California and Pennsylvania were two ofthose.  Would you still be willing to support it?

What's love got to do with it?

There's been a lot of talking (and shouting and suing) about the topic of "marriage" lately, and I dare say there will be more to come.  

It appears to me that a lot of people are talking right past each other on this topic, and I'm convinced that part of this is because they're not always talking about the same thing.  "Marriage" has meanings in at least 4 different contexts, and while these overlap they're not identical.  The 4 contexts are:

1. Individual/emotional: the choice of individuals to "join their lives together", "dedicate their lives to each other", "blend their families", and similar sentiments.
2. Social/societal: the way that people and organizations treat people they consider married, single, and various states in the continuum.  This also includes various expectations for proper behavior once married.
3. Religious: The mystical joining of individuals, typically as ordained by the appropriate deity or deities, surrounded by ceremonies and prayers, carrying with it various supernatural risks and allowing certain benefits.
4. Legal: A binding contract which carries with it tax consequences, legal rights, responsibilities, and termination clauses.

When someone says (as some have) something to the effect of, "it's none of ....'s business whom I marry," is that true?  In the individual context, I suppose it could be.  Every other context, though, has the need for someone else to recognize the marriage an provide some sort of approval.  That gives the organization (society, church, government, whatever) some ability to define what it means to be married, under what conditions they will recognize that marriage (and in some cases, stop recognizing it), and how the "married" people will be treated compared to "unmarried" people.

The rights, privileges, responsibilities, and treatment that go along with marriage are based on custom and precedent (even when codified into law) - so arbitrary and mutable.  They exist because people agree (more or less) that people who meet a particular definition of marriage should be treated a particular way.

In the legal context in most of the states of the United States, marriage is a permanent contract between precisely one living human man and precisely one living human woman, severable by court action or death of one party.  There are a number of restrictions above this (minimum age, closest relative, health checks, etc.) but these vary significantly by jurisdiction and have changed significantly over time.  The precisely one human man and one human woman, until very recently, was the same everywhere in the US and could be argued to be key components of the definition of marriage.  If so, any attempt to change the mix can be seen as redefining it.

Redefining marriage carries with it two issues:

• There are constituencies that want other changes to this basic definition.  Why should marriage be permanent?  Why not time box it - perhaps with an option to automatically renew?  Why should it be limited to precisely one man and one woman?  And that whole human thing....
• The rights, privileges, and responsibilities pertaining thereto are subject to question. What may have been widely accepted for one definition may no longer have quite the same support with another

Stem Cells

President Barack Obama has signed an executive order which allows federal money to be used to fund research that uses embryonic stem cell lines that were established after August 9, 2001.  From a pure research angle, this is a good thing - I have to believe that over the last 8 years 7 months and a day there should have been advances that would make for far better stem cells.  Yet this is apparently controversial - Mr. Obama was keen to put conditions on this, and others have claimed ethical issues exist.

I do understand why Mr. Bush, given his convictions, made the compromise he made.  And indeed, under the Bush administration there actually was federally funded embryonic stem cell research - my understanding is that under previous administrations (including Mr. Clinton's), no such funding was provided.   But that's neither here nor there.

I suppose it might trouble some if human embryos were created in vitro for the express purpose of using them to create stem cells.  Yet few people seem too concerned with the number of excess embryos created incidental to providing infertile couples or people who choose not to use natural insemination with the joys of bearing and rearing children.  These embryos will be stored until such time as they are either implanted or become inviable - if the latter, they are destroyed.

There are scads of embryos in this frozen limbo (a "scad" is a unit somewhere between an "oodle" and a "bazillion"), most likely far more than ever will (or should) be allowed to grow to adulthood.  According to some, if one of these "excess" embryos were to be used to create stem cells, why, that would be murder.  If they were all frozen until no longer viable, well, that's a tragedy but life moves on.

Which makes me wonder - why does society put up with the demand of some to have children at any cost?

On Sexting

The local news has been discussing "sexting".  This is the practice of people taking pictures of themselves in various states of nudity and sending them to their real or imagined boy/girlfriends, typically to their phones.  Apparently this is becoming a popular practice among high school students, and this is a problem.

The problem, of course, is that the subjects of these pictures are frequently below the age of consent.  Possession of these pictures is criminally punishable under child pornography laws.  These laws are typically broad in scope but swift and sure in punishment.

In a recent incident, a school official confiscated a cell phone a (underage) student used in class contrary to school policy.   In attempting to turn off the phone, the school official ran across naked pictures of other students.  Several students have now been charged - not with child pornography but with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

But this raises a hypothetical (and I want to stress this) situation.  Suppose a 16 year old girl were to take such a picture with her cell phone.  Suppose further she were to accidentally send the picture not to here boyfriend - who would, naturally, view it and pass it around to his chums - but to an adult man.  This man might be an acquaintance, but given the nature of both e-mail and telephones it could quite easily be a complete stranger.

How much trouble is this (hypothetical!!!) man in, and what should this man do?  Should someone find that he was sent this picture, what defense could he realistically mount?  Would prosecutors stop at child pornography charges, or would there be an attempt to prove statutory rape?  Should the man notify the girl of the error, or would this be seen as a creepy come on (not to mention used in court to prove a relationship)?  Should the man notify the police - or would that be just begging for a life on the sexual predator list?

If you're under the age of consent and if you choose to send someone a nude picture of yourself, please, please don't misdial.

I almost always enjoy reading Walter Williams's columns in the newspaper. He writes clearly, and his columns are usually well reasoned and insightful. I find I agree with him on many things, and for most of the rest I understand why he holds the position he does.

With one exception.

Mr. Williams will, on occasion, make an impassioned case that attempts to regulate smoking are communist, a taking of private property without just compensation, and quite possibly a sign of the ultimate decline in American civilization. Mr. Williams argues that the market should decide for itself and that the people at large (and their elected representatives) have no business telling the owner of private property to prohibit smoking - an admittedly legal activity.

Mr. Williams is not alone in making these arguments. These might be good arguments if, in fact, this were the ONLY otherwise legal activity that government prohibited inside a business or club. Is it?

Well, no. Businesses are regulated, sometimes fairly heavily regulated. There are all kinds of legal activities - including those that arguably are constitutionally protected rights - that are simply verboten in a business setting. Let's take a couple of examples:

• It's perfectly legal to drink alcohol indoors. It's legal to give alcohol to your (of age) friends. Unless you're in a business! Restaurants need a special license to sell alcohol. Depending on local law, without that license a restaurant can't sell it to you, give it to you, or let you drink it on premises - even if you bring in your own (a Côtes du Rhône goes nicely with a Big Mac).
• It's perfectly legal to choose to only associate with members of your own group (race, church, school, and so on). Don't try to rely on that when you make your hiring decisions, though.
• Mating .... no, let's not go there.

So why smoking should be any more sacrosanct than any other activity that is regulated in the world of business is beyond me.

I live in a state which (mostly - there are exceptions) limits its regulation of tobacco. This is a reflection of tobacco's status as a major cash crop and a strong association of tobacco farming with strong family values and good honest work out in the sun (cue the Stephen Foster songs). Yet even here, about 3 out of 4 adults do not smoke. On average more than half the adults in most settings don't smoke and get no benefit from those who do. One might reasonably think that there would be no need to regulate smoking - that businesses would accommodate the needs of the majority of their customers and employees and that more than, say, half of restaurants, bars, and other businesses would have gone completely non-smoking long before now (the notion that a business can be partially non-smoking is almost always an oxymoron). Are they?

Well, no. Not without laws and the threats of further laws. In fact, based on experience businesses would far rather cater to their smoking patrons than to the non-smokers.

My question to those who say there are plenty of businesses who cater to non-smokers - name them. And, by the way, let's not worry about the national fast food chains and Applebees.

The return of Harvey Grogo

Apparently the New York Post published an editorial cartoon which featured two policemen and a dead chimpanzee (which they had apparently shot) and the caption "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

I know. Hilarious. I don't get it.

Apparently there was some tragic incident that was the basis of the cartoon. How it's supposed to relate to the stimulus bill, I can't fathom. However...

Some people have interpreted this cartoon as racist. According to various accounts, the cartoonist and his editor don't see it and are amazed by the reaction.

To which I have to say - how could you not think someone might interpret this as racist? To which I add this anecdote.

Back many years ago, a college student group published a picture book (yes, on paper) with pictures of the incoming freshmen. Sort of a field guide to the common (or garden) frosh. As a joke, they added a picture of a statuette of a gorilla. The statuette, affectionately named "Grogo", was the unofficial mascot of one of the organizations involved. They gave the picture a first name ("Harvey") and listed its home town as "Kampala, Uganda". Gorillas live in Uganda, after all, and Kampala is its capitol.

The administration reacted, naturally, bringing disciplinary action against all involved, including very real attempts to expel one student.

The picture was considered offensive in two very separate ways:

1. Some thought it was intended to equate Ugandans, and by extension Africans, and by extension all people of African descent, with gorillas.
2. Others thought it was a caricature of the then leader of Uganda, His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular.

A year or two later, someone tried to slip Harvey Grogo back in to the same publication, this time with the address of Brooklyn, NY. This was no better received.

In 1994, a drawing of a monkey appeared on the cover of the same publication. Once again, the administration reacted to a perceived racist intent.

So I, for one, was not surprised that this was interpreted as a racist slur. The Post shouldn't have been, either.

Experimental Results

I've been carrying on an experiment in microbiology, and it's time to report results.

A couple of months ago I decided to try my hand at making hard cider. The grocery store had pretty good unfiltered sweet cider in the refrigerated section. Right on the label it said, "Freshly pressed - 100% Juice." Promising, I thought, so I bought several gallons, added sparkling wine yeast, and eventually bottled it.

I should have checked the ingredients a little more closely. They read:

• Apples (excellent start)
• Malic acid (a component of apple juice that adds tartness)
• Potassium Sorbate (hmm)
• Sodium Benzoate (double hmm)

After several months, I have proven that potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate, which are added as preservatives, do in fact ... preserve. No fermentation, no carbonation, and 40 bottles of juice with a decidedly off flavor.

Next year we try to find someone who will sell fresh pressed unpreserved cider.

Today we prepare the equipment for future experiments with the fermentation of malted grain extracts.

All grain or not all grain

Over the last mumble years, I've been doing some beer brewing on and off. It's fun, it's easy, you get some good tasting beer, and you can save some money (depending on what you drink it instead of - I currently drink homebrew instead of Chimay Grande Réserve Bleue to maximize my savings).
I brew from malt extract. This is barley that has been malted, then the malt extracted and concentrated to a consistency about like molasses (there's also dry malt extract, which is the same thing but dried to a powder). Add that to water, some additional grains, hops, boil it, cool it down, and add yeast - and after 4 weeks you've got pretty good beer. The yeast does the hard work, and I take the credit.
Lately the people at the local brewing supplies store have been telling me I'll get better beer if I start from malted grain, and I'll save money in the bargain. Such a deal!
But of course, you have to buy some more equipment for mashing, lautering, and sparging. And that runs anywhere from about $54 on the low end to $5,590. It only goes up from there.
So how much do I save?
According to various sources, 2/3 pound of liquid malt extract can substitute for 1 pound of malted barley (or conversely, it would take about 1.5 pounds of grain to replace 1 pound of liquid). This is highly inexact, but will do for a quick calculation. My local homebrew store sells malt extract in bulk - I can walk in with a container and they'll sell me exactly the number of pounds I need. This is cheaper than buying canned, since you're not buying a, you know, can.
So, 1 pound of bulk light malt extract costs $2.40
1.5 pounds of grain (@ $1.50/lb) runs about $2.25. That saves me the equivalent of 15 cents per pound.
In the last few recipes, I've used anywhere from 7 - 13 pounds of malt, so the savings of going all grain would be $1.05 - $1.95 per batch. I'm making 1-2 batches per month, so call it $30/year. It would take almost 2 years to justify the cheapest rig; an insulated mashing/sparging/lautering system would take 60 or more batches to pay for itself.
I'm not seeing the financial benefit. As for the better beer - I read that going all grain is most important in the pale gold pilseners and lagers. But I like stouts, which are anti-pale.
Guess I'm sticking with extract.

As long as you don't let 'em in our schools part deux

There was a particularly moment in the Nova program I feel a need to comment on.
In a reenactment of a scene from the trial, the expert for the "Cdesign proponentsists" asserted that "the scientific literature has no detailed testable answers to the question of how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection." In a scene reminiscent of A Miracle on 34th Street, the plaintiff's lawyer proceeded to pile article after article and book after book related to the evolution of the immune system on the stand.
A representative of the Thomas More Law Center, an organization that promotes cdesign propenentism, commented "That's a lawyer's trick, purely a lawyer's trick. Now, you know, was Michael Behe going to read every one of those books before he responded? You know, it was totally theatrics."
Was it a lawyer's trick? Well, yeah, of course it was. And a particulary effective one, in my view. One can only imagine lying in wait for just that opportunity.
But was it purely a lawyer's trick? I contend not. The witness made a statement about the lack of explanations. The lawyer brought out many pounds ("would you like your books back? They're heavy.") of paper that directly refuted the witness's statement. As a purported expert, the witness should have been aware that these articles, or ones like them, existed. And as an expert testifying in a trial, he should have been able to refute (or at least seriously call into question) the contents of those articles.
Of course, the cdesign proponentsists should understand all about lawyer's tricks, as that's what all arguments for including "intelligent design" in the public school curriculum end up being.

As long as you don't let 'em in our schools

The PBS science show Nova had an interesting program the other day titled Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. This covered the 2005 trial of Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. This was a rerun of a show that was first transmitted in 2007.
The case involved a decision by the Dover, PA school board that required science teachers to state that the theory of evolution by variation and natural selection (Darwinian evolution) is only one of several scientific theories, and to point them to the book Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins for more information (a number of copies of this book had helpfully been donated to the school library by an "anonymous donor").
The judge in this case ruled that "intelligent design" is not science, it is "a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory". The Pandas book is described as a "creationist text". As a religious view, the judge ruled it was unconstitutional to teach it in public schools. The ruling, as well as the original video, interviews, and supporting materials are available on Nova's web site.
Now, a court of law is not how one proves a scientific theory. Theories should stand or fall based on how well they explain observed facts, as well as on their ability to predict new observations that are later confirmed (if they're falsified, then the theory rightly should be modified to account for the new data, or discarded in favor of a better theory).
What the show and trial did do was highlight the motives of many "intelligent design" promoters. Since natural selection does not require a god, people could come to the conclusion that everything we observe has a physical, not spiritual, cause. Without a spiritual component, the road is clear to "moral anarchy" and, of course, atheism. Which are apparently bad things.
The Nova program and accompanying site are highly recommended.

Of mice and chimps

There was a letter to the editor in two local newspapers recently (both are owned by Gannett, so I suppose that isn't too surprising) from a "research scientist" at the creation museum and Answers in Genesis. The author claims a Ph.D. in molecular genetics.

My first thought was to wonder just what a "research scientist" for an organization that states that the Bible is literal human history does, exactly. Doing research in that environment sounds kind of like doing your homework when you have the teacher's copy of the text - you know the answer, you just need to figure out what the problem is. But I digress.

The writer was responding to a column that claimed that similarities in both morphology and genetics between various animals (and people) point to common ancestry. The writer, naturally, disagreed and said these similarities were the signature of the creator (God may work in mysterious ways, but s/he's very consistent in design components).

Two statements really struck me, though:

His arguments from morphology...is a poor argument. Raccoons also have the characteristics...mentioned, but no one claims humans and raccoons share a recent common ancestor.

and then in reference to the "often quoted 95-98 percent genetic similarity between chimps and humans",

Even humans and mice share an average of 85 percent similarity at the gene level, but no one claims we have a recent common ancestor.

Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by "recent". Like all placental mammals, current evolutionary theory certainly claims that chimps, raccoons, mice, and humans have common ancestors. Based on current genetic theories, one would also conclude that two animals who have 95% of their genes in common would have a closer common ancestor than two that have only 85% commonality. Probably much closer. "Recent" is relative.

Now, if the situation were reversed - if mice and men had more genes in common than chimps and humans - we would have a very interesting challenge to evolutionary theory.

This is your press on steroids - any questions?

So, I happened to tune in to President Obama's prime time press conference on Monday.

Normally I avoid these kinds of things as I've observed that in general speeches accomplish, well, not much (we shan't quote the Scottish play here). But curiosity got the better of me, I happened to be in front of the TV, and I didn't have anything else pressing, so I tuned in.

It was refreshing that Mr. Obama kept his prepared remarks short and to the point, allowing a lot of time for questions. His answers to the questions were long and tended to ramble a bit - he seemed to be trying to come up with complete answers to the question, and perhaps the question behind the question. I've seen people do better in this setting, but I can't fault him for actually trying to answer the questions.

But then...

Michael Fletcher of the Washington Post asked, "What is your reaction to Alex Rodriguez's admission that he used steroids as a member of the Texas Rangers?"

Mr. Obama fixed Fletcher with a steely gaze and said, "You had a chance to ask me a question on live TV in front of the national press and millions of viewers when we have so much going on, when the country has so many problems, when people are suffering so much from our economic troubles - and you want to talk baseball? Come on - if you want to talk sports over a beer sometime, I'm down with that. But can't you ask a real question?"

Well, no, he didn't. His real answer has been widely reported. And it's a reasonable answer. But I like mine better.