The Family is stranger than fiction

Mark Twain said that "truth is stranger than fiction", which makes me wonder why I have to sit through excessively boring movies like The Da Vinci Code when filmmakers could just document the real life, and far more interesting, exploits of the shadowy group known as 'The Family'. Jeff Sharlet did in his new book, of which Mother Jones has an excerpt:

Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, was known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the Family. The Family is in its own words an "invisible" association, though it has always been organized around public men...

The Family's historic roll call is even more striking: the late senator Strom Thurmond (R., South Carolina), who produced "confidential" reports on legislation for the Family's leadership, presided for a time over the Family's weekly Senate meeting, and the Dixie-crat senators Herman Talmadge of Georgia and Absalom Willis Robertson of Virginia—Pat Robertson's father—served on the behind-the-scenes board of the organization. In 1974, a Family prayer group of Republican congressmen and former secretary of defense Melvin Laird helped convince President Gerald Ford that Richard Nixon deserved not just Christian forgiveness but also a legal pardon. That same year, Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist led the Family's first weekly Bible study for federal judges.

"I wish I could say more about it," Ronald Reagan publicly demurred back in 1985, "but it's working precisely because it is private."

An ephemeral private quasi-religious group that uses its power to influence and direct government action? Boring. But one that actually exists? Now that's the stuff the movies should be made of.

(image via Smithsonian Institution)

Rocketman

I'm a bit late with this post, but Yves Rossey has become the world's first rocket powered(1) flying human. No word yet on whether this will affect Technologia Aeroespacial Mexicana's plans.

Enjoy the video:



(1) Actually jet-powered, but that doesn't sound as cool.

One in eight biology teachers read fairy tales to their class

According to a recent survey article in PLOS Biology, about one in eight high school biology teachers in the US teach creationism as a viable alternative to the theory of evolution:

The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2000 high-school science teachers across the US in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2% said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject. However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48% – about 12.5% of the total survey – said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".

We already knew that the plurality of Americans choose to believe in creationism, and that sort of willful disregard for science tends to make our country stand out in a crowd. But I was not at all prepared for the following:

When Berkman's team asked about the teachers' personal beliefs, about the same number, 16% of the total, said they believed human beings had been created by God within the last 10,000 years.

Please excuse me while I bang my head on the table.

This isn't the sort of creationism that Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, or even Michael Behe believe in. This is single-minded, full-steam ahead, Biblically-literal creationism we are talking about here.

I would like to think that this population is not evenly distributed. My best guess is that the creationists probably live in the areas designated in red.


(Images via Freewebs, and US News and World Report)

Boldt case appealed to the US Supreme Court

I thought this story was done with, since the Oregon Supreme court came up with a relatively sane finding. But it turns out that one of the litigants wants this case to go on:

A divorced father who wants to circumcise his 13-year-old son against the wishes of the boy's mother is trying to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. James Boldt, who converted to Judaism, argues that preventing him from circumcising his son violates his constitutional right to practice his religion.

...

Earlier this year, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge should determine what the boy wants. Boldt's ex-wife, Lia, a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, says her son doesn't want the procedure but is afraid to tell his father.

The trial court needs to find out what the boy wants, but they don't even have to go along with the boy's wishes. The boy could adamantly proclaim he does not want to be circumcised and the trial court could still say, "Too bad." So why would the father want to appeal this decision? I believe for the very reason that one of the commenters posted:

If, as the father asserts, M wanted to be circumcised then this would be only one or two more days in a local court. The fact that the father took this route indicates to me that it is proabably the case that M isn't too interested in getting circumcised and the father is looking for a judgment that does not involve getting his son's opinion. He is basing his opinion on the notion that it is his first amendment right (freedom of religion) to circumcise his minor child without regard to his age or opinion and his fourteenth amendment right to due process (I am not yet sure how that claim fits).

This conjures up some interesting imagery of a teenage boy resiting his father and perhaps the doctor as they strap him to a gurney, drug him, and circumcise him. Religion or no to me this sounds like aggregate assault. But maybe not here in the good ol US.

Colorado "personhood" ammendment to be on fall ballot

Colorado may be taking a big step toward becoming the next battleground of the pro-choice/anti-abortion forces, at least if Colorado for Equal Rights has its way. They have collected over 130,000 signatures to place a petition on the ballot this fall that would alter the state constitution to define a person as any fertilized human egg.

The amendment, if approved by voters, would guarantee every person, whatever their stage of life, the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law — laying the legal foundation to challenge legal abortion.

Such a definition has greater implications than just abortion, though.

Critics of the Colorado proposal said it is so vaguely worded that consequences are difficult to predict.

"This amendment could make abortion illegal, even in cases of rape, incest, or when the life or health of a woman is at risk," said Toni Panetta, spokeswoman for an opposing coalition — Protect Families, Protect Choice.

"It may encroach on everything from birth control to stem-cell research to inheritance rights," Panetta said.

And any one of a hundred other things people could think of. For example, fertility clinics (as well as their clients) might be charged with murder for disposing of unwanted frozen embryos. Or how about negligent homicide if someone accidental unplugs the freezer, sending hundreds of "persons" to their deaths. Pregnant mothers might be charged with abuse for not taking their prenatal vitamins. Every miscarriage might be investigated for evidence of foul play.

To me this seems a bit silly as the US Constitution supersedes state constitutions in these matters, and so far as a know the US Constitution only talks about the rights of those who are born, not conceived. Of course, I am not a lawyer, so that is just my simple interpretation of things.

(image via NDP teachers)

Blogs on this:

RH Reality Check

Editorializing the Editors

Christian News Journal

The Miseducation of Glenn Beck

CNN's Headline News stopped being my goto news when they changed their format; I guess the simplicity of a 30 minute newscast twice an hour around the clock wasn't profitable. But what really made me shy away from them was their appropriation of the Fox News model and the hiring of Glenn Beck. Why? Because he says things like this.

The top five college and university endowments reported a combined value of over $100 billion at the end of 2007. That's five funds, a hundred billion in cash. Not a nickel in tax. Not an ounce of outrage.

Harvard University, which has the largest endowment in the country, has a total of $34.6 billion. To put into perspective just how much money that is, consider that the largest charitable foundation in the world, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has a total endowment of $37.3 billion.

But while their financial statements may look similar, their missions aren't. The Gates Foundation is working to cure malaria, develop new tuberculosis vaccines, and stop the spread of AIDS. Most of our colleges and universities are only working to spread the radical political views of some of their professors.

Yes, it's not like Harvard is educating thousands of young people every year, or providing economic stability to the city of Boston, or producing a slew of Nobel Prize winners. No, all they do is spread radical political views. Nope, they aren't trying to stop the spread of AIDS. Oh wait, yes they are. They have a whole institute devoted to AIDS research.

But wait, there's more:

For what's been estimated to be about $300 million a year (less than 1 percent of their endowment's value) Harvard could completely waive tuition, room and board for every single one of their students. Instead, they announced an increase in those fees of about 3.5 percent for next year. Being a student at Harvard will now cost a staggering $47,215 a year.

Doesn't Harvard know how many millions of Americans are struggling to afford college? Don't they want to pay their fair share and help those who are less fortunate?

Yes, they do. Which is precisely why Harvard has changed their financial aid rules such that families with incomes under $60,000 are not expected to contribute to their child's education.

But Glenn Beck seems to lack the basic knowledge of how endowments work:

What I do have a problem with -- and it's a big one -- is how Harvard spends that money. Or, maybe it would be more accurate to say how Harvard, doesn't spend that money.

Schools with large endowments (at least $500 million) reported spending an average of 4.4 percent of their stockpiles in 2007. Meanwhile, those same schools made an average of over 19 percent on their money.

And often, schools have no control over that money. Endowments are often set up such that a small percentage of the available income/earned interest can be used for very prescribed expenses. To spend more than the allotted amount would require approval, often from someone other than the school administration. To redirect funds is also often verboten. Harvard simply does not have as much control over its money as Mr. Beck thinks.

If Glenn Beck wants to talk about tax-exempt organizations that don't do much good with their wealth perhaps he should also take on some other targets. Like, let's say, religious institutions.

(image via National Association of Broadcasters)

I assume it comes with maple syrup and canadian bacon

I thought it was just our government that did stupid crap like this but apparently Canada also has a governement sponsored National Prayer Breakfast, to be held today. While this event is non-denominational, just as the American version ostensibly is, there are some who complain that it is too Christian-centered. And how can you blame them when the chairing MP says stuff like this:

"The object of the prayer breakfast is to gather in the spirit of Jesus Christ, and pray together," said Conservative MP David Anderson (Cypress Hills-Grasslands, Sask.), who is the event's chair this year.

The article then goes on to quote a few non-Christian MP's who are not bothered by the Christian emphasis of the proceedings. However, the feelings of legislators don't always square with their constituents:

Though the interest in the National Prayer Breakfast is such that organizers had to seek out a larger venue, a 2006 Ipsos Reid poll conducted shortly after the Conservative government was elected, indicated that Canadians are becoming increasingly uncomfortable mixing religion and politics.

The poll, conducted for CanWest News Service, revealed Canadians would be more open to voting for a party led by a Muslim or atheist than one led by an evangelical Christian.

In 1996, 80 per cent said they would vote for a potential prime minister who is an evangelical, however that number dropped to only 63 per cent of Canadians in 2006. Sixty-eight per cent said they would vote for a leader who is Muslim or atheist, down from 74 per cent and 72 per cent, respectively, in 1996.

Which I think only shows that Canadians are uncomfortable with elected officials who define themselves by their religion, whatever that religion may be. To which I can only reply one way.

How reasonable.

(image via Pancakes for Jesus)

Bush government attempts to limit testing of food supply

Creekstone Farms is one of the many beef producers who have recently made a push toward 'natural beef', which in their case means no hormones, no anti-biotics, and a vegetarian diet (1). To further assure their customers that beef produced at Creekstone is safe, they want to test 100% of their cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (i.e. mad cow disease), a big improvement over the 1% testing rate that the USDA has. Great, a food supplier who is concerned not only about food quality but food safety; so much so that they want to voluntarily, and with their own money, go above and beyond the required testing mandates. You would think the USDA would be all over that. Turns out, not so much:

The Bush administration on Friday urged a federal appeals court to stop meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease, but a skeptical judge questioned whether the government has that authority.

The government seeks to reverse a lower court ruling that allowed Kansas-based Creekstone Farms Premium Beef to conduct more comprehensive testing to satisfy demand from overseas customers in Japan and elsewhere.

Their reasoning is that testing may create false positives that would hurt consumer confidence. I do see the point; but given that the only ones harmed by this would be the owners of Creekstone (who would lose business as a result of a false positive), and that a retest would be relatively easy, it seems that there may be other motives.

Larger meatpackers have opposed Creekstone's push to allow wider testing out of fear that consumer pressure would force them to begin testing all animals too. Increased testing would raise the price of meat by a few cents per pound.

Once again, 'big food' has worked hard to make the price of foodstuffs artificially low, and they would like to keep it that way.

(image via Manishin; story via Tree Hugger)

Blogs on this:
YumSugar
Crooks and Liars
Loaded Dice

(1) Their cattle are corn fed, not grass fed, but I guess you can't have everything.

Jane Stewart honored

Recently Jane Stewart was honored by her institution for 45 years of scientific research.

The event was organized by Harriet de Wit, a 1981 PhD who is now a professor at the University of Chicago. “Dr. Stewart is one of the most creative and respected scientists in the area of behavioral neuroscience,” de Wit wrote us by email. “Her contributions include original ideas as well as rigorous experimental research on a wide range of topics. “In addition to her scientific and educational achievements, she is a warm, enthusiastic and engaging person who has touched the lives of all of us through her friendship and sense of humour.”

Dr. Stewart has had a lasting impact on learning theory, especially as it pertains to drugs of abuse. Anyone who knows her and her work realizes how deserving she is of such recognition.

(image via Concordia Magazine)

Science a high school graduate should know

Hooked on Science has a list of ten science questions that every high school graduate should be able to answer. I would have gotten full or at least partial credit on nine of them. The only one that I was clearly wrong on:

9. How old are the oldest fossils on earth?

I was off by about 2 billion years.

On Guerrilla Gardening

DISCLAIMER: The following post talks about behavior that, while victimless, may technically not be legal where you live. Tantalus Prime does not condone breaking the law and is providing this information solely for dissemination purposes.

Tree Hugger has posted about a topic I had never heard about: Guerrilla Gardening. Many cities have vacant lots, abandoned homes, and untended parks that have become overgrown with weeds, shrubs, or, worse yet, remain infertile patches of earth. Enter the guerrilla gardener who co-opts these areas either for food production or beautification purposes. And apparently there is a handbook on how to do it well.

(image via Yiyan)

Freshwater case creates hostile student body

Previously, I had commented on the John Freshwater case at Mount Vernon Middle School in Ohio. Briefly, Mr. Freshwater, a science teacher, had a Bible on his desk, was asked to remove it by the administration, and refused. Members of the community came out in support of him. His refusal may seem innocuous, but later on, we found out that Mr. Freshwater also posted the Ten Commandments, proselytized to his students, and branded (1) his students with the sign of the cross.

As if Mr. Freshwater hasn't been causing enough trouble with his behavior, his refusal to back down is exposing the extreme religious intolerance of some members of the Mount Vernon student body:

"My daughter Arie told me about a Jewish child who brought his Torah to school when other students brought Bibles in support of Freshwater,” [Beth Murdoch] continued. “He thought he was supporting freedom of religious expression, and the other kids just ripped him apart. ‘What are you doing?’ they asked. ‘You can’t support Mr. Freshwater, you’re Jewish.’ So they don’t get it.

“I don’t think people realize the depth of what’s going on between the students. It’s a mob mentality right now. It’s peer pressure. To not wear a T-shirt and to not bring your Bible when they say bring your Bible and wear a T-shirt, you’re asking for trouble.”

Murdoch said one of Arie’s friends wore a T-shirt to school that read, “I don’t need to wear a special T-shirt to be a Christian.” That individual was reportedly pushed into the lockers and called a “stupid atheist b****.”

Love thy neighbor indeed.

Certainly this isn't Mr. Freshwater's fault; his case simply brought a bubbling torrent of anger to the surface. It would be all too easy to blame this intolerance on the Christian religion; but that would be as crazy as, say, blaming Darwin for the Holocaust. The students responsible for such behavior are not doing it because of their religion, but in spite of their religion.

Nevertheless, the anger is there; and I think we know from whence it comes.

(1) Yes, branded. Hot metal, human flesh. That sort of branding.

Schlafly gains degree; Washington University loses respect

A certain sign that you don't go to a real school is when you have some B level celebrity, say Chuck Norris, give your commencement address. Another is when you give an honorary degree to Phyliss Schlafly.

Most of the graduating seniors at Washington University in St. Louis weren’t even born when Phyllis Schlafly led the successful campaign in the 1970s to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. But they will get to learn about her at commencement ceremonies next week when the university awards her a doctorate of humane letters.

Most people who know of Ms. Sclafly know that she is extremely anti-women. What you may not not know is that she is also extremely anti-science.

Next time I see my brother, I will have to let him know that his alma mater doesn't take education very seriously anymore.

(thanks to The Opinion Mill; image via WU Math Department)

Blogs on this:

John's Blog: The Rantings of a Conservative

Rustbelt Intellectual

Dean's World

WU Student Life Blogs

Get this song out of my head

I got an earworm after watching Juno, and now I can't get this Sonic Youth song out of my head. Plus, I'm a sucker for covers; especially covers of sappy AM Gold standards like the Carpenter's "Superstar".

Seeking book recommendations for a budding neuroscientist

Ah, the joy of a first year neuroscience graduate student. Currently I am going through rotations, my second lab rotation to be precise. I still haven't decided which lab I will do my third rotation through, or even if I will do a third rotation. I must say that this is different from when I did graduate school 1.0, which was in a psychology program. The philosophy of all the psychology programs I have seen is "If you don't know what lab you want to work in, don't even bother applying." But, there we are.

Anyway, I realized following one of my recent posts that I, to my embarrassment, have never read The Logic of Scientific Discovery. While not a necessity, it would probably be a good idea to read the book that has become the basis of all modern scientific investigation. Also, I have a copy of The Art of Electronics that I should look through. And The Axon Guide would be good to at least thumb through. But beyond that, I haven't really thought of any other books I should be looking at.

I'm not thinking popularized books like Descartes's Error or Brainstorming (which are both fine books) but more like the seminal and/or technically informative books listed above. Feel free to e-mail suggestions or post them as a comment.