• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Vol. XXVII, Issue 6November 23, 2005“That’ll happen on a nutyard pass.”
 
Page 2Current Events 
Kansas Board of Education Redefines Science.That’s Dumb.
ByAlexWalsh
 
The Kansas state Board of Educationrecently voted to approve a new set of scienceeducation standards, requiring teachers to tellstudents that evolution is not a fact, and thatdesign by an intelligent creator is an alterna-tive to the theory. The standards also officiallyredefine the word “science” itself, such that itis no longer limited to natural explanations of phenomena. At the same time, the Dover,Pennsylvania Board of Education is involved ina lawsuit concerning its requirement for teach-ers to read a prepared statement concerningevolution and to discuss Intelligent Design inclass. The Dover statement reads as follows:“Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it contin-ues to be tested as new evidence is discovered.The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theoryexist for which there is no evidence. A theory isdefined as a well-tested explanation that uni-fies a broad range of observations. IntelligentDesign is an explanation of the origin of lifethat differs from Darwin’s view.”Intelligent Design is the idea that cer-tain features of organisms are too complex tohave been generated by random mutations.According to supporters of ID, there had to havebeen a designer behind these structures. Theysay that Intelligent Design is a scientific expla-nation of the origin of life, and can account forthe state of nature just as well as Darwin’s the-ory of evolution. This view is being fought bypeople who are concerned that it is an attempt tobring teaching of religious beliefs into publicschools. Intelligent Design is nothing butCreationism masked with a thin coat of scientif-ic language to slip past the people who are sup-posed to catch that sort of thing. After all, whatcould the Designer referred to by ID be, apartfrom God? Teaching this idea in public schoolswould ultimately amount to government-spon-sored religious education, unless mention wasmade that life on Earth could be the result of careful design by aliens, super-intelligentrobots, or perhaps leprechauns. One must bewilling to accommodate “alternate points of view.”Regardless of the ID supporters’ claims,there is no scientific basis behind this expla-nation. This is evident when one looks at theirstrategy for advancing their cause. Most effortsto expand ID’s influence are targeted at politicsand education, not the scientific community.Proponents of intelligent design are so far fromthe mainstream of science that, for the mostpart, they don’t even try to convince their col-leagues. Alan Leshner, the head of the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science, oneof the leading organizations in the scientificcommunity, says that intelligent design is “noteven a theory.” Even Rev. George Coyne, thedirector of the Vatican Observatory told theANSA news agency that “Intelligent design isn’tscience even though it pretends to be.”According to the Associated Press, the high-ranking Catholic official said placing intelli-gent design theory alongside that of evolution inschool programs was wrong and was akin to mix-ing apples with oranges. Members of the Centerfor Science and Culture (CSC), a group whichcontains nearly all the “big names” in intelli-gent design, are often referred to as Wedge sci-entists because of their Wedge strategy, whichaims to separate science from atheistic natural-ism. According to Dr. Barbara Foster, a writerfor Natural History magazine, “Wedge scientistshave no empirical research program and, conse-quently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to supporttheir intelligent-design claims.”If Intelligent Design is based in science,as the school boards in Kansas and Dover seemto feel, why won’t its supporters work throughnormal scientific channels? The movementseems to feel that publicity is more importantthan credibility. By exaggerating the impor-tance of a few cases, manipulating the contro-versy-hungry media, and focusing on the large-ly uninformed public rather than scientists,they have established their position in theAmerican consciousness. The CSC’s “Teach theControversy” campaign seeks to portray evolu-tion as a theory in crisis, even though a vastmajority of scientists support evolutionary the-ory. The CSC produced a list of 100 scientistswho agreed to the statement “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation andnatural selection to account for the complexityof life. Careful examination of the evidenceforDarwinian theory should be encouraged.” TheAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science passed a resolution that “to date, the IDmovement has failed to offer credible scientificevidence to support their claim that ID under-mines the current scientifically accepted theo-ry of evolution.” The AAAS represents approx-imately 120,000 scientists.Quite a crisis.Intelligent Design is not science, andshould not be taught in science classrooms.Science is a rational process based on the scien-tific method, which uses evidence to formulateconclusions. ID theory starts with a conclusionand manipulates evidence to support it. Divinecreation has as much place in a biology class asBritish history, regardless of any claims of first-amendment rights or openness to alterna-tive ideas. If ID is allowed into public schools,how long will it be before other pseudo-scien-tific religious theories started to slip in on itsprecedent? Meaningful and accurate scienceeducation is absolutely necessary to maintainthe leading position America holds in scienceand technology development. Acceptance of Intelligent Design is a step back from this stan-dard. Kansas Board of Education member JanetWaugh said the Board’s decision made the state“a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world.” Without opposition to the spread of ID, the same could eventually be said for thewhole nation.
 “BRING YO A-GAME BITCH, CHECK” Courtesy of God’s loins
Politicians and companies are increas-ingly talking the talk when it comes to renew-able energy, using refined PR tactics and trite“eco-friendly” jargon here and there to appearto be steadily advancing something the vastmajority of us fully support. You’d think that,maybe, long-past-due progress in this area isbeginning to take hold, that institutional changeis finally beginning to reflect popular demand.But, that’s not what evidence suggests when youlook at the changes that are happening on a day-to-day basis, here on Long Island and every-where. It’s not news that the rosy scenario por-trayed by ads and public statements is meantprimarily to pacify and mold opinion, not toreflect reality. LIPA and its affiliates are noexception. Just take a look at LIPA’s website,http://www.lipower.org. There’s a lot about“green choices,” conservation, “clean” energy,and so on. Or Caithness Energy, LLC, whosemain PR claim is that they are one of thenation’s largest renewable energy producers.The issues, events and decisions the publictends not to hear about, at least, until it’s toolate to do anything about it, comprise that whichwill actually impact us, and therefore, thatwhich these companies would rather not have ussee. That is, until it can be spun in a way thatpeople will begin to say “well, of course we needenergy,” even when that’s not the issue. Thisdisconnect is an extremely serious issue withdire consequences, especially on the local level.Unfortunately for LIPA and Caithness,the proposal to build the Island’s largest fossil-fuel power plant in decades, in Yaphank, isn’texactly being met with the public opinion thatwas their strategic aim (partly because thereisn’t much public knowledge on which to
base
any opinion). Unfortunately for the rest of us,and for the continued hope that the institutionswith the sway will, by their very nature, ever besignificantly, genuinely interested in takingthe offense on initiatives that produce solidresults in the best interest of the people of LongIsland (and not just their bottom line), it’sprobably too late to galvanize any effectiveopposition. And, if it comes as a surprise that alarge fossil-fuel power plant is scheduled to bebuilt in January in the middle of BrookhavenTown, it seems they’ve done their job.But why would the construction of afacility that would generate “much needed”electricity to Long Island need to proceed withminimal public outreach on the part of LIPA,and why would consent need to be largely man-ufactured?First and foremost are the obvious envi-ronmental reasons, especially for the neighbor-ing communities, who will see around 450 tonsof various chemical oxides, 15 tons of SulfuricAcid, and 63 tons of VOC emitted annually, to
LIPA’s Hypocrisy
ByBrianWasserContinued on page 5
 
Page 3 Current Events 
If Pat Robertson has a problem with rain-bows, he should talk to his God, the one who gavethe rainbow to Noah as a sign that He will neverdestroy the earth by floodagain. What a joke: right-wing religious threats arebeing made because intellec-tuals prefer scientific evi-dence to religious supersti-tion. The intelligent designtheory has been rejected inDover, Pennsylvania – reject-ed, perhaps due to lack of evidence. Belief in an intel-ligent designer of the uni-verse, even belief in anysupernatural deity, requiresfaith, and faith is a force thatexists without evidence.Intellectuals, and especiallyscientists, like evidence.Just having faith in some-thing does not make it true.For example, I can have all the faith in the worldthat the earth is flat, something our religiouspredecessors believed, but there has since beenrevealed evidence to oppose this narrow view-point. If science is controlled by religion,false presuppositions are likely to reappear inhigh school and college curriculums.It frightens me to recall that Robertsonwas once a presidential candi-date. This is a person whoputs fear into people usingmethods of religious intimi-dation: “If there is a disasterin your area, don’t turn to God,you just rejected Him fromyour city,” warns Robertson.“Don’t wonder why He hasn’thelped you when problemsbegin...Don’t ask for helpbecause he might not bethere.”Robertson’s statementsmake me wonder what sort of higher connections he thinksthat he has; he apparentlypresumes to know the mind of God. Robertson has given thegood people of America, aswell as citizens of other nations (since thesestatements were aired on
The 700 Club
), animage of an uncaring, heartless, ruthless,uncompassionate higher deity, who punishesinnocent human beings for thinking rationally.Pardon me, all fundamental right-wingers, butthis is not the sort of God that America wants torecognize – especially not Liberal America!According to an article by Alan Elsner,televangelist Robertson warns towns of God’swrath (accessible via news.yahoo.com). “In1998,Robertson warned the city of Orlando, Floridathat it risked hurricanes, earthquakes and ter-rorist bombs after it allowed homosexual organ-izations to put up rainbow flags in support of sexual diversity.” If Robertson has difficultyaccepting a diverse and colorful United States of America, one which includes racial, gender,religious and sexual differences, he has nobusiness attempting to represent, in his run forpresidential candidacy, a nation whose peopleare a fusion of such contrasting lifestyles.These differences are what make America beau-tiful, just like the rainbow to which Robertsonis so opposed.The homosexual community seems toembrace the signs from God, like the rainbow, abit more than Robertson does. Since theseorganizations, who show their rainbows proud-ly, frighten and intimidate Robertson, he shouldtake the issue up with his intelligent designer.
No Pat On the Back 
ByRachelEagleReiter
It’s funny how something you see con-nects in your brain to something else that’sseemingly so very different from what you say.Our brain makes interesting analogies, I guess.Last week I went to see
Good Night, and Good Luck 
, the movie detailing Edward R.Murrow’s standoff with Commie-obsessedSenator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. As I wasgoing home, you would think I was thinkingabout how great a newsman Murrow was, or howdifferent journalism was in those days (Murrowsmoked cigarettes on the air!), or how much of aschmuck McCarthy was.But no, I was thinking about torture.Many people have interpreted the moviein terms of Murrow’s profession – an ode to atime when journalism wasn’t about flashinggraphics and rising decibel levels – and to theextent that director George Clooney wished toaccentuate these points by the almost claustro-phobic on-air environment and Murrow’s steelydelivery, they would be right. But a deeper con-text lies within the battle between McCarthyand Murrow itself.Senator Joseph McCarthy believed thatsafety and strength were this country’s mostimportant attributes. He thought that to pre-serve American ideals, he had to break a feweggs, and intrude on a few people’s freedoms.He believed that anything,
anything
was okay aslong as it kept America safe from Communism.Murrow rejected that. He felt thatAmerican ideals were not things to be aban-doned in times of convenience or beliefs thatcould be ignored in the name of prosperity,safety or strength.Of course, using this as a foundation,you could probably talk about anything fromthe Patriot Act to the rise of multi-global soul-sucking corporations and everything inbetween. But I wish to focus on torture, becauseit is as blatant a violation of American ideals of human rights as it is disturbing and harmful tothis country.Torture, which for these purposes willbe defined as the infliction of severe physicalor psychological pain as a tool for (among otherthings) the extraction of information or confes-sions, is considered to be an violation of humanrights by all but the most violent warlords anddictators, and there are treaties upon treatieson file that pledge that prisoners of war wouldnot be tortured. It’s also unreliable, as peoplewill sometimes say anything to stop the pain (ina recent article, John McCain recalled that, tostop the torture inflicted on him by hisVietnamese captors, he told them the names of the Green Bay Packers’ offensive line, knowingthat would be enough to get them to stop). It issick and inhumane and wrong by any standard.And yet, Bush administration officialshave not only justified torture as an interroga-tion tactic, but have, over the past severalmonths, fought harder to allow torture than theyhave fought for any other policy initiative of any kind.It says volumes about our leaders thatthey are so hell-bent on finding ways to makethe use of an interrogation technique they
know
to be immoral and unreliable palatable toAmericans. They have consistently attemptedto use loopholes and semantics (oh, they’re notprisoners of war, they’re enemy combatants) tomake torture seem okay. They have consistent-ly attempted to justify their actions toAmericans by saying “well, if it was your fam-ily in danger, wouldn’t you do it?” which is notonly shamelessly manipulative but attempts toapply moral relativism to an idea whoseimmorality is absolute – yeah, I might torturesomeone to save my family, but that doesn’tmake it morally right, and America is supposedto ascribe to ideals which are far above andbeyond that of a 25-year old Brooklyn journal-ist. Perhaps most heinously, they have takenperhaps the greatest achievement in the historyof the United Nations and attempted to put inthe trash through the continued hiring of attor-neys who spend days and nights trying to figureout how to make the Geneva Convention treatynot apply to us. And why? Because, just likeMcCarthy, anything,
anything
is okay as long asit keeps us safe and strong.Just like McCarthy’s Commie fetish didirreparable harm to so many in his crosshairsand made the country a laughingstock abroad,Bush and Cheney’s torture fetish harmsAmerica much more than it helps it. Using tor-ture no longer allows the United States to claimthe moral high ground, meaning it harms foreignpolicy initiatives (such as China recentlytelling us that we aren’t in any position to lec-ture them on human rights violations), and givesother nations
carte blanche
to torture U.S.Armed Forces men that they capture in this waror any future wars. Not to mention the psycho-logical harm that is often inflicted not just onthose who receive torture, but those who deliv-er it. And, to top it all off, news of the tortureof enemy combatants harms the ability of theUnited States to present itself as the good guysto the millions of Middle Eastern men andwomen debating whether or not they shouldstrap on some dynamite and walk to a crowdedsquare – or worse. All this, again, for an inter-rogation tactic of debatable usefulness andundeniable immorality.An apologist might say that, becausetheir hearts are in the right place and they wantto keep us safe, they shouldn’t be looked uponas being evil people. Funny; McCarthy’s heartwas also in the right place and people think hewas evil. A fearful person might say that theiractions are necessary because they fear a situ-ation like one that happened around this time of year four years ago. I hope that I have demon-strated to you that the use of torture exacer-bates that situation more than it prevents it.So don’t give the Bush administration the luxu-ry of a free pass. Do as Murrow did: take astand, and make it public. This is more impor-tant than the Patriot Act, more important thanValerie Plame, secondary only to the war itself,and even those who believe the war is justshould take a stand against what is with ques-tion a trashing of the American ideal thateveryone, no matter how depraved or sociopath-ic, will never be treated as nothing less than ahuman being. To quote Murrow, the continuedefforts by George Bush to condone torture “havecaused alarm and dismay amongst our alliesabroad, and given considerable comfort to ourenemies.”
We Will Not Walk In Fear Of One Another
ByPizdaHuyova
EVIL, SO VERY OLD,Courtesy of his mom’s virgin vag
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...