Array I would like to thank all the sponsors and everyone that has cheered us on and gave a little of their hearts to this 25th Anniversary Expedition.All good things…David KrinerSponsors for the 25th Anniversary Salmon River Float are:ISU Outdoor ProgramISU Student Unions &
link
-ne Owen Jay Rosswas born June 23, 1954,died September 30, 2000.He’d have been 52 today.Does he read my blog?
link
PZ subjected himself to the ordeal of reading the anti-evolution chapters in Godless, the new book by right-wing demagogue Ann Coulter. Coulter decided to enlist in the evolution wars on the side of the creationists and PZ thought it reasonable to dissect her arguments. Let me explain what is not an appropriate reply:Cackling that Coulter must be right because she’s got “liberal panties in a twist” is not cogent.Promising to pray for me, or assuring me that I will burn in hell, is not cogent.Explicit details about how Ann Coulter is sexier than “fat harry hippie jew girls” Ann Coulter has written this long book full of creationist gobbledygook. I can’t possibly take the whole thing apart, so I’m asking the Coulter fans to get specific in their support. I’ll reply with details of my disagreement (or heck, maybe you’ll find some innocuous paragraph that I agree with—I’ll mention that here, too.)Because the letters I am getting suggest that those fans have some comprehension problems, I’ll spell it out.Read Coulter’s book, Godless. I’m finding that Coulter fans are fervent and enthusiastic and insistent, so asking them to take baby steps with me and show me the simplest first fragments that will lead to my comprehension of the wit and insight of the faboo Ms Coulter shouldn’t be too much to ask.PZ’s clarification was just what the doctor ordered. The results were practically instantaneous and virtually miraculous (not actually miraculous, because there’s no such things as miracles—except possibly for the fact that Coulter still has any credibility left):Coulter Challenge status, day 4Official number of attempts to address my challenge of the science in Coulter’s book:0I seem to have drawn in one Coulter fan in the comments who can’t shut up, but he hasn’t got the guts to stand up for anything specific that she has said.As you can see, PZ was essentially correct when he surmised that the conditions of his challenge were too restrictive. June 20, 2006 08:38 PMHas everyone seen the footage of Coulter running, arms akimbo, hands flapping in fear, away from that thrown pie? June 20, 2006 09:08 PMWord is they’re busy setting up research on how to count beyond three.To be fair, you know, the Coulterites are very, very devout. While Tumbler has a point about the value of invective when it comes to making an argument, he has entirely missed the key fact that Coulter’s diatribe had already been demolished by PZ. and welcome to the Internet), or are you saying the because goofballs from around the world say goofy things nobody has provided any real criticism of Ann Coulter? June 21, 2006 02:08 AMZeno:I know you went to Caltech and all, so I feel compelled to clear this up:We deliver kegs on every store within two miles of campus (including stationers and TV repair places): Party School.30-year-old D&D games continuing under Fleming: not so much.Posted by: Llelldorin | Coulter quotes Mein Kampf, that absolutely does not mean she has read it. June 21, 2006 09:46 AMI’m sure I have the greatest respect for Ann Coulter
:-) ; June 21, 2006 11:33 PMThey’ll defend my right to say something when they really hate what I say. June 22, 2006 12:53 AMAs one might have expected by now, Tumbler insisted on missing the point of my remark about my defense of his right to prate nonsense. But it’s enough for now to say, “That’s Coulter, I agree.” conducted by, of all musicians, a German born in the late 30’s.Anyway, Coulter and I do not deserve being associated with Hitler’s or Mussolini’s crimes. June 22, 2006 11:10 AMI most certainly did not associate you with Hitler, tumbler, and I would advise you to be very careful how personal that you decide to get in this forum.Posted by: Kristine | he was never aggressive or antagonistic with Ann Coulter. Considering that England is much more a reader’s country than ours, where nobody likes anything but bodice-busters—the public will appreciate Coulter. All he says is, “Maybe they would not have gone along with genocide, but it’s easy to imagine Coulter in an earlier day gushing over parades of those ‘wholesome’ That’s Coulter.”You know it’s a weasel’s way of defaming Coulter and her “ilk”—as others around here say—as Neo-Nazis. I mention him rather than Coulter only because I don’t have any handy citations from her comparing Iraq war opponents to Chamberlain, whereas it was a well known part of Miller’s schtick.Speaking of what the first amendment actually does as opposed to what you think it does, its effect is to keep Miller safe from any repercussions to making this kind of “association” The first amendment is not a scapular that one wears to ward off those pesky demagogues, but a very brave declaration that rights will be upheld even when they cause us inconvenience.Obviously, neither you nor Coulter is responsible for the rise of Hitler. For that matter, I think very few people that have ever lived (including Ann Coulter) would be able to countenance Hitler’s crimes with full understanding. The fact that Coulter, myself, and probably you were not alive at the time is sufficient protection.Note: there were many foolish people on the left who admired Stalin and were willing to soft-pedal the atrocity that was China’s cultural revolution under Mao. Oddly, that doesn’t seem to stop Coulter from somehow linking everything she does not like to “Darwinism” If you conceded such a trait to me, you’d be half-way to understanding Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter is also entitled. I’m amused at Coulter stating balls-out, “Invade their countries, kill and conquer and convert them to Christianity …” But they AREN’T amusing, as Ann Coulter is amusing. June 22, 2006 12:55 PMAll good things must come to an end—bad things, tooAlthough Tumbler had poured many, many words into the comment thread (I haven’t even included all of them here in these excerpts!), people at PZ’s blog are mostly smart enough to notice when we’re getting lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.It seems to me this thread has strayed very far from PZ’s original intent; he wants a Coulter fan (that eliminates me) to offer up a passage from chapters 8-11, and then show why he/she supports said passage.Here’s your opportunity, tumbler. I humbly suggest that you have your chance, right here and now, to show us.I cannot do so, because in spite of reading 10 or so books a year, I refuse to buy a Coulter book.Let’s right this ship and allow tumbler to defend Coulter in the manner PZ described. you are making random noises.If you haven’t read Coulter’s book, shut up. June 22, 2006 07:48 PMBloodied, but unbowed, Tumbler continued to talk past everyone who tried to discuss things with him. June 22, 2006 11:58 PMGee, what exactly did Tumbler think he was offering? At last count, the Coulter Challenge status, day 4 post has 180 comments, with Tumbler still in excellent form for dodge-ball.
link
-ne (Originally posted at the Oikos blog)The recent debate over the decision by the Australian Environment Minister to refuse consent to a wind farm because of its possible impacts on the endangered orange-bellied parrot has prompted me to say a few things about Australiaâs primary piece of environmental legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act).In case you missed the story, orange-bellied parrots are highly endangered, with less than 200 left in the wild. That is what some people have suggested this decision is really about and it is interesting that the Environment Minister has recently called for a national code on wind energy.Inappropriate for cumulative impactsAn interesting aspect of this decision is that the Environment Minister has refused the proposed 52-turbine windfarm at Bald Hills but has approved substantially larger projects nearby â including one that, according to the Age article (and presumably under the curious licensing scheme of the Act), he has expressly authorised to kill three of the parrots each year.The Minister has claimed that it is precisely because he has approved these other projects that he canât approve this one:The orange-bellied parrot was at such dangerously low levels in terms of population that any additional wind farm in this particular area would have an impact on the survival of the species. That has cumulatively a new impact on the environment which we have for the first time sought to assess.Interestingly, and contrary to every media report that Iâve seen, the report on impacts did not say that the Bald Hills windfarm could kill up to one parrot per year, it said that, in total, all existing and proposed windfarms in Victoria and Tasmania could kill up to one parrot per year.
link
-ne
Todayâs subject is bad governance coupled with bad journalism.Peter Baker of the âWashington Post,â has written an article giving wind and wings to (p)resident Bushâs hypocrisy.w. was in Missouri yesterday under the pretense of pulling Sen. James Talent (r) chestnuts out of the electoral fire. Talentâs in trouble and Bush thinks by showing up there and accusing the Democrats of surrender on Iraq, this guy will hold his seat.If the people of Missouriâs voting track record in recent elections is any indication, he may be right.And that would be a shame.Hereâs Bush, who put himself before another crowd of flagwaving idiots so that he could get another gratuitous standing ovation: âThereâs a group in the opposition party who are willing to retreat before the mission is done,â Baker dutifully reports. âTheyâre willing to wave the white flag of surrender. And if they succeed, the United States will be worse off, and the world would be worse off.âYep, things here and abroad are certainly a lot BETTER than before we invaded Iraq.Hereâs some more for that article: âBushâs tone has turned tougher as he appears at more political events [since thereâs nothing to do in Washington]. At a Washington fundraiser this month, he said it was important lawmakers ânot wave the white flag of surrenderâ without asserting that any of them were actually doing so. In his appearance in a St. Louis suburb, he said directly that some Democrats want to surrender, adopting the more cutting approach of his senior political adviser, Karl Rove.Bush also took the media to task for writing about he and Snoopy Cheneyâs precious spooky programs.But he better be careful because the U.S. Supreme Court he normally gets rubber stamped from just delivered a stunning rebuke to his obviously illegal military tribunals plan for the people he has illegally detained at Guantanamo Base, Gitmo, Cuba Linda.Of course, everyone knows Bush is full of shit with a âtrustworthyâ poll rating in the dumps.Whatâs annoying is the report by Baker, and this undercooked filet by Matt Spetalnick of Reuters, amplifying whatever the (p)resident, says sans critique or an opposing point of view.What Baker and Spetalnick did not mention in their stories is the fact General George Casey, the highest ranking military guy in Iraq, made a presentation at the White House detailing a pull-out plan last week. No less than the The New York Times, reported on it, but neither scribe saw fit to point it out or use them to contrast Bushâs fightinâ words.WBAIâs âWake Up Callâ did give voice to California Sen. Barbara Boxer (D), who noted that the plan presented by Casey resembled that offered up by the Democrats and which Bush is now seeking to make hay out by doing his favorite thing, calling himself COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF a lot, and painting the Democrats as pinko-cowards.So the scribe wrote Baker today, thanks to the great device that allows readers and bloggers to communicate with reporters who are shoveling drivel at them. Hereâs what it said.âMr. Baker,I’m ready to blog-spank you. This report is incomplete and fails to take note of the president’s hypocrisy. You and I know both know the military in Iraq has been putting together a plan for withdrawal that would achieve the same thing the Dems plan would.When you dutifully report the president’s every utterance, without contrasting and balancing information, you’re serving as his bullhorn, not as a journalist.
link
Read the rest of this entry »