Huperborea

Paul Myers, a pissant biologist (redundant, I know) from a podunk university, writes of Nobel Laureate physicist Charles Townes

"Pious frauds are a dime a dozen, but pious frauds who have won a Nobel prize? They're worth a million and a half dollars."

The unmitigated temerity of Myers is appalling. Myers, a contemptible worm of a man who lives (and who will die) in obscurity and whose research and a dime would not get me a gumball from a gumball machine dares question the integrity of a great scientist who has contributed to the world in a substantive way (something of which Myers is incapable). Such is the mark of small men with small minds.

David:

Paul Myers is a pseudo-intellect and a coward. He surrounds himself with vapid "me too" sycophants because he can't weather an argument by himself. He is fortunate that I am not a student at his backwater university; if I were I would wither his sorry ass with a glance.

Killer crocodile snared in Uganda

Too bad they didn't capture it in time for the Democratic Convention.

Bush names new EPA head

I really hope Stephen Johnson does a better job as EPA head than Whitman or shill Mike Leavitt (I was really hoping for shill Gale Norton to get the boot during Bush's cabinet reshuffling, but that was wishful thinking).

On his blog, lawyer Kip Esquire writes:

Herein lies the (not at all difficult) distinction between same-sex marriage and polygamy. Marriage by its nature qua legal status must, in a modern society, be limited to two people. A hypothetical polygamous "marriage" qua bundle of hypothetical contracts might be feasible in some hypothetical libertarian utopia. But that is not marriage as it exists, legally, in America today. The only way to validate "polygamous marriage" is to rewrite the fundamental definition, the fundamental nature, of marriage itself -- to blank out its nature as a legal status and replace it with some fictitious "bundle of contracts" doppelgaenger. But to do so reduces the whole debate down to mere question-begging. Which is not helpful.

I agree, except for the following minor emendations:


Herein lies the (not at all difficult) distinction between...marriage and [gay "marriage"]. Marriage by its nature qua legal status must, in a modern society, be limited to [one man and one woman]. A hypothetical..."marriage" [sans mores maiorum and Natural Law (as is necessarily the case with gay "marriage")] might be feasible in some hypothetical libertarian [anarcho-syndicate]. But that is not marriage as it exists, legally, in America today. The only way to validate "[gay] marriage" is to rewrite the fundamental definition, the fundamental nature, of marriage itself -- to blank out its nature as a legal status and replace it with some fictitious...[doppelgänger]. But to do so reduces the whole debate down to mere question-begging. Which is not helpful.

Jon Rowe writes:

My statement refers to the main policy reason why we presently keep polygamy outlawed.

No, it refers to why you think polygamy ought to be outlawed. It has nothing to do with why it is presently outlawed (I am confident that it remains outlawed because it does not comport with the moral sensibilities of the folks in government and the average American).

If all we had to go upon was religious superstition of a bygone era that viewed polygamy as a "relic of barbarism," then such laws rightly should be repealed.

There is no "religious superstition" involved in viewing polygamy as a relic of barbarism; that is exactly what it is, and proscribing it is a mark of evolved sensibilities.

This is why we bring up the miscegenation analogy, because the same logic to which you refer -- a "relic of barbarism" that offended the Christian sensibilities of the Congress, the President, and the average American -- also criminalized interracial couplings.

Reference to miscegenation laws is a red herring.

To repeat: My rationale goes to why we presently ought not to repeal anti-polygamy laws.

Right, but your rationale has nothing to do with the reality of anti-polygamy legislation, past or present.

"...the Christian ethos that inspired anti-polygamy legislation also exalts chastity/celibacy...."

Talk about an unnatural lifestyle!

Yes, unnatural in a good way (i.e., not yielding to one's visceral urges). By way of contrast, homoeroticism is antithetical to Natural Law and beneath human dignity.

From the page:

"The color photo was invented in 1903 by the Lumiere brothers, and the French army was the only one taking color photos during the course of the war."

Russell Durbin, a PT contributor known for his occasional magnanimity, posted the following in response to an article by one Steve Case, chairperson of the science writing committee of Kansas Citizens for Science, the relevant excerpt of which is reproduced below along with Russell's response:

...because of a felony conviction, [Jonathan Wells] would not be qualified to be a science teacher in Kansas.

I’m among the least likely to join a Wells fan club, but this is an outrageous red herring. Totally irrelevant. I believe the “crime” was refusal to fight in the Vietnam debacle.

I am not a fan of Jonathan Wells either, but I applaud Russell for calling Case on his attempted character assassination.

Ron McClamrock (and other losers) has been added to my "lost the good of the intellect list."

Warning! Prepare to be intellectually vitiated

Andrew Souza, the new city manager of Fresno, proclaimed his faith after he was introduced:

"I'd first like to begin with a couple of thank yous. First of all, my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. It's because of his presence in my life. It's really the reason why I'm here."

On his blog, atheist Brent Rasmussen had this to say about it:

"No one is saying that you cannot be a Christian. What I am saying is that you cannot endorse Christianity while you are speaking for the government. You are the city manager of Fresno. In one sense you are the city of Fresno when you are on the job. You must represent all of your citizens, not just the Christian ones. That's why that pesky little First Amendment thing was added to the Constitution - to prevent this situation. Perception is reality in the political sphere - and you just stepped in a big pile of reality.

You may be a great city manager for all I know, but your statement stinks of smug, Christian majority-think. You need to make this right."

To which I respond:

Nonsense. Thanking Jesus and informing the audience that his Christian ethos inspires him to serve the city of Fresno upon assuming his office does not remotely violate the First Amendment. It may make people like Brent feel uncomfortable, but that is irrelevant to the "constitutionality" of Mr. Souza's address.

This kind of opposition to traditional curriculum at UNC is the very thing I was trying to point out at biologist Paul "PZ" Myers' (btw, what do you call someone who can't cut it as a mathematician or a physical scientist? A biologist) blog where I stirred up the hornet's nest for having the unmitigated temerity to agree with a 700 Club commentator who mentioned that traditional curricula have been and are being displaced/replaced by leftist fluff (e.g., classes on queer "theory," witchcraft, pornography, etc.), citing my own experiences as a student while so doing.