Category Archives: NADA – New American Dark Ages

New American Dark Ages

Dump Duhbya

Carter had quite a list of grievances against Bush

Changing the Subject — Back

Jimmy Carter Speaks

The former president is on a book tour, and visited with Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show this morning.

“In the last five years, there has been a profound and radical change in the basic policies or moral values of our

country,” Carter said. The existence of secret CIA prisons, as exposed by The Post, “is just one indication of what has been

done in this administration to change policies that have persisted all the way through our history,” he said. …

Carter had quite

a list of grievances against Bush. The “insistence by our government that the CIA or others have the right to torture prisoners,” the

doctrine of pre-emptive war, “the abandonment of basic human rights, the derogation of American civil liberties and personal privacy, the

vast rewarding in a time of war of extremely rich Americans at the expense of working class people, the abandonment of protecting the

American environment — all of these things, are massive and radical departures from what our country has seen under every

president in the past 100 or more years. . . .

“It’s this administration vs. every administration that has

preceded it.”

Dump Duhbya

Another Thunderbolt from Wilkerson

Another Thunderbolt from Wilkerson

“Mr. WILKERSON: What happened was that the secretary of Defense, under the cover of the vice president’s office, began to

create an environment — and this started from the very beginning when David Addington, the vice president’s lawyer [Addington,

incidentally, was promoted this week to the position of vice presidential chief of staff, replacing his indicted former boss, Scooter

Libby], was a staunch advocate of allowing the president in his capacity as commander in chief to deviate from the Geneva Conventions.

Regardless of the president having put out this memo, they began to authorize procedures within the armed forces that led to, in my view,

what we’ve seen.

“INSKEEP: We have to get more detail about that because the military will say, the Pentagon will say they’ve

investigated this repeatedly and that all the investigations have found that the abuses were committed by a relatively small number of

people at relatively low levels. What hard evidence takes those abuses up the chain of command and lands them in the vice president’s

office, which is where you’re placing it?

“Mr. WILKERSON: I’m privy to the paperwork, both classified and unclassified, that the

secretary of State asked me to assemble on how this all got started, what the audit trail was, and when I began to assemble this

paperwork, which I no longer have access to, it was clear to me that there was a visible audit trail from the vice president’s

office through the secretary of Defense down to the commanders in the field that in carefully couched terms — I’ll give you

that — that to a soldier in the field meant two things: We’re not getting enough good intelligence and you need to get that evidence,

and, oh, by the way, here’s some ways you probably can get it. And even some of the ways that they detailed were not in accordance with

the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war.

“You just — if you’re a military man, you know that you just don’t do

these sorts of things because once you give just the slightest bit of leeway, there are those in the armed forces who will take advantage

of that. There are those in the leadership who will feel so pressured that they have to produce intelligence that it doesn’t matter

whether it’s actionable or not as long as they can get the volume in. They have to do what they have to do to get it, and so you’ve

just given in essence, though you may not know it, carte blanche for a lot of problems to occur.”
—–

Former Insider Lashes Out
By Dan

Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, October 20, 2005; 1:12 PM

It didn’t make the front page this morning, but

it seems to me that it’s a big deal when a former top administration official declares that a secret cabal led by the vice

president has hijacked U.S. foreign policy, inveigled the president, condoned torture and crippled the ability of the government to

respond to emergencies.

Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell until both men

resigned in January, unleashed his blistering attack on the Bush White House yesterday at a luncheon at a Washington think tank. …

“The comments, made at the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, were the harshest attack on the administration by a

former senior official since criticisms by Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism czar, and Paul O’Neill, former Treasury

secretary, early last year.”
—–

The White House Stonewall

It seems that Addington is who Libby turned to,

after his breakfast with New York Times reporter Judy Miller, when he needed more information about Plame. …

Addington was one

of the authors of the White House memo that critics said justified the use of torture on terrorism suspects. And he formally requested

that a website making fun of Lynne Cheney, the vice president’s wife, take down its material.

NADA - New American Dark Ages

The Ouch in Vouchers

[updated 11/22/05]

Dane Roberts, of UNM, speaks of “the impossibility of standardizing our

public schools” and believes “the state shouldn’t assume the task of defining how or what each kid should learn.” Roberts imagines an

ideal world in which “principals could choose teachers who match their educational beliefs. And teachers [could] focus on what is too

often forgotten: teaching kids.”

How can anyone believe teachers have forgotten that it’s all about teaching kids? How is it good

that principals could discriminate against teachers whose “educational beliefs” they disagree with?

I don’t want a teacher fired

for believing the world is only 4,000 years old. Nor do I want a school packed with such believers.

Throughout hundreds of years

of public education, many countries have not had so much trouble standardizing public schools. The trouble has grown in the last 30

years, coincidental with rise of the Radical Right.

If the state has no business at all in education (the ultimate extension of

this line of reasoning), who does? The church? Or, the parents, most of whom hope their children will achieve more education than they

could. Many caring parents participate in elections of local school boards; many know their kid’s teachers and principals. How are they

not represented in this process?

How does anyone reasonably conclude the Market can do no wrong? What have they been teaching

you?

One of the many things that has helped the United States to become a great nation is public education. That and a progressive

tax system, especially estate taxes, have helped delay the growth of an American Aristocracy. In schools we meet people and ideas we will

never meet at home or even in our own neighborhood or church. The melting pot of America is its public schools. Undermining that system

undermines everything. Public education serves the public good. mjh

[published in The Daily Lobo (11/17/05)]
—–

Column:

Vouching for vouchers by Dane Roberts, Daily Lobo columnist

The issue of evolution versus creationism in the science

curriculum perfectly illustrates the impossibility of standardizing our public schools. Some people will never accept public schools that

promote ideas that contradict their religious beliefs. Others will never allow religion to influence the curriculum.
—–

[11/22/05: response from James McClure …] Continue reading The Ouch in Vouchers →

ID, The Atheist's Pulpit

From The Atheist’s Pulpit

Somebody light a

candle because Krauthammer and I are on the same side of an issue. Holy cow! Even as I savor this moment of worlds-colliding, I marvel

that I could argue Krauthammer is being unfair to some IDers (this is a disturbing universe, indeed). Those very few IDers who

believe they are pursuing a “science of irreducible complexity” — a bold new way of looking at things — feel tarred by the “Jesus on a

dinosaur” brush. Sorry, but there are many more who believe evolution is the devil’s tool and the world is 4000 years old than believe

there are merely points in an otherwise clockwork system where god intercedes. Not that truth is a popularity contest.

Still, I

always enjoy the Clash of Conservatives. Krauthammer is one of the cardinals of the Radical Right — a ‘must read’ in the West Wing (or

have read to you). Here we see the arrogance and utterly unshakable certainty directed against — good god! — forces equally arrogant

and unshakable. ‘The Truth is Ours‘, both sides shout with equal ferocity, and ‘those who disagree are beneath contempt.’

The true gift from god here is not that the ranters can’t simply give up and shout “Commie! Hippie! Democrat!” No, no, sweeter still

is that somewhere deep inside each opponent has to realize, “damn, I just called another right-winger wrong.” The Monolith of Radical

Right Infallibility called into question by its own faithful?! Hosanna! mjh

PS: I believe Krauthammer

would join me — again! — in irritation at the Albuquerque Journal’s headline, “God and Science Made the Lemurs”. There isn’t

a person alive — whom you’d want to talk to — who would say ‘science made the lemurs’. Made? Are headline writers less

educated than real journalists or does years of straining for groan-inducing puns dull the wits as much as it seems to?

Two more

specimens:

Kansas wrong to see science as an enemy of God, just ask Einstein — Quad City Times

[mjh: so much for the pursuit of brevity]

Science isn’t religion’s foe: an idea that’s still evolving — Bothell Herald

[mjh: groan]
—–

Charles Krauthammer: Evolution by any other name is still . . .

BECAUSE every few years this country, in its

infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be

superfluous � that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both

religious.

Newton’s religiosity was traditional. He was a staunch believer in Christianity and member of the Church of England.

Einstein’s was a more diffuse belief in a deity who set the rules for everything that occurs in the universe.

Neither saw science

as an enemy of religion. On the contrary. “He believed he was doing God’s work,” wrote James Gleick in his recent biography of Newton.

Einstein saw his entire vocation � understanding the workings of the universe � as an attempt to understand the mind of God.

Not a crude and willful God who pushes and pulls and does things according to whim. … Newton’s God was not at all so crude. The laws

of his universe were so simple, so elegant, so economical, and therefore so beautiful that they could only be divine. …

Let’s

be clear. “Intelligent design” may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud.

It is a self-enclosed, tautological

“theory” whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge � in this case, evolution � they are to

be filled by God. …

How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple,

more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet

interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give

us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education too.
—–

QOTD: “How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God.” Amen.

ID

a Newtonian God

My first thought on

hearing that the Vatican’s astronomer spoke out against ID as pseudo-science (it is, more

correctly, “anti-science”), I thought, ‘wow, the Vatican has an astronomer?!’

Before you know it, they’ll be dealing with this

guy as they did Galileo. mjh

Vatican official rejects intelligent design teaching By NICOLE WINFIELD, The Associated Press

The

Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in

school programs was “wrong” and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

“Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends

to be,” the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. “If you want to teach it in schools,

intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.” …

In a June article in the

British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God’s role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.

“If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must

move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a

watch that ticks along regularly.”

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

“God in

his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and

greater complexity,” he wrote. “He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves.”

[mjh: as Jas. put it, ‘our god is a CEO, not some middle-manager bogged down in the daily details.’]

The Vatican

Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer

residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.
—–

Evolution News & Views
News Analysis of Media Coverage of the Debate Over Evolution
(a

site that believes “scientists, teachers, and students are under attack for questioning evolution” — [mjh: the cult

of paranoid victimhood])

CSC – Challenging Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and promoting Intelligent Design [mjh: The Discovery Institute is the center of their universe]

ID

Creationism and intelligent design are two widely different things

The Daily Sundial – Keep classroom free of

intelligent design by Sean Paroski

[C]reationism and intelligent design are two widely different things. Creationism is based

solely in the text of the Bible, taking as literal the account in genesis of God creating the world in six days. While creationism

advocates will often try to cite scientific “facts” to back up their thesis, creationism specifically rejects evolution as a scientific

theory (except as a modern phenomenon) as well as discounting geological, astronomical and other physical evidence for the age of the

universe.

Intelligent design differs significantly from creationism in several key aspects. First, it has no basis in any specific

religious tradition, unlike creationism’s reliance on the Bible.

Second, it does not reject scientific findings about the origins

of species, the age of the universe or other discoveries of the natural sciences. Intelligent design is primarily a critique of the

interpretation of the evidence derived from those sciences.

Intelligent designers claim that missing evidence in the fossil record

and the natural complexity of living creatures cannot be accounted for by the theory of evolution alone. They claim that such complexity

and missing evidence implies that the universe must have some supernatural designer that directs the development of organisms. This

“designer” is non-denominational and its hands-off approach to directing the universe bears little resemblance to the God of the Bible,

who is always involving himself in human affairs in one way or another.

Thus, the claims of scientists and anti-religion types

that intelligent design is a violation of separation of church and state is inaccurate since intelligent design does not advocate a

specific religious creed.

However, the argument that intelligent design is not science does have significant weight.

ID

the company one keeps

3 Comments

Letter: Proof of

intelligent design exists – Friday, 11/18/05

Unfortunately, the idea that intelligent design is religious faith in disguise is

simply wrong. It appeals to those with such faith, because it assures them their faith is in fact independently supportable by science.

But when they intrude with their beliefs upon the scientific arguments for or against intelligent design, the faithful are as wrong as

the scientists who dogmatically oppose it …

Intelligent design is about the fact that one can today determine, scientifically,

that the world was largely designed.

The real news is that this is possible because there is not merely a single, one-time design

of everything in the world. Whatever you may believe about an original Creation of All, the fact is that there was, less than twenty

thousand years ago, a deliberate redesign. According to the scientific evidence–of which mainstream scientists like Dr. Cornell are

ignorant, and disdaining to learn–not only the Earth but the entire solar system was remade. …

[Scientists] complain that there

are no articles showing evidence for design in the peer-reviewed literature, but that is because such articles are not allowed, by

official fiat. Readers need to know that is simply an incompetent stand for a scientist to take: You may not be able to prove God, but

you can demonstrate design of the world. I know. I’ve done it. And I am being suppressed, denied the opportunity to contribute knowledge

that would stop the current war of words over design, and show how intelligent design can – and must (if you want students to learn the

truth)- be presented in science class.

Dale Huffman
Gallatin, TX
—–

The End of the Mystery: The Design of the Gods – Lulu.com

I am

a professional research scientist in physics and mathematics. I submitted this article to the magazine New Astronomy, only to have the

online submission unceremoniously “removed by the editor”, without explanation. (I have in the past also sent letters announcing my

discoveries to Science magazine, but they too were ignored.) Modern science is broken; it is not confronting the evidence, it is not

seeking the truth. …..

[from] Finding the Design of the gods
by Harry Dale Huffman

The first light shone on the

design in 1996, when I discovered the location of Hyperborea, which the Greek poet Pindar described, around the time of the seventh

century BC, with these words: Neither by ship nor yet by land shall one find the wondrous road to the gathering place of the

Hyperboreans.

Hyperborea was no ordinary land, you see. It was a “blessed” land, in Greek myth, where the inhabitants celebrated

always, and “the dances of the girls, the twanging of lyres and sound of flutes are continually circling.” (Pindar again.) Above all,

“Hyper-borea” means “beyond north”, so its location was said to be “beyond the north”.

It turns out there is such a place, and if

you happen to pass by it, and remember as you do the above quotes, you’ll very likely find it, as I did. It is in the starry sky, near

the celestial north pole (CNP)