This is mind-boggling: andabien.com has posted an evolutionary timeline on a 135-foot wide webpage. Click on the link and start scrolling to the right (you may have to scroll down a little bit first to see the timeline, depending on your monitor resolution). Each pixel equals 30,000 years. This really puts the lengths of time involved into some perspective, and it’s humbling, to say the least.
(Hat tip to Pharyngula)
First things first: If you’re planning on eating anytime in the near future, I suggest you make Laurie’s Creamy Garlicky Tomato Soup. We tried it tonight. Very easy to make. Looks yummy. Tastes even better.
Next: Has anyone noticed that the soundtrack to Fox’s 24 seems particularly good this season? I never really paid attention to the music before, but this year it seems like every episode has at least one especially funky track on it. (Tonight’s was during the scene where Chloe was in the server room.)
Speaking of 24, everytime I see a trailer for Kiefer Sutherland’s new movie “The Sentinel” I can’t help but think to myself, “24: The Movie”. Watching Sutherland run around yelling and waving a gun immediately calls to mind Jack Bauer. I’m sure the movie is totally different – except for the whole government agent angle. And the assasinating the President thing… ok, well maybe it is “24: The Movie”.
I’ve noticed a few people linking recently to videos offering conspiracy theories related to the events of 9/11. While I think the Bush administration took full advantage of what happened that day to increase their power and move their agenda forward, I seriously doubt that they were in any way actively a part of the plot.
As Roch points out in the comments on Greensboring.com, though the conspiracy theories point to allegedly unanswered questions about what happened on 9/11, “if the [conspiracy] theories put forth … were the generally accepted explanations, they too wouldn’t be without their unanswered questions and inconsistencies.” We don’t have perfect knowledge – there are always going to be unanswered questions.
Furthermore, I’m not confident enough in the competence of the current administration to believe that they could have successfully pulled off any sort of conspiracy of the magnitude suggested by many of these videos. Even if they were more competent, there would simply be too many loose ends and too many people involved for the plot to stay even partially under wraps for this long.
Of course, all that is just my gut feeling. However, there are evidence-based debunkings of these conspiracy theories as well. Abovetopsecret.com has a pretty thorough refutation of the theory that something other than a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
The Bush administration is probably guilty of many things, but I don’t think taking an active role in the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is one of them.
A recent post at Dispatches from the Culture Wars contained a nice, concise outline of one of the lines of evidence for common descent – the idea that a few common ancestors, through descent with modification, gave rise to the wide variety of life that we see today. This line of evidence is the fossil record:
The theory of common descent not only helps us understand the fossil record, it’s the only explanation that makes any sense out of it at all.
The broad patterns of appearance that we see in the fossil record are clear. For the first 3+ billion years of life on earth, there was nothing but bacteria. Then simple multicellular life begins to appear and it steadily diversifies into a variety of forms of marine invertebrates. Then the first hemichordates and chordates appear, then the first true vertebrate fishes. Fish continue to diversify over a long period of time until the first amphibians begin to appear. Then later, reptiles. Finally, mammals and birds.
And within each of these types of animals, there is a similar pattern. The first amphibians to appear look the most fish-like and over time they diversify into many distinct types of amphibians, progressively less fish-like and more like extent species as they adapt to new environments. The first mammals to appear are the most reptile-like and they gradually diversify and become less reptile-like and more like extent species over time. The first birds to appear are the most dinosaur-like and over time they become less reptilian and more like extent species.
The only explanation that makes coherent sense of those patterns is common descent.
For more information, TalkOrigins has a more detailed look at common descent.
A story on NPR this morning talked about Jobs Partnership of Florida, “a faith-based group that believes the path out of poverty is through spiritual transformation.” It’s a work-training program for recovering drug adicts, single moms, and other people who might need help getting a fresh start in the workforce. As part of the program, a pastor helps the participants learn about “attitude and character.”
The program sounds admirable, and they appear to be doing a good job of accomplishing their mission – they claim to have placed 70 percent of their graduates in “career-path” jobs. However, one aspect that was mentioned seemed a little off to me. One of the graduates, Allen Baldwin, had this to say:
Asked to name the most key insight from the program, Baldwin says: “Integrity. What would you do when the boss is not looking? What would you do when you don’t have to come in a certain time and you don’t have to leave — you don’t have to clock in or clock out?… So integrity is a big thing to me and I believe when nobody’s watching, God is watching.”
Stephen Coon, Baldwin’s boss at the recycling company where he now works, echoed this, saying:
I know I don’t have to be in the building for things to go the right way, because they have someone greater than me to be accountable to.
Is it really displaying “integrity” though if your hard work is due to the belief that you’re always being watched by a boss of some sort – whether that boss is God or your actual on-the-job boss? Who is displaying greater integrity – someone who gets the work done because they believe that God is watching, or someone who gets the work done even if they think no one at all is watching?
Maybe not yet, but he appears to be heading in that direction. From the Boston Globe (via DailyKos):
When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act’s expanded police powers.
The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ”a piece of legislation that’s vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people.” But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ”signing statement,” an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law’s requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ”impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive’s constitutional duties.”
The more troubling thing is that this is not an isolated incident:
The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.
After The New York Times disclosed in December that Bush had authorized the military to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans’ international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by law, Bush said his wartime powers gave him the right to ignore the warrant law.
And when Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any detainee in US custody, Bush signed the bill but issued a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was necessary to protect national security.
Bush may not end up crowned as our king, but he is paving the road for someone’s corronation. Allowing him to get away with deciding for himself which parts of a law are valid, avoiding the checks and balances set up by our Constitution, is setting up a dangerous precedent.
Local Greensboro bloggers Cara Michele and Sean Coon have launched thepeopleyes, a project to give a voice and online presence to people living at or below the poverty line in Greesboro, NC.
Ed Cone takes issue with those who would call North Carolina’s lottery a “tax”. I agree that it’s not a tax, however I do think it is appropriate to say that the lottery is taxed. As David Boyd points out, “What is the 50% the state keeps other than sales tax?”
Jim Caserta furthers this point by saying:
What about excise taxes – alcohol, cigarette taxes? Those are not required, yet they are still considered taxes. What if there were an independent entity selling the tickets, they took maybe 5 cents on the dollar, and paid 50 cents on the dollar to the government, and paid out the other 45 cents to the winners. Would the 50 cents then be a tax? Isn’t that how the lottery is going to work here?
This seems to be an apt analogy, the main difference being that with the lottery, the primary purpose of selling the product is to collect that tax. If the state didn’t get that cut, you can bet they wouldn’t be selling the product.
So while it’s inaccurate to call the lottery itself a tax, I do think it’s accurate to say that lottery ticket buyers will be paying a tax; furthermore, I’d wager that folks with lower incomes are going to be the ones making the heaviest contributions to that tax.
Though people are certainly responsible for their own purchasing decisions, this doesn’t seem like an optimal solution for raising more revenue. Interestingly, a potentially better solution has been right in front of Governor Easley: Poker.
The Cherokee tribe in Western North Carolina has been trying for a year to convince the state to allow table games such as poker in their casino. Negotiations between the tribe and Easley have focused on what sort of cut the state would receive, but as of February, Easley’s answer was “no deal”.
Ignoring for a moment the apparent hypocrisy of rejecting live poker while allowing a lottery, it seems to me that allowing poker would provide a source of gambling revenue for the state that would avoid the drawbacks of the lottery. As has been widely pointed out, the people who can least afford lottery tickets are the ones who purchase them the most. Tickets will be widely available. A trip to the gas station, convenience store, or any number of local establishments will bring you within scratching distance of a lottery ticket. As often as not, ticket sales will be taking place right in low income neighborhoods.
Poker on the other hand, while still providing the potential for substantial revenue, will not be as much of a draw for lower income North Carolinians. The cost of entry is higher. One needs to be able to afford the time and money to travel to the casino in Cherokee, and in many cases players will need to be able to afford lodging once there. The cost of a buy in to a poker game is typically at least $30 or more – quite a bit higher than the single dollar that a lottery ticket costs. These factors mean that for the most part, the people playing poker, and thereby contributing to the state’s “tax” on it, are people who can more easily afford it.
This shift in the demographics when comparing casino gamblers to lottery players is supported by a survey taken by Harrah’s in 2003:
— The median household income of casino gamblers – $50,716 – is more than 20 percent higher than that of the overall U.S. population – $42,228.
— Americans in upper income brackets have the highest casino gambling participation rates (percentage of adults who gambled at least once in a casino in the last 12 months) and those in the lowest income brackets have the lowest rates. More than a third – 34 percent – of individuals with annual household incomes in excess of $95,000 gambled in a casino in 2002, while only 21 percent of those with annual incomes of less than $35,000 gambled in a casino.
— Casino players are more likely than non-gamblers – 46 percent versus 41 percent – to hold white-collar jobs.
Additionally, live poker at the casino in Cherokee would be a huge draw for out of state tourists. Unlike the lottery, which can be played in other nearby states, the nearest places to play casino poker are as far away as Mississippi and New Jersey. No one is going to travel to North Carolina to play the lottery; many people in surrounding states would travel here for live casino poker.
At any rate, it’s too late to do anything about the lottery, other than stand in line to buy a ticket. But next time Easley needs a quick revenue fix, maybe he’ll consider letting middle- and upper-income North Carolinians ante up at a poker table.
Throughout his presidency, Bush has been reluctant to go out on a limb and answer questions from the general population, preferring scripted events, friendly audiences, and softball lead-ins to talking point answers. Recently, he’s gotten a bit bold, and fielded a few real questions, and based on a couple of them, it’s easy to see why he avoids doing it.
Bush taking questions – itself a sign of the apocalypse?
Yesterday, at a speech in Ohio he took some questions, and the very first one was this:
My question is that author and former Nixon administration official Kevin Phillips, in his latest book, American Theocracy, discusses what has been called radical Christianity and its growing involvement into government and politics. He makes the point that members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the apocalypse. Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse? And if not, why not?
Great question. Should be fairly simple to answer, too – it’s a “yes” or “no” question. Bush’s answer? Over 700 words of weaving and meandering, essentially a summary of the last five years of his strategy for the war on terrror. I won’t post the whole thing here (you can read it in the transcript), but here are a few excerpts:
I also knew this about this war on terror, that the farther we got away from September the 11th, the more likely it is people would seek comfort and not think about this global war on terror as a global war on terror. And that’s good, by the way.
But not too good, evidently – hence the need to mention 9/11 every chance he gets.
And so I told the American people that we would find the terrorists and bring them to justice, and that we needed to defeat them overseas so we didn’t have to face them here at home. I also understood that the war on terror requires some clear doctrine. And one of the doctrines that I laid out was, if you harbor a terrorist, you’re equally as guilty as the terrorist. And the first time that doctrine was really challenged was in Afghanistan. I guess the Taliban didn’t believe us — or me. And so we acted. Twenty-five million people are now free, and Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for the terrorists.
So is that 24,999,999 people if you don’t count that guy who is on trial for converting to Christianity?
But now that I’m on Iran, the threat to Iran, of course — (applause) — the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That’s a threat, a serious threat. It’s a threat to world peace; it’s a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel, and — (applause.)
At any rate, our objective is to solve this issue diplomatically.
Threatening use of your military might. Very diplomatic.
And so, to answer your question, I take a practical view of doing the job you want me to do — which is how do we defeat an enemy that still wants to hurt us; and how do we deal with threats before they fully materialize; what do we do to protect us from harm? That’s my job.
So that’s a (700 word) “no”? Though he never actually said “no”, leaving open the possibility that he really does think this is all a sign of the apocalypse. Gotta play to your base I guess.
Helen Thomas – Bush’s own personal apocalypse
This second item was pointed out to me by a friend. Bush has always avoided calling on reporter Helen Thomas at his press conferences, but today he must have been feeling lucky:
THOMAS: I’d like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet — your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth — what was your real reason? You have said it wasn’t oil — quest for oil, it hasn’t been Israel, or anything else. What was it?
…
THE PRESIDENT: My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We — when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I’m never going to forget it. And I’m never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people. Part of that meant to make sure that we didn’t allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that’s why I went into Iraq — hold on for a second —THOMAS: They didn’t do anything to you, or to our country.
THE PRESIDENT: Look — excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That’s where al Qaeda trained —
THOMAS: I’m talking about Iraq
I don’t think Helen’s going to get called on again for awhile.
David Boyd quotes from a George Will column pointing out the failure of the Bush administration’s attempts to use democracy to create “hospitable cultures”. Boyd then says:
If the theory would have held, things would be much simpler. Since it didn’t, we’re back to the law enforcement model for dealing with nuclear terrorism.
It’s nice to see that some people are realizing that Bush’s approach is wrong, and that there may be better methods. Too bad this wasn’t realized sooner:
Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie, on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” used similar language.
“Terrorism is not a law enforcement matter, as John Kerry repeatedly says. Terrorist activities are not like gambling. Terrorist activities are not like prostitution. And this demonstrates a disconcerting pre-September 11 mindset that will not make our country safer. And that is what we see relative to winning the war on terror and relative to Iraq.”
Seems as though Kerry may have understood the problem better than he was given credit for. Even if he was in office now, he’d still need to deal with the mess in Iraq, but at least we’d have a chance to start figuring out how to turn things around. As it is, it’s going to take a long time to start modifying our strategies considering that the current administration doesn’t think there’s a problem with them.
