Posts

Robert Greenwald’s “Fox Attacks: Iran” compares Fox News coverage leading up to the war in Iraq with what they’re airing today about Iran. Anonymous (2007-08-23): Here we are once again considering the terrorist nation of Iran. A nation that controls Palestine through Hamas, Lebanon and Syria though Hezbollah, and Iraq through the Mahdi army, untold numbers of insurgency and militant organizations and even Al Qaeda. Iran is closing in quickly on the ability to mass produce nuclear weapons while our politicians are arguing over whether or not they are even a threat to the region, and our own nation. Israel, as I have said before, does not have the luxury of debating this issue until the day it is confirmed that the Iranian nuclear program has in fact produced it's first reliable weapon. Israel has nuclear weapons but will they use them? It is a strongly held belief that only the United States can deliver a conventional strike devastating enough to impact the Iranian nuclear program, however, if the United States does not do that and soon, Israel will be forced to consider the nuclear option as it's only reliable means of ensuring it's continued existence.When considering the possible destruction of your entire population by nuclear assault, the nuclear option does not seem so terrible in light of the consequence of waiting too long, or conducting an inadequate conventional strike. European nations, Russia and China have prevented measures that could have reigned in Iran many times before. Creating a situation whereby the one entity that could have made a difference (United Nations), is instead provoking the inevitable destruction of either Israel or Iran or possibly even the destruction of both nations.Iran has created a reality on the ground throughout the Middle East that provides the ultimate fallback. Iran's arming, training and positioning of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Mahdi Army, and literally hundreds of other militant assets means that at a moments notice Iran could create complete chaos throughout the entire region. Imagine all of these groups being coordinated by Iran's military machine causing the cessation of trade throughout the region, the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in countries throughout the Middle East, and the successful overthrow of governments unable to respond quickly enough to such an unconventional enemy.If the United States is unable or unwilling to confront Iran militarily within the next 12 months, world war three is almost a certainty. Because if Iran is able to get all their pieces in place before they are directly attacked, this chess game is over and no country in the world will be safe from the terrorist army they have been building up arming and training for over 30 years. China, Russia, Venezuela and many other countries have already chosen their allies in this struggle by supporting, supplying and defending Iran in it's quest for nuclear weapons and undying support of terrorism in all it's horrific forms and manifestations. ...

[UPDATE (April 15, 2008): See the NCSE’s “Expelled Exposed” website for a look at the deceptive tactics of the filmmakers and the real facts that they aren’t showing you.] In February, the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” starring Ben Stein, will be released. [UPDATE: The release was delayed until April 18, possibly due to copyright infringement worries.] The film apparently argues that intelligent design is being wrongly excluded from public school classrooms, despite the fact that intelligent design is rebranded creationism and is a religious view without scientific support. There is no scientific theory of intelligent design to be taught in schools–it doesn’t exist. The advertising for the film says that P.Z. Myers appears in the film–but he was not interviewed for a film called “Expelled,” but for an apparently fictional project called “Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion.” Mark Mathis, a producer for Rampant Films, contacted Myers, and he agreed to appear in that film. Now, as it turns out, Mathis is an associate producer on “Expelled." Myers writes: Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, “bring it on!” We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol’ wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us. I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest.Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education reports a similar experience–she also was interviewed for “Crossroads." The producers of this film are sleazeballs. This kind of technique is already at or beyond the ethical edge for a comedy film like Borat, but to do this for a film that purports to take on a serious issue–and pretends to be on the side of God–is well past any such boundary. If, as has been suggested, this film is going to argue that belief in God is necessary for moral behavior (a falsehood), the behavior of the producers proves that it is not sufficient. The lesson for the future: Do not sign an agreement to be interviewed for a film if the agreement contains language that says they can use “…footage and materials in and in connection with the development, production, distribution and/or exploitation of the feature length documentary tentatively entitled Crossroads…and/or any other production…” That “and/or any other production” is a big loophole that will be exploited. UPDATE (August 23, 2007): Ed Brayton observes that two of the alleged controversies that “Expelled” will cover are bogus claims of persecution–the denial of tenure for Guillermo Gonzalez and the alleged martyrdom of Richard Sternberg. Ed notes that he has an article coming out in Skeptic magazine in February 2008 which will debunk the Souder report about the travails of Sternberg at the Smithsonian (a subject he has already written extensively about on his blog–linked to from the articles at my blog under the “Richard Sternberg affair” category). UPDATE (December 18, 2007): Ed Brayton points out that a new argument from the Discovery Institute for why Gonzalez shouldn’t have been denied tenure actually undermines that claim. UPDATE (February 10, 2008): John Lynch has a nice visual diagram of Gonzalez’s publication record. ...

Michael Donnelly’s blog has a chart of mortgage lender failures since April 2006, which reports that we reached 21 lenders going under this month yesterday, on the 21st of the month. (Via Distributed Republic.)

Payne Junior High School in Chandler, Arizona has suspended the 13-year-old son of Ben and Paula Mosteller for three days (reduced from five) for drawing a picture of a gun, an action which they characterized as a threat which they compared to the Columbine High School massacre in a discussion with his parents. The Arizona Republic reports that “The school did not contact police and did not provide counseling or an evaluate the boy to determine if he intended the drawing as a threat,” which suggests to me that they did not really consider it to be a threat. The boy’s parents described the picture as a harmless doodle of a fake laser, which did not show blood, bullets, injuries, or target any human. If the school really considered it a threat of an impending massacre, they should have treated it as one. Since they didn’t, why is it even worth a suspension? Is there more to the context that we aren’t being told, or are school administrators so irrational that they fear drawings of guns? Are there any adult males who didn’t draw guns along with cars, motorcycles, spaceships, monsters, aliens, and floor plans of secret hideouts when they were around 13? ...

Long or Short Capital takes a look at a few investment strategies available to the time traveler, including “groundhog maximization,” “terminator option protection,” and “alien/squid technology asset allocation.”

Stuart Pivar, an “eccentric collector and inventor," has filed a $15 million libel lawsuit in New York against P.Z. Myers of the Pharyngula blog and Seed Media Group, publisher of Seed magazine and owner of ScienceBlogs, for referring to him as “a classic crackpot” in reviews of his book Lifecode. The complaint identifies Pivar as “an industrialist, inventor, and scientist,” the founder and chairman of the board of Chem-tainer Industries, and co-founder (with Andy Warhol) and original funder of the New York Academy of Art, “a classical graduate school for painting and sculpture, whose current patron is H.R.H. Charles, Prince of Wales.” It claims that Pivar regularly discussed his book with Stephen Jay Gould, who “was working on a refutation of the fundamentalist Darwinian theory of evolution." The complaint claims that Myers’ remarks led to Neil de Grasse Tyson withdrawing a review of the book and causing “considerable mental and emotional distress,” tortious interference with the plaintiff’s business relationships as a “scientist and scientific editor,” and “loss of book sales and diminished returns on ten years of funded scientific research in special damages” exceeding $5 million. The three claims of the complaint are, first, for declaratory relief in removing defamatory statements from the web and an injunction to prevent further such statements; second, for $5 million in special damages from the “tortious interference with business relations”; and third, for $10 million in damages for defamation, emotional distress, and loss of reputation. Seed Media Group may be able to have itself dismissed as a defendant on the libel claim via the safe harbor on online publication of defamatory statements by a user of a site, which has been successfully used as a defense by America Online (in Zeran v. AOL and Blumenthal v. Drudge and AOL) and ElectriCiti (in Aquino v. ElectriCiti). I suspect that Pivar will have a difficult time proving the claimed damages, as well as overcoming the truth defense to a defamation claim, but I’m curious to see if any lawyers (Timothy Sandefur?) have an opinion. The complaint looks a little odd and sloppy to me–it initially refers to “tortuous” interference rather than “tortious,” includes the odd paragraph about the Art Academy, and generally doesn’t appear to me to be a well-crafted case–but I am not a lawyer. The text of the complaint may be found here (PDF). P.Z. Myers’ reviews of Pivar’s book may be found here and here. Another review of Pivar’s book, authored by his friend Richard Gordon, may be found here. Pivar’s claim that Stephen Jay Gould would not have signed the NCSE’s “Project Steve” statement is discussed at CSI’s website. Christopher Mims has commented on the lawsuit at Scientific American’s blog, and Brandon Keim at Wired Science has a good summary of the dispute. UPDATE: I’ve just read through both of P.Z. Myers’ blog post reviews again, and I note that the alleged defamatory reference, “a classic crackpot,” appears in neither of them. In the earlier post, Myers says of Pivar’s book: “It seems no expense was spared getting it published, which is in contrast to the content, and is unusual for such flagrant crackpottery.” The later post does not contain the word “crackpot.” The post that Pivar is complaining about is another Myers post, titled “Pseudoscience by press release”, where Pivar himself commented several times, including to write, “I will ignore your insulting and intemperate language and concentrate on the substantive issues.” Apparently he changed his mind on that point. UPDATE (August 21, 2007): Blake Stacey has put together a nice chronological summary of who said what when, along with links to commentators. He points out that the “review” by Neil de Grasse Tyson which was on Pivar’s website was a quote created by taking one piece out of context and fabricating another–it’s no wonder that Tyson asked for Pivar to remove it. Andrea Bottaro summarizes the case with links to more sources about Pivar’s Stephen J. Gould claims at The Panda’s Thumb, and Timothy Sandefur weighs in with an evaluation of the legal issues at Positive Liberty, where he calls Pivar’s suit a case of “abus[ing] the legal process to try to intimidate and bully people for no good reason” and concludes that “Myers unquestionably has the right to call Pivar a crackpot, and we have the right to consider this lawsuit as proof of the fact." UPDATE (August 22, 2007): Ed Darrell at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub has a nice article about how we determine what a “crackpot” is. Pivar seems to fit quite well. A commenter at Pharyngula has observed that Pivar’s attorney was just admitted to the New York Bar in 2005 and went to law school in the UK. UPDATE (August 24, 2007): Retired UCSD law professor Peter Irons (well versed in the law as it pertains to intelligent design) has written an excellent letter to Stuart Pivar which strongly recommends that Pivar withdraw his suit rather than quickly lose and become subject to monetary sanctions. Irons also says that he knew Gould from the 1950s until his death, and was his neighbor for many years, and that if Gould were alive today he’d probably have a viable defamation action against Pivar. UPDATE (August 29, 2007): Pivar has withdrawn his libel suit (see Dispatches from the Culture Wars and Pharyngula). But now his attorney, Michael Little, thinks he has a case against Peter Irons! Kudos to Pivar for doing the right thing. UPDATE (September 5, 2007): More entertainment regarding Michael Little may be found at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. ...

Apparently Karl Rove’s adoptive father, Louis Rove, an oil geologist, was a gay man who was an avid fan of genital piercing, whose piercings were frequently pictured in Piercing Fans International Quarterly. (Via Stan Schwarz on the SKEPTIC list, who also reports that he personally met Louie Rove.)

The Bush administration, commenting on Congress’ expansion of the Executive branch’s warrantless wiretapping powers without needing approval of the FISA Court, says that the legislation is “just advisory. The president can still do whatever he wants to do." Constitution? What Constitution? (Via Talking Points Memo.)

This is from back in February of 2006, but A Few Things Ill Considered has a nice list of statements from scientific organizations endorsing anthropogenic global warming that includes NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and, perhaps most interestingly, British Petroleum, the Shell Group, and, in the comments, ExxonMobil. A number of the links are broken at this point, but I was able to find numerous statements about the reality of anthropogenic global warming on the Shell web pages with a Google search for “global warming site:shell.com”. Science isn’t a matter of popular vote, but when a scientific consensus is established it certainly puts the burden of proof on the challenger.

Crooks and Liars has a video clip of Melanie Morgan and Naomi Wolf appearing on Chris Matthews’ Hardball to discuss Cheney’s position of 1994 about why invading and occupying Iraq was a bad idea. Morgan immediately descends into dissembling, claiming that 9/11 changed everything, when in fact it changed nothing about Iraq. Naomi Wolf calls her on it, and correctly describes how the Bush administration has engaged in deception and lies to get us into the war and to seize unconstitutional powers for the Executive branch. Morgan’s response to Wolf: “You’re going to look super in a burqa." Morgan seems to think that radical Islamic fundamentalists are about to take control of the United States, and that invading Iraq (one of the few countries in the Middle East which actually had a secular government) and turning it into a breeding ground for radical Islamic insurgents is an essential step to prevent it from happening. That’s wildly insane. The Cheney of 1994 was exactly right in his predictions of what would happen if we invaded Iraq, and no one has yet explained what changed his mind. September 11 is not an answer to that question. I think part of the answer can be found in James Mann’s Rise of the Vulcans–groupthink from the Project for a New American Century crowd infected him, and he thought he could be at the center of power of a new American empire controlling the Middle East. But they were completely wrong about what would happen. (Via Talking Points Memo.) ...