Arizona

Last night, Daniel Dennett gave the 2009 Beyond Center lecture with a talk appropriate for the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birthday, titled “Darwin’s ‘Strange Inversion of Reasoning.’” While not quite drawing the crowd that last year’s lecture by Richard Dawkins did (3000 people at Gammage Auditorium), Dennett filled the 485-seat Galvin Playhouse and an overflow room was set up with a video link. The Phoenix Atheists Meetup group alone had about 57 members who attended. The talk was videotaped by the Beyond Center, and what may be an unauthorized video has been made available on YouTube. Skyhooks and Cranes The content of Dennett’s talk was largely drawn from his book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, and centered on the idea that Darwin brought about a change from thinking of the world as the product of top-down design to a recognition of apparent design as the result of bottom-up processes. Dennett referred to the former as the “trickle-down theory of creation” and the latter as the “bubble-up theory of creation,” and used his “intuition pump” of skyhooks vs. cranes to make the point. “Skyhooks” are explanations of design in terms of miraculous intervention by an entity which itself has no explanation, a deus ex machina. Dennett illustrated that with the drawing above, a Guy Billout illustration titled “Deus ex Machina,” from the May 1999 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. By contrast, “cranes” are built up from the ground to provide scaffolding for constructing new things. The dome of the Florence Cathedral (Santa Maria del Fiore), depicted in Billout’s illustration, was a marvel of engineering by Filippo Brunelleschi, which used some innovative construction techniques to build something that many thought was not possible. Darwin’s “Strange Inversion of Reasoning” The title of Dennett’s talk came from a critique of Darwin’s theory of natural selection by Robert Beverley MacKenzie in 1868, who wrote (as quoted by Dennett in DDA, p. 65): In the theory with which we have to deal, Absolute Ignorance is the artificer; so that we may enunciate as the fundamental principle of the whole system that, IN ORDER TO MAKE A PERFECT AND BEAUTIFUL MACHINE, IT IS NOT REQUISITE TO KNOW HOW TO MAKE IT. This proposition will be found, on careful examination, to express, in condensed form, the essential purport of the Theory, and to express in a few words all Mr. Darwin’s meaning; who, by a strange inversion of reasoning, seems to think Absolute Ignorance fully qualified to take the place of Absolute Wisdom in all the achievements of creative skill.To which Dennett’s response was: “Exactly!” He illustrated the point with an example that is now somewhat commonplace, the computer. Dennett observed that prior to Alan Turing, “computers” referred to people who were hired to perform tasks that today are performed by mechanical devices with the same name. In order to perform these functions, people had to understand arithmetic. Dennett cited Turing’s 1936 paper, “On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem" (PDF), a demonstration that arithmetic computation is a specific case where, in fact, understanding is not required to perform the action–another example of the same kind of “strange inversion of reasoning.” Dennett quotes Turing: “The behaviour of the computer [meaning a person] at any moment is determined by the symbols which he is observing and his ‘state of mind’ at that moment,” noting that “state of mind” is in quotes because Turing’s showing a method by which no mental activity or understanding is actually required. Substituting into MacKenzie’s argument, we get “IN ORDER TO BE A PERFECT AND BEAUTIFUL COMPUTING MACHINE, IT IS NOT REQUISITE TO KNOW WHAT ARITHMETIC IS." Creationists and Mind-Creationists Dennett observed that many people cannot abide Darwin, and we call them creationists. There are also people who can’t abide Turing, and he suggests we call them mind-creationists. (Steve Novella’s presentation at last year’s The Amazing Meeting, on “Dualism and Creationism," drew this same analogy.) Dennett said that there are some people who can’t abide either–including both Jerry Fodor and Thomas Nagel, referring to his paper “Public Education and Intelligent Design” in Philosophy and Public Affairs vol. 36, no. 2. I think Dennett mischaracterizes Nagel’s position here–Nagel is an atheist who thinks that we don’t have the full account of evolutionary theory, and who also thinks that if a god exists, there’s no reason to think science couldn’t study such a being and its effects. I agree with Nagel about that–methodological naturalism could potentially find its own limits and suggest the existence of entities that operate independently of the laws of physics we’ve discovered. I think we’d end up just modifying our understanding of those laws and continuing to call the result “natural.” Jake Young, at the Pure Pedantry ScienceBlog, argues otherwise, defending Stephen J. Gould’s “Nonoverlapping Magisteria” (NOMA), the view that science and religion are completely distinct subjects with no intersection, a view I find implausible unless religion is restricted to matters that are completely unobservable and have no causal consequences in the empirical world–which is not the case for any actual religion that I’m aware of. A few of the “mind-creationists” Dennett pointed out were Jerry Fodor and John Searle. Another is Victor Reppert, author of C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, the main argument of which I criticized in a short paper (“Historical But Indistinguishable Differences: Some Notes on Victor Reppert’s Paper,” Philo vol. 2, no. 1, 1999, pp. 45-47). Reppert’s position is that Turing machines don’t actually do arithmetic, because they have no semantics, only syntax, and that you only get meaning through original intentionality of the sort that John Searle argues is an irreducible feature of the world. Computers only have semantics when we impute it to them. My argument was that if you have two possible worlds that are exactly alike, except that one was created by a top-down designer and one evolved, there’s no reason to say that one has semantics and the other one doesn’t–how they got to the point at which they have creatures with internal representations that stand in the right causal relationships to the external world doesn’t make a difference to whether or not those representations actually refer and have meaning. [UPDATE (March 3, 2009): Victor Reppert says I’ve misdescribed his position and elaborates a bit at his own blog.] Hunting for Skyhooks Dennett observed that people’s issues with bubble-up theories of creation and design center around the fact that some designs seem to be too remarkable to have evolved. Michael Behe’s notion of “irreducible complexity” is the idea that some structures require all of their parts in place to function at all, and cannot evolve step-by-step from a previous structure that doesn’t also have all of those parts. (The mistake there is that the previous structure may have some other function.) So those arguing for intelligent design have gone “hunting for skyhooks,” to try to find examples of design in nature that require a top-down designer’s intervening hand to bring into existence. Dennett observed that all of the hunting for skyhooks has failed to come up with any actual examples, but instead has resulted in multiple new discoveries of cranes. This is certainly true for the main examples of “irreducible complexity,” blood clotting systems and bacterial flagella. This has led to the quip, “evolution is cleverer than you are,” which Dennett discussed in the Q&A as “Orgel’s Second Rule." Another example Dennett gave was the discovery of motor proteins, which he showed using a clip from the film “The Inner Life of the Cell," produced by XVIVO for Harvard University. Dennett didn’t mention that this film was the subject of a controversy regarding the film “Expelled," pre-release versions of which used XVIVO footage without permission. Earlier still, intelligent design advocate William Dembski used an overdubbed version of their film in his lectures. The Bubble-up Path “We are made of trillions of mindless little robots,” Dennett said, “but not a one of them knows who you are or cares.” But we do know, and we do care. How is that possible? The bubble-up view has to provide an explanation. Dennett provided some examples of how certain evolutionary changes in the past have created entirely new ways for evolution to proceed. His first example was one that was championed for years by Lynn Margulis to much resistance, but which has now become mainstream, which is the idea of a symbiotic origin for eukaryotes. For the first 2.5 billion years of life, everything was prokaryotic–single-celled organisms without a nucleus. But then, one form of single-celled organisms invaded another without destroying each other, and came to evolve together, forming eukaryotic life. Each of our cells has not only its own genome in the cell nucleus, but a separate genome in its mitochondria, which is inherited only from our mothers. This development allowed cells to become more complex and versatile, as well as allowed a division of labor that made multicellular life possible. The Need-to-Know Principle Dennett showed a video clip about the cuckoo (the link is to a different but similar one). The mother bird lays her egg in the nest of another bird, and removes one of the other bird’s eggs. The other bird is then surprised to find that one of its eggs–the cuckoo’s egg–hatches first, and the hatchling pushes the other eggs out of the nest. It seems evil, Dennett said, but “don’t worry, the cuckoo chick doesn’t know what it does. It doesn’t need to know." A principle something like the CIA’s need-to-know principle applies in evolution as a matter of thrift, but matters are often confused because biologists tend to attribute more understanding when explaining a feature of living things than actually exists. This, Dennett says, is partly a linguistic matter, because we don’t have a word for a “semi-understood quasi-representation” or a “hemi-semi-demi-understood quasi-representation.” But Turing does give us models of competence without comprehension. He then showed a video of a New Caledonian crow trying to use a bit of metal wire to get a worm out of a glass beaker. The crow bends the wire around the glass to make it into a hook, then uses it to fish the worm out of the beaker. This was an example of a creature that goes a step beyond the cuckoo chick. Dennett cited the work of Ruth Millikan, noting that the crow is an example of an animal that represents its goals in the same system in which it represents its facts–but not its reasons for those goals, which are produced by evolution and not represented within the organism. The MacCready Explosion and Memes Dennett observed that there has been about 3.5 billion years since the start of the whole tree of life, and only about 6 million years since the divergence of humans from chimps and bonobos, our closest hominid relatives. But a mere 10,000 years ago, as Paul MacCready pointed out, the total human population plus livestock and pets composed about a tenth of one percent of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass. Today, however, we consume 98% of it (most of which is cattle). The Cambrian “explosion” in which multicellular life became dramatically more diversified took place over millions of years, while the “MacCready explosion” took place over a mere 500 generations, and the explanation is science and technology, communicated from parents to children not by biological evolution but through culture. Here Dennett gave an introduction to memes by analogy–the cultural highway of transmission of ideas, once it exists, can be invaded by “rogue cultural variants,” or “memes,” as Richard Dawkins originally called them They are vehicles of information, like viruses, that invade our brains. He then paused for a “skeptical interlude” to address the question of what’s the evidence that memes even exist. He asked, “do you believe that words exist?” If so, then those are examples of a subset of memes, those that can be pronounced. (I’m not sure of the practical benefit of talk of memes as opposed to ideas, concepts, and language, but I’ll save commentary on that until I read the meme chapters in DDI.) So, said Dennett, we are apes with “infected” brains, or, on analogy to prokaryotes/eukaryotes, we are “euprimates.” We carry with us virtual machines that give us new powers and versatility to bring organization of the world up another level. Mind Tools Dennett quoted one of his own students, Bo Dahlborn, who wrote, “Just as you cannot do very much carpentry with your bare hands, there is not much thinking you can do with your bare brain.” We have conceptual tools and methods. At the very simplest level, there are words as tools, such as passwords or labels. Douglas Hofstadter’s I Am A Strange Loop identifies a bunch of phrases that are frequently used as tools for analogies, such as “wild goose chases,” “tackiness,” “loose cannons,” “feet of clay,” “feedback,” “slamdunks,” “lip service,” and “elbow grease.” Dennett compared these to Java applets for the mind–collections of information transmitted from one person to another that allow them to do something more. Long division is a more complex example. With a sufficiently well developed English (or other language) “virtual machine,” you can “download” the procedure in the form of mathematical instruction or from a book, to be able to perform the process. Cost-benefit analysis is a bigger, more complex set of tools learned in the same way. While some such tools have distinct authors, others have evolved. Language itself, money, and tonal music are examples of such mental tools that were not created at once by individual authors, but have evolved over time. What this implies for who we are is that we are not Cartesian egos with original intentionality, but “an alliance of hemi-semi-demi-understood virtual machines." Darwin’s Trio Darwin proposed three types of selection. First, two types of selection where the selective force is human beings. 1. Methodical selection, or intentional artificial selection, where humans intentionally breed creatures for particular characteristics. 2. Unconscious selection, where humans simply preferred certain organisms to others, and helped those to reproduce–such as in farming, and raising domestic animals. To those, Darwin added 3. Natural selection. Now we’ve also added 4. Genetic engineering. And the same categories can be applied to memes. There are original, synanthropic memes, those which live with us but are not domesticated, such as superstitions; these are analogous to memes created by natural selection. There are memes replicated by unconscious selection, such as differential replication of tunes based on how catchy they are. Dennett noted that the Germans call tunes that get stuck in your head “earworms.” And then there is methodical selection of domesticated memes, which would include science, literature, and calculus. Dennett compared calculus to laying hens, for which broodiness has been selected out–you have to work hard to get it to reproduce. And to these categories we can add memetic engineering–spin-doctoring, marketing, propaganda, etc. Bootstrapping Dennett asked, how do you draw a straight line? We use a straight edge. And how do we make straight edges? By drawing a line along a piece of metal with a straight edge, and cutting it. How do we get the first straight edge? He pointed to a book on the history of straight edges, and observed that over time we have gradually improved our technology for making straight edges, and can now measure far more precisely how we fall short in reaching the unattainable goal of a perfectly straight line. We can represent our goal, our reasons for achieving the goal, and the imperfections and errors in reaching that goal. He suggested that the Platonic “form of the true” has a similar history, and that in science “memes have been selected for veridicality." At this point, we really do have the capacity for genuine top-down design. Dennett concluded his talk (apart from the next section, which seemed more like an afterword) by stating that “What makes us human is not our genetic children, but our brainchildren. We’ve finally reached genuine intelligent design." Darwin Fish Dennett concluded his prepared lecture by pointing out that he was wearing a Darwin fish lapel pin. The physicist Murray Gell-Mann observed to Dennett that this was patterned after the Jesus fish, a fish symbol which contains the Greek word for fish, which was apparently the first acronym. The Greek letters ΙΧΘΥΣ stand for the Greek words for Jesus Christ, God’s Son, the Savior, said Gell-Mann. But what does “DARWIN” stand for? Dennett took that as a challenge, and came up with a Latin expansion for “DARUUIN” (since there is no letter “W” in Latin): Delere Auctorem Rerum Ut Universum Infinitum Noscas This translates into English as Destroy the author of things in order to understand the infinite universe I’m not too fond of this–it confirms anti-evolutionists’ worst fears of evolution, and refers to an “author of things” to be destroyed, as though there is one that exists, rather than a myth not to be believed. It’s clever, though. UPDATE (February 20, 2009): Dennett then answered a few brief questions, and then signed a bunch of books. The first question (and the only one I’ll note) was what it was like to work with W.V. Quine, his mentor. Dennett said that he transferred to Harvard University as an undergraduate specifically to work with Quine, and that two of the most significant influences from Quine were the view that science and philosophy are significantly overlapping and parts of the same larger project, and that the quality of Quine’s writing (in contrast to his lecture style) was something to aspire to. He’s well-spoken, entertaining, and thought-provoking, and I encourage you to hear him speak if you have the opportunity. I think that his views, like those of Richard Dawkins, argue that science and evolution in particular either imply or at least cohere better with or provide evidence for atheism. I don’t think there is a logical implication, and I’m not sure Dennett and Dawkins do, either–that’s something that anti-evolutionist lawyer Phillip Johnson has argued, which I’ve critiqued at the talkorigins.org website, and which the views of Christian evolutionists like Kenneth Miller, Glenn Morton, and Mike Beidler contradict by their very existence. On the other hand, I’m not sure Miller’s position is coherent (I really should get around to writing a summary of last year’s Skeptics Society conference), and I reject the NOMA view that there is no overlap between the domains of religion and science and agree with Dennett’s and Quine’s views that there is significant overlap between science and philosophy (and history, for that matter). The National Center for Science Education and many scientists argue for a sharp divide between science and philosophy, and between science and religion, and find cases like those made by Dawkins and Dennett (and P.Z. Myers) to be problematic, especially when it comes to the legal arena and the goal of keeping intelligent design and creationism out of the public schools (though public universities have more freedom). I think that this is ultimately due to a tension between the principles of separation of church and state, public education, and academic freedom, given that there is no sharp divide between the domains of science and religion (or science and philosophy). In my view, in any case where a religion makes an empirical claim, if there’s scientific evidence against that claim, it should be legitimate to discuss that scientific evidence in a public school classroom even if that has the primary effect of inhibiting (or promoting) religion (violating the second prong of the Lemon Test for measuring whether a government action is a violation of the Constitution’s establishment clause). I consider it a flaw in the Lemon Test that people can always create new religions which attempt to turn secular ideas into religious content with the specific intent of turning government actions into church-state violations (e.g., creating a doctrine that paying taxes is a sin), as well as the fact that it provides an unwarranted immunity to criticism in the classroom for religious claims, even if they are empirically falsified or conceptually incoherent. (See the comments of this Ed Brayton post at Dispatches from the Culture Wars on the Summum monument case for some legal puzzles. BTW, Justice O’Connor argued for a either a different test in Lynch v. Donnelly, the “endorsement test,” which asks whether a reasonable person would conclude government is endorsing or disapproving religion from the action. This has sometimes been interpreted as a complement to the Lemon Test, and sometimes as a substitute for it. Judge Jones in the Dover case applied both the endorsement test and the Lemon Test, and argued that the Dover school district violated both, including all three prongs of Lemon.) Another resolution is to finesse the issue by getting government out of the business of being a direct provider of education, and instead meet the goal of free public education by providing government funding and standards that include mandatory curriculum requirements that any school can exceed with content that expresses particular religious viewpoints. By providing a fixed amount of per-pupil funding and a mandatory minimum curriculum that doesn’t include religious content, those two items are tied together and anything beyond it would be considered provided at the school’s own expense, and thus not a church-state violation. In my view, more discussion and debate of religious claims at a younger age will yield better-educated adults (and probably more atheists). Ironically, it is western democracies without a strong history of separation of church and state where religion is weakest and acceptance of evolution is strongest. Without finessing the problem like that or modifying the Lemon Test, views like those of Dennett and Dawkins must be excluded from public school classrooms along with creationism for the same reasons (to the extent that they express a religious viewpoint), and I think that ultimately the “exploring evolution” or “academic freedom” strategies of the creationists for getting critiques of evolution into the public school classrooms will succeed in passing constitutional muster. Ultimately, the reason their arguments should be excluded from science classrooms is not that they are religious, but that they are bad arguments, and there’s no constitutional provision prohibiting the establishment of bad arguments. ...

This black unneutered male Cocker Spaniel came up to us at around 11th St. and Caldwell while we were walking our dogs. There were some people nearby, and we asked if this was their dog, and they said no, so we brought him home and called Animal Care & Control. He’s wearing a spiked collar with no tags and looks like he’s been wandering the streets for a couple of days or so. He was very tired and thirsty. We’ve put his picture and description up on Pets911.com. ...

The latest ApostAZ podcast is now available: Episode 014 Atheism and Sucker-Free Thought in Phoenix! Go to meetup.com/phoenix-atheists for group events! Intro from Vocab Malone ‘Lean Back- But think’, Guest Shawn from the Tough Questions Podcast and http://www.youtube.com/user/azsuperman01 and Josh, Religion and the Workplace, Outro Music from Greydon Square- CPT TheoremComments: I wish people would stop saying that you can’t prove a negative. You can. (Also see this.)

As we prepared to take our dogs for a walk this evening, we found this guy in our yard. He has a collar, but no tags. We’ve put his photo up on Pets911.com, and he’ll spend the night here and get a pound pickup tomorrow. UPDATE (February 7, 2009): This black lab (mix?) isn’t happy-go-lucky like our first stray of the year–he was quite fearful, but did relax a bit when we got him on leash. He was interested in our dog Fred, which we used to catch him. Once on leash and after receiving some attention, he warmed up, and he would then come back after being let off leash. He was terrified to come in the house, and didn’t seem to want to walk on the wood floor of the kitchen, but we did eventually get him into the spare bedroom, where I stayed with him overnight. He ended up sleeping peacefully at the foot of the bed. This morning, I had the same challenge getting him out of the bedroom that I had getting in–so I ended up letting him straight out to the side patio, and he’s now back out in the front yard. UPDATE: The same animal control officer who picked up our first stray just picked up this dog, and gave us some good news–the first stray we turned in was successfully adopted, and is now named Truman! UPDATE: We got our first call today about our Pets911.com listing for the above dog, which includes a photo and a description. The call went like this: ME: Hello? CALLER: Uh. Did you find a lost dog? ME: Yes, we did. CALLER: What did it look like? ME: It’s a black lab mix, young … CALLER: Oh, that can’t be our dog. Our dog is white.Every phone call save one that we’ve received as a result of our found dog notices online has been from someone whose dog could not possibly have been confused with the dog in the description. (The one exception was one where the dog was returned to his rightful owner.) By contrast, when we’ve put up posters there’s been no similar mistake. I suspect the Internet information is being passed on to the callers by friends or family, but apparently people who look at lost dog information on the Internet do not know how to communicate basic information about color or breed. Or perhaps this caller has a computer infected by a virus that replaces all images with photographic negatives? ...

We found this dog at Circle K Park while walking our dogs. He is a friendly pit bull mixed with something big and shaggy (perhaps Bernese Mountain Dog), with a partly brindle coat. He was easy to capture on leash–he came right up to Kat. We brought him home and he eagerly drank a full bowl of water and some food. He raced around our front yard and chased a ball and brought it back. He’s just a puppy with perfect teeth and bad habits of jumping up and being overly excited. We put his picture on Pets911 and took him by the house of a neighbor who said he lost a brindle-coated pit bull a few months ago that had been seen in the vicinity of the park. We had trouble coaxing him into the car, but eventually he crawled in on his own accord. Unfortunately, the man’s wife said this wasn’t their dog He seemed to have some kind of allergy, as he had red around his eyes and his gums were bright red, so we gave him a Benadryl. I spent the night with him in our spare bedroom, and he couldn’t seem to sit still or stop breathing hard (or stop wanting attention) until the Benadryl kicked in, and he had a couple of decently long periods of sleep and rest. When he got up this morning, his eyes and gums looked much better, and he again enjoyed racing around the front yard and playing fetch. Animal Care and Control picked him up just a few minutes ago, and he was shaking in the kennel on the truck. I don’t think he’s one who is going to do well in a kennel situation. We got his case number, in case someone calls us as a result of the Pets911 ad, but unfortunately, that rarely happens. UPDATE (February 7, 2009): When the animal control officer picked up our second stray of 2009, he let us know that this good boy was quickly adopted, and is now known as Truman. Congratulations, Truman! ...

The latest ApostAZ podcast is now available: Episode 013 Atheism and Shit-Free Thought in Phoenix! Go to meetup.com/phoenix-atheists for group events! All Music from Greydon Square- CPT Theorem, Ten Things the Pope Hates About Reality, Some Obama Topics, Family Planning and Stem Cell Research, REBT: Self-Downing. Jan. 31: Filming for ArizonaCOR welcome video (happened today). Feb. 13: Phoenix Atheists meetup new member welcome at Baby Kay’s. Feb. 15: SMOCA 10th anniversary, Phoenix Atheists will attend. Feb. 18: Daniel Dennett speaking at ASU on “Darwin’s Strange Inversion of Reasoning.” Phoenix Atheists will attend. Comments on this episode: I don’t think the difference between a religion and a cult is just the number of members, though growing large enough certainly tends to change social perception. As I’ve written previously at this blog, I think the characteristics that make a group a cult are something like Steve Hassan’s BITE model (Behavior control, Information control, Thought control, Emotional control) or better yet (since it doesn’t depend on questionable notions of mind control), Isaac Bonewits’ Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame (ABCDEF).

The City of Phoenix’s $97.4 million sales tax subsidy to the CityNorth retail center project in north Phoenix has been declared unconstitutional, a violation of the Arizona Constitution’s gift clause. All three members of the appeals court agreed, writing in their opinion that “We think these payments are exactly what the Gift Clause was intended to prohibit." The city’s subsidy would have granted $97.4 million in sales tax revenues (or less, not to exceed 50% of the sales taxes collected by CityNorth businesses) over 11 years to the project developer, the Klutznick Company, in return for 3,180 parking spaces, including 200 parking lot spaces set aside for public use for “park and ride,” for the next 45 years. The ruling found that the only public benefit for which the city could legitimately be paying were the 200 “park and ride” spaces, and that the city may still pay market rate for those 200 spaces (probably about $6 million over 45 years), but not for the other 3,180 spaces. The appeals court’s ruling may be found here (PDF). Congratulations to Goldwater litigation director Clint Bolick and the owners of the six small businesses that were plaintiffs in the case: Meyer Turken of Turken Industrial Properties, Ken Cheuvront of Cheuvront Wine and Cheese Cafe and Cheuvront Construction (and Democratic State Senator), Zul Gilliani who owns an ice cream shop at Paradise Valley Mall, James Iannuzo of Sign-a-Rama, Kathy Rowe of Music Together, and Justin Shafer of Hava Java. The Goldwater Institute team initially lost the case, Turken v. Gordon, at the trial court level in Maricopa County Superior Court. The City of Phoenix tried unsuccessfully to get an award of $600,000 in attorney’s fees from the Goldwater Institute in an attempt to chill future public interest lawsuits; now they’ll no doubt appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. (Previously.)

Four people associated with the anti-Arpaio group Maricopa Citizens for Safety and Accountability, were arrested on Wednesday for standing and applauding a speaker at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting. The East Valley Tribune notes that: A double standard clearly was in effect during the Board of Supervisors meeting Wednesday. At one point, public-transit advocate Blue Crowley used part of his public-comment time allotment to sing a birthday song to [MCBoS chairman Andy] Kunasek. Kunasek blushed and several people applauded, but none was ordered to leave or threatened with arrest. However, Kunasek, deputies and security officers refused to tolerate applause after the anti-Arpaio speech minutes later.The criminal clappers were charged with “suspicion of disorderly conduct and trespassing." This brings the arrests of MCSA members to eight for the week and nine for the last four months. Four other members of MCSA were arrested on Monday, after a group of 20 went to Andy Kunasek’s office to talk with him and he refused to meet with them. Sheriff’s deputies asked them to leave and arrested the four who refused. The other arrest was MCSA co-founder Randy Parrez, who was arrested on September 29 outside a Board of Supervisors meeting on similar charges–suspicion of trespassing and disorderly conduct. All but one of the members of the Board of Supervisors are Republicans. The Tribune article quotes Supervisor Max Wilson (R-District 4) as saying, “I don’t tell the police how to do their job. I don’t instruct them to do it or when to do it. They’re professionals at it and that’s the way they handle it.” The lone Democrat, Mary Rose Wilcox (D-District 5), however, stated that she thought the arrests were excessive and that she would talk to security about it.

Last night Einzige, frequent commenter Schtacky, and I went to see “A Very Merry Unauthorized Children’s Scientology Pageant” in Tempe, put on by the Stray Cat Theatre. By lucky coincidence, local Scientology expert and critic Jeff Jacobsen was also attending (see his recent article), and we sat with him in the front row for what proved to be a very enjoyable performance. On the way to work this morning, I heard Robrt Pela of Phoenix’s New Times reading his review on the local NPR station, and his review describes our experience quite well: About three minutes into Stray Cat Theatre’s newest production, I found myself thinking: This can’t be really happening. When you go to see it — and you must, if you do nothing else this holiday season, go see this astonishing stage production — you will almost certainly experience the same sense of delighted confusion. … I rarely stopped laughing during this barely-hour-long show, and my single complaint about A Very Merry Unauthorized Children’s Scientology Pageant is that it ended too soon.The play was a special treat for those of us who already know something about Scientology and the life of L. Ron Hubbard. The production tells the story of L. Ron Hubbard’s life (“writer, explorer, nuclear physicist …”) and how he came to develop Dianetics and Scientology, in the form of a children’s holiday pageant. Cheesy props and frequent costume changes are used to portray rapid changes of location, from Hawaii to New York to China. Much of what is presented is accurate–Hubbard’s birthplace, some of his claims about his life, and especially the content of Dianetics and Scientology. A few liberties are taken in the story of his life, though fewer than Hubbard himself and contemporary Scientologists take in describing his achievements. While there are countless amusing and disturbing events of Hubbard’s actual life that could have been used for comic relief but were omitted, we were surprised at how much they managed to pack into a short show. If you want the longer version, you can read Russell Miller’s biography of Hubbard, Bare-Faced Messiah, online, complete with supporting documentation including paperwork from his FBI files. The show continues tonight and tomorrow–if you have the opportunity to see it, take it, and you’ll be very glad you went.

Kat and I attended Alan Korwin’s Bill of Rights celebration, celebrating the 217th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, which was held this evening at the Wrigley Mansion. There were several hundred people in attendance, mostly civil libertarians of both liberal and libertarian varieties, including people from the Institute for Justice and the ACLU. We were asked in the invitation to think about which Amendment is our favorite–I would probably rank the 1st and 4th at the top of my list, of which the 1st is much healthier than the 4th. I’d also put the 8th and 5th high in importance, both of which have taken some recent hits but are showing signs of recovery. And of course the 6th, and the under-utilized 9th… ah, heck, they’re all important. The crowd seemed dominated by 2nd Amendment fans, not surprising since Alan Korwin is the author and publisher of numerous books on U.S. gun laws. The reading of the Bill of Rights and its preamble was excellent, but I was disappointed that the event included a Patrick Henry impersonator played by Lance Hurley of Founding Fathers Ministries. Hurley is a Christian who endorses David Barton’s works of pseudohistory on his website (for which the antidote is Chris Rodda’s Liars for Jesus), and at the event argued in character, with quotations from Henry, that the 2nd Amendment came from the teachings of Jesus Christ, that the American revolution was fought on Christian principles, and the Constitutional Convention succeeded because of Ben Franklin’s prayer. He also stated, when there were discussions of the health of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, that freedom of religion is in serious danger, because no one can mention God in schools but the Koran can be discussed. This is simply untrue–God and the Bible can be discussed by students, but such discussions cannot constitutionally be imposed by state agents such as teachers and administrators in a way that constitutes an establishment of religion. The Bible can be legally taught as the combination of myth, history, poetry, literature, and religious doctrine that it is, but Christianity cannot be endorsed as true by state agents. The same rules apply to the Koran. Hurley seems not to realize that Madison’s version of the First Amendment won out, not Henry’s. Some Christians–and it appears that Hurley may be one of them–have a view that their freedom of religion is infringed if they are prevented from legally imposing their religion on others through acts of state agents. I’ll find it amazing that Christians consider themselves to be a poor, persecuted minority prohibited from expressing their religious views when they are, in fact, regularly engaging in establishment clause violations, and Congressmen are signing on to bills like last year’s House Resolution 847. Hurley does public speaking as both Patrick Henry and George Washington–I wonder if his George Washington is historically accurate with respect to Washington’s religious views. He’s also an advocate of conspiracy theories (Illuminati, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, etc.) and an advocate of the National Day of Prayer. Further fringe elements were represented at the event by Ernie Hancock of the Ron Paul Revolution, who distributed multiple pieces of literature promoting his Freedom’s Phoenix website, billed as “uncovering the secrets & exposing the lies.” That site also promotes conspiracy theory, including “9/11 truth” conspiracy claims. In the discussions, several people brought up Phoenix’s recently installed freeway traffic speed cameras as evidence of the sickliness of the Bill of Rights, though no one really offered an explanation of how the Bill of Rights is violated by them. And the objection seemed to only be to the cameras, not to speed limit laws. I’m not a fan of speed cameras, and I agree that they are more of a revenue generation method than a safety measure, but I don’t see an obvious case that they violate the Bill of Rights. That’s not to say that the event was entirely dominated by the lunatic fringe–one woman in the audience commented that she was particularly concerned about the 4th Amendment, because she is now regularly stopped at a “border checkpoint” while driving between destinations well inside the U.S. border, because of the 100-mile “Constitution-free zone” that the courts have created around the perimeter of the U.S. And Jennifer Perkins of the Institute for Justice pointed out that even though the U.S. Supreme Court blew a gigantic hole in the 5th Amendment with the Kelo case, nearly all of the states have passed legislation adding further protections against eminent domain abuse (and Arizona’s are the strongest). There was one critical mention of the USA PATRIOT Act (by the Patrick Henry impersonator, to well-deserved applause), but no mention of Guantanamo Bay, the Military Commissions Act, or torture that I noticed. I think concern over traffic cameras is at least a bit lower on the priority list than any of these items. A point in favor of the Patrick Henry arguments is that he correctly identified the risk of expanding executive power and judicial decisions that disregarded basic rights (the fact that the Bill of Rights, as well as the Constitution itself, has many passages that have effectively been written out of it, is testament to the accuracy of that prediction). The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, at least, is alive and relatively well. UPDATE (December 16, 2008): Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars points out that Ron Paul introduced the American Freedom Agenda Act which would: Repeal the “Military Commissions Act of 2006” and thereby restore the ancient right of habeas corpus and end legally sanctioned torture by U.S. government agents Restore the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” (FISA) and thereby outlaw warrantless spying on American citizens by the President of the United States ...