FastForwardz

Multi-culturalism and Intolerance

The Postmodern Interpretation of Religious Terrorism

By Paul Cliteur - Free Inquiry Magazine - March 2007

Terrorism, the use of force by private actors or organizations to intimidate others to achieve political and ideological goals, is a significant menace to contemporary democracies. In the preceding decades, terrorism was perpetrated for the sake of a piece of land (geographical terrorism) or the realization of political goals (political terrorism). Nowadays, we are confronted with religious terrorism: people commit violent acts and justify their deeds with reference to religious ideas or passages of holy scripture.

There is a difference between religious terrorism as it manifests itself in the United States of America and religious terrorism as it has become known in Europe. First, European religious terrorism is perpetrated by nationals, not by foreign forces or organizations—“home-grown terrorists,” as they are called. Mostly, the aggressors are youngsters estranged from the societies and ideals of their countries. They seek solace in an international religious community with radical ideas, such as that an appropriate punishment for blasphemy is death, as happened in the case of Theo van Gogh, not a small fine or a short prison sentence.

A second characteristic of European religious terrorism is that the aggression of the terrorists is directed at individuals. This is not the only religious terrorism that has manifested itself on European soil: the Madrid bombings of March 11, 2004, and the London Metro bombings of July 5, 2005, were indiscriminate in their attacks on large numbers of persons. Nevertheless, it is an important phenomenon in Europe that terrorism sometimes targets specific individuals. The most well-known example is, again, Van Gogh.

Third, terrorist attacks in Europe cannot be explained as a reaction to military intervention in foreign countries that may be motivated by humanitarian concerns. The terrorists themselves point to what they see as the state of decadence in their local and national communities. They do not criticize their own government for becoming involved in Iraq or Afghanistan but for having made legislation that deviates from holy law. An important factor in their discontent is the freedom in Western societies to criticize and even mock religious ideas. So religious terrorism is explicitly directed at the principle of free speech, as the “cartoon crisis” that began in Denmark makes abundantly clear...

Read the whole article at Free Inquiry - March 2007

Dawkins on Fossile time

Not A Trivial Error

If you were told that Liberty University taught that San Francisco was twenty-eight feet from New York you wouldn't believe it. So when Richard learns that Liberty University teaches its students something equally absurd, that dinosaurs are a few thousand years old, he offers some sound advice.

See the video clip

Richard Dawkins Home Page

This is why the courts are important

Judge Rules Against Pa. 'Intelligent Design' Policy

Now this is making sense...finally!

A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled today that a public school district in the south-central part of the state cannot require the inclusion of "intelligent design" in biology classes as an alternative to evolution.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, issuing his decision in a case that was heard in the fall, ruled that the school board in Dover, Pa., violated the Constitution when it ordered high school biology teachers to read to students a short statement that cast doubt on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and offered intelligent design as an alternative theory on the origin and development of life. Jones ruled that the requirement unlawfully promoted a religious purpose in a public school.

Judge Rules Against Pa. 'Intelligent Design' Policy

Let's change the definition of Science!

Devolution

KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD - "Doctor, my heart is attacking me. / Well, it must be haunted. / What do I do? / Pray."

"Kansas, preparing young minds for the high tech jobs of 1652."

PENN. SCHOOL BOARD - "Does this mean that Pennsylvania is more highly evolved or more intelligently designed than Kansas? Yes, yes it does."

We may watch the Kansas Board of Education's display of "unintelligent behavior" this week, with detached amusement; it can't happen here, can it? Yes it can. It's happening in Dover, Pennsylvania, and a dozen other places around the country; the religio-political lunatics are running wild with a trick 'wedge issue' and the media and the naive among the public are lapping it up. The good news from PA is that the "intelligent design" faction was completely repudiated in Tuesday's election, and voted out of office. However, the court case initiated to block the overtly religious "ID" programs of the now un-elected Dover school board is still in motion; testimony is now over, and a ruling by the judge is due in January. We can only hope that the judge in this case has an "intelligent" mind and at least a high school science education.

We are clearly entering into a profoundly dangerous period in American history. We are either on the verge of a final denouncement of the 'dark ages', or on the verge of a pathetic slide back into them. The world is watching this sorry spectacle with no small interest; it would be very helpful to the blossoming technologic economies of places like China and India if the US were to renounce science, and reason, and totter back into religio-mumbo-jumbo. China and India have no doubts about this issue; they are firmly in the grip of secular rationality and they are not looking back. They would like nothing better than to steal our children's jobs.

I recently read a sad testimony on our efforts to educate American scientists - a renowned american scientist was speaking to a graduate level Masters Symposium, at MIT, when he realized suddenly that the entire auditorium was filled with 'foreign' students. There were in fact no American enrollees in his course. This is a situation that is being repeated all around the country. At least our colleges are doing a brisk business in educating student scientists, foreign students...for now. Meanwhile, our high school science teachers are at their wit's end debating the lunatic fringe over the importance of teaching biblical fairy tales instead of the scientific method. It doesn't seem to matter that this argument is based on totally unsupported rubbish, and that's the real problem. Can our inherently scientific culture overcome the PR induced delirium of a scientifically naive majority? What ever we may hope, the outcome of this struggle currently not clear.

Clearly our 12th century throwbacks must be soundly repudiated, or we are in for a very bumpy ride. This may be the single most important issue of our time. We must educate our children in proper secular science, how else can they live and work in the technical world of tomorrow, how else can they vote on the intensely technical issues we face; by praying? Barring a rational and scientifically literate secular majority in this country, I am not optimistic about where we go from here. Witness the middle east; perhaps we should adopt something like they have in Iran - Sharia.

Kansas Board Approves Challenges to Evolution

TOPEKA, Kan., Nov. 8 - The fiercely split Kansas Board of Education voted 6 to 4 on Tuesday to adopt new science standards that are the most far-reaching in the nation in challenging Darwin's theory of evolution in the classroom.

The standards move beyond the broad mandate for critical analysis of evolution that four other states have established in recent years, by recommending that schools teach specific points that doubters of evolution use to undermine its primacy in science education.

Among the most controversial changes was a redefinition of science itself, so that it would not be explicitly limited to natural explanations.

The vote was a watershed victory for the emerging movement of intelligent design, which posits that nature alone cannot explain life's complexity. John G. West of the Discovery Institute, a conservative research organization that promotes intelligent design, said Kansas now had "the best science standards in the nation."

Kansas Board Approves Challenges to Evolution - New York Times

Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals

All eight members up for re-election to the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office yesterday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent design policy.

Among the losing incumbents on the Dover, Pa., board were two members who testified in favor of the intelligent design policy at a recently concluded federal trial on the Dover policy: the chairwoman, Sheila Harkins, and Alan Bonsell.

The election results were a repudiation of the first school district in the nation to order the introduction of intelligent design in a science class curriculum. The policy was the subject of a trial in Federal District Court that ended last Friday. A verdict by Judge John E. Jones III is expected by early January.

"I think voters were tired of the trial, they were tired of intelligent design, they were tired of everything that this school board brought about," said Bernadette Reinking, who was among the winners.

Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals - New York Times

Dogma

When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.

Robert T. Pirsig, author and philosopher (1928- )

Meanwhile...

Fossilised crustacean boasts oldest penis

A newly discovered 425 million-year-old fossil boasts a lurid claim to fame - it has the oldest penis on record. The five millimetre long crustacean, discovered by UK and US researchers, has been named Colymbosathon ecplecticos - derived from the Greek for "astounding swimmer with a large penis".

New Scientist Breaking News - Fossilised crustacean boasts oldest penis

A Novel Idea

Our Right to Privacy

The conservatives pushing for Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court are forever carping about whether various human rights are actually 'in' the constitution, or whether they are part of the founders original vision of the constitution. The "originalists" would have us believe that we should live by the limits of the social imagination of 18th century minds. Of course were we to really do that we should still have slavery, women would not vote, and sex with out procreation would be illegal. Clearly we need the 'amendments' to the constitution to over come the limitations of the original authors, and to keep our constitution relevant to the modern world.

A principle technique of strict constitutionalists is to argue the a certain human right, like the 'right to privacy' is technically "not found" in the constitution; as if this was sufficient 'logic' to make us all just get over it. Advocates of 'human rights' often find themselves arguing from the contorted first appearance of a specific "right" in the cases brought before the court. Often, the case is morally correct, but legally convoluted, and the "right" stands on a contorted foundation of precedent. The originalists love to attack the technical aspects of various human rights on just this basis. "You may be right but it's just not in the constitution, sorry."

The left loves the 'right to privacy' because it underpins our right to have access to birth control, abortion services, gay sex, porn. Strict conservatives hate the 'right to privacy' for precisely this reason. But, regardless of their stand on these particular issues, the majority of voters think that their right to privacy is fundamental; they naively suppose that this 'right' is similar to their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Here's a novel idea - let's put 'the right to privacy' in the constitution explicitly. To block this action, the conservative right will have to argue that we don't deserve such a right, and they will look like fools. Let's have a national debate about this. Let's argue the issue on its merits; not its technical relation to the limited reasoning of 18th century white, male, land holding, rich guys who were preoccupied with their relation to a distant British king. Let's see what a contemporary American electorate thinks about our 'right to privacy', and then let's make it a proper amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Here we are, decades after Griswold, and social conservatives and liberals are constantly arguing about whether or not the right to privacy, which is a popular right (naturally enough), and one to which most Americans believe they're entitled, is actually a right to which Americans are entitled, constitutionally-speaking. Liberals love it because the RTP underpins our constitutional right to have access to birth control, abortion services, gay sex, porn. Social conservatives hate it for that very reason.

The debate raged when John Roberts was being confirmed, and it is raging again as Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court makes its way through the Senate. Is the RTP in there? Or isn’t it?

I find myself wondering why we don’t just put it in there? If the Republicans can propose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, can’t the Dems propose a “Right to Privacy” amendment? Since the RTP is popular (unlike the anti-gay marriage amendment), the Dems should put it out there and let the Republicans run around the country explaining why they're against a right to privacy—not a winning position. Then, once it passes, we’ll be spared the debate over whether or not the RTP is in there every time a conservative is nominated to the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by Dan Savage on the stranger.com

The Stranger - Slog

Kinky Stuff

Go Kinky

If you're not a Kinky Friedman fan by now, you are about to become one.

One of the great political stories in generations is about to unfold, as Richard ’Kinky’ Friedman, humorist, performer, mystery writer and Texas Monthly columnist, has announced his run for the governorship of the state of Texas in 2006. Friedman certainly will bring a whole new ballgame into Austin ’s capitol building, and he will do so as an Independent candidate and political amateur.

Kinky Friedman Official Site :: - Biography

'Go Kinky' Reality TV Show Pilot to Air

Country Music Television will air a preview of a proposed reality show based on Kinky Friedman's independent run for Texas governor.

The music network will show two half-hour pilot episodes of "Go Kinky" on Wednesday. The episodes are set to premiere in early 2006 and could lead to a TV series.

Friedman is portrayed in the show as a humorist and a man of the people _ an "anti-politician," says a statement issued Thursday by his campaign.

"We agreed to give CMT this access to give Americans a window into just how hard it is to run for office as an independent these days," Friedman said in statement. "People will see what happens when you buck the two-party system in this country and hopefully Texans will get mad enough to do something about it _ and show the rest of America the way!"

‘Go Kinky‘ Reality TV Show Pilot to Air

Kinky Friedman Official Site :: - Home

Secession in the news!

In Vermont, a revolution to secede has devotees

MONTPELIER -- A car parked outside the State House bore a bumper sticker saying, ''Regime change begins at home."

Inside, about 100 Vermonters gathered in the House chamber for the Vermont Independence Convention -- devoted to Vermont creating a regime of its own.

If participants have their way, the state whose former governor was laughed out of the 2004 presidential race after the infamous Iowa scream is going to take what some call its wackiness and others call its sanity in a crazy world and go home.

Go home to the 14 years in the late 18th century when Vermont was neither a British colony nor one of the original 13 states but was an independent republic.

In Vermont, a revolution to secede has devotees

There's nothing like the Hubble

Pluto surprise!

Academics may continue to quibble about whether Pluto is technically a planet, or not, but this week astronomers discovered two more moons orbiting around the diminutive orb.

The Hubble telescope keeps on amazing us with its stunning discoveries. While the Bush administration wants to bring the Hubble down (to save money) scientists using it continue to do pioneering science...brilliant science that can't be done any other way right now.

In fact the use of the Hubble to study Pluto was only due to the last minute cancellation of a more "prestigious" deep space project. The planetary science guys struggle to get time on a big instrument like the Hubble, but they were ready when the opportunity presented itself.

Two More Moons Discovered Orbiting Pluto

Two small moons have been discovered orbiting Pluto, bringing the planet's retinue of known satellites to three and leaving scientist to wonder how it could be.

"That suggests they probably formed at the same time as Charon," Weaver told SPACE.com in a telephone interview Friday. NASA planned a teleconference with reporters Monday at 1 p.m. ET to announce the discovery.

While scientists had predicted there might be more moons, the newfound setup is surprising nonetheless, in part because Pluto is smaller than our own Moon.

"It's almost like a mini solar system," Weaver said. "How can something about 70 percent the size of Earth's Moon have all these satellites? How can that happen? We're going to have to explain that."

The moon-hunting project was denied by Hubble planners several times and took years to get approved, and only then after a failed instrument on Hubble last year caused project leaders to add several previously unaccepted observing programs to fill the schedule.

For Hubble, this one was easy.

Unlike many observing projects that require several Hubble orbits – often 15 or more and sometimes many dozens -- Weaver's team needed just two orbits. On the first set of observations they spotted the two points of light, then on the second orbit they found them again and made sure they moved against the background of relatively fixed stars.

Two More Moons Discovered Orbiting Pluto

I Love Vermont

Here's a fine example of why Vermonters are different.

In 1776 Vermont elected to NOT join the union, preferring to wait and see how the experimental union made out; Vermonters have always been skeptical about federalism. In the next fourteen years the economic and social prospects of the fledgling Union appeared promising enough for Vermont to finally decide to join in 1791.

But unlike every other "state", by the time it joined the Union, Vermont had for fourteen years been its own 'country', an independent republic with it's own identity and it's own constitution. The signing of the Constitution for the "Free and Independent Republic of Vermont" took place in Elijah West's Tavern, in Windsor, Vermont, in 1777. The constitution resembled Pennsylvania's, but went further than others had before in that it granted full citizenship to all adult males regardless of property ownership, outlawed slavery, and set the rules for an independent nation which nevertheless contemplated admission to the United States. Of course, after admission, our skepticism about the Union has only grown over the years.

Vermont’s radicalism can be traced back to 1777 when it first became an independent republic prior to joining the Union fourteen years later. Vermont was the only American state which truly invented itself before becoming a part of the United States. Unlike other New England states, Vermont was never an English colony, or any other kind of colony, thus avoiding a period of aristocratic oligarchy. Influenced by some of its earlier Iroquois and Yankee inhabitants, Vermont established an almost casteless society never to be replicated elsewhere in America.

Second Vermont Republic

Unfortunately, back in 1791, wealthy land owners in New York State had presumptions of real estate ownership in the Republic of Vermont, and before they would allow the "Republic" to join the "Union" they managed to get crooked politicians in NY to extort the princely sum of $30,000 from Vermont. Now Vermont wants the money back, with interest.

Vermonters want New York to repay Vermont statehood debt

MONTPELIER, Vt. --A Vermont Supreme Court justice wants the state of New York to repay, with interest, a $30,000 payment Vermont made to New York 215 years ago so it would allow Vermont to join the union.

Before Vermont joined the union in 1791, New York argued it was owed the money to repay land claims in what was then the independent Republic of Vermont dating to a 1664 British royal proclamation.

Vermont and New York officials signed a payment agreement on Oct. 7, 1790. The first payment was in 1794. It took Vermont five years to finish paying the debt, said state Archivist Gregory Sanford.

"This money was taken, as far as we're concerned, simply as extortion," Dooley said. "We had to pay it to get into the union, because otherwise if New York opposed we would not become a state." Depending on how the interest on the money is calculated, the $30,000 payment could have grown to as much as $1.3 billion."

Vermonters want New York to repay Vermont statehood debt

So what? Where's the crime?"

We do not get to pick and choose which laws we will obey and which we will not.

On the eve of conclusion of the Fitzgerald investigation, here's is a very appropriate comment from former US Senator Gary Hart regarding the relative gravity of the 'offense' in the case of outing of an undercover agent of the US Central Intelligence Agency. While the White House will try to spin the coming Fitzgerald indictments as much ado about nothing (mere perjury), remember where this whole thing started; it started with a crime that carries a penalty of 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine. A crime that was committed in the interest of inflicting damage to political opponents in the run-up to a war...no big thing.

I saw this first on Atrios' site (http://atrios.blogspot.com/). The original article comes from the Denver Post; you might want to read the whole thing at:

Here is the crime in outing a CIA agent

The federal statute making it a criminal penalty to knowingly divulge the identity of anyone working undercover for the Central Intelligence Agency was not enacted in a vacuum. In the early 1970s, in part as a result of the radicalization of individuals and groups over the Vietnam War, a former CIA employee named Philip Agee wrote a book revealing the identities of several dozen CIA employees, many under deep cover and some including agency station chiefs in foreign capitals.

-----

Richard Welch, a brilliant Harvard-educated classicist, had been stationed in Greece as CIA station chief only a few months before he was murdered, by a radical Greek terrorist organization called the 17th of November, in the doorway of his house in Athens on Dec. 23, 1975. Had Agee not divulged his name,* there is every reason to believe that Welch would be alive today after decades of loyal service to his country.

Largely as a result of Agee's perfidy and Welch's unnecessary death, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) of 1982 was enacted, making it a felony to knowingly divulge the identity of a covert CIA operative. It carries penalties of 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine for each offense. There are those who dismiss the crime by saying, "Oh, Wilson only had a desk job." That is not a defense under this felony statute. It is for the CIA, not Karl Rove or Robert Novak, to determine who requires identity protection and who does not.

-----

There is one final irony to this story. On Christmas Eve in 1975, I got a call at my home from the director of the CIA, William Colby. He asked if I would intervene with the White House to obtain presidential approval to have Welch buried at Arlington National Cemetery, a hero fallen in service to his country. I quickly called President Ford's chief of staff on Colby's behalf and made the request. Within two hours, the president had agreed to sign the order permitting Welch to be buried at Arlington.

The chief of staff's name was Richard Cheney.

DenverPost.com - OPINION - 10/25/05