Admin stuff

Comments are being temporarily held for moderation. If I see anything tomorrow I may be able to get to it, but don’t expect any comments to appear until at least Monday night.

Judge Talmadge Littlejohn is a moron

Everyone with any knowledge of history and any bit of rationality knows a government entity cannot require individuals to say the Pledge of Allegiance. This might lead one to believe a judge, of all people, would never be genuinely dumb enough to require a courtroom full of people to recite it. But that’s a faulty lead when Talmadge Littlejohn is involved.

The furor began Wednesday when an attorney with a reputation for fighting free speech battles stayed silent as everyone else recited the patriotic oath. The lawyer was jailed.

A day later, Judge Talmadge Littlejohn continued to ask those in his courtroom to say the pledge.

Attorney Danny Lampley spent about five hours behind bars before Littlejohn set him free so that the lawyer could work on another case. Lampley told The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal he respected the judge but wasn’t going to back down.

“I don’t have to say it because I’m an American,” Lampley told the newspaper.

Littlejohn clearly needs to face some disciplinary action for this. It would also help if he apologized to Lampley. It’s hard to believe he doesn’t know he’s in the wrong. I’m sure he thinks what he did was morally right – because the religious often have screwy morals – but how he might think he can do what he did? It’s nuts.

Of course, with others it’s abundantly clear they don’t really know what they’re talking about.

“I thought he was a disgrace to the United States,” Bobby Martin, a 43-year-old self-employed maintenance worker, said of Lampley. “If he can’t say that in front of a judge, he don’t deserve to be here” in this country.

Ayuh, he ain’t not don’t deserve to be no dang lawyerin’ fella in front of no judge! It ain’t right!

Oh, the silliness of nationalism, huh?

The greater enemy

From The God Delusion:

“[The nature of the conflict] is not just about evolution versus creationism. To scientists like Dawkins and Wilson, the real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition. Creationism is just a symptom of what they see as the greater enemy: religion. While religion can exist without creationism, creationism cannot exist without religion.” ~Jerry Coyne

Letter to the editor: Vote Logan

I’ve written in support of William Logan for House District 57 in Augusta, Maine in the past. I’ve now had a letter printed in the local paper.

William Logan is the right candidate to represent District 57, an area covering parts of Augusta west of the Kennebec, from Manchester to Sidney.

In a Sept. 28 Kennebec Journal article, Logan expressed his concern for the Maine Retirement System funding, offering an outline of his plan to tackle this looming crisis.

His opponent offered platitudes before admitting she had yet to do the research necessary to even hold a position, much less tell people how to fix the problem.

Logan also has some common-sense ideas that will utilize the immense power of science to decrease Maine’s energy costs while also improving the environment and creating jobs.

Logan is a candidate with deep knowledge, integrity with science, and he has quality plans for Augusta and the state as a whole. District 57 voters are lucky to have him on the ballot.

Vote for Logan.

I’m betting it was understood by those who I wanted to have an understanding of it, but I’ll clarify what I’ve put in bold here. When I say “integrity with science”, I mean it in a relative sense. Logan’s opponent is Christopher Maloney‘s wife. I think it’s more than safe to say she’s a supporter of woo. Thus, unless Logan is a woo-man himself, he has a level of integrity with science that neither Maloney can claim.

Two lessons to be learned

David Gardner and Michael Ecker thought that it would be better to recycle and donate the proceeds from some scrap metal than to watch a government entity let it all go to waste. But both that entity and the police disagree.

For years, David Gardner and Michael Ecker had watched scrap metal from the Veterans Administration facility at Togus get carried off in exchange for what they believed to be a token fee.

Then, in May, they saw that the medical center was scrapping about 1,000 pounds of copper and brass.

Instead of taking it to a storage area, they took it in their personal vehicles to One Steel Recycling Inc., in Augusta, and sent $2,487 in proceeds from the sale to the Gulf oil cleanup operation via the office of U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe.

That plan cost them their jobs and a pending theft conviction.

The two men who worked at Togus from 1981 as waste-water treatment plant operators said they had planned to tell their supervisors at Togus after they got an acknowledgment of the donation from Snowe’s office.

“Basically, it was to show them it could be used for a good purpose,” Gardner said.

But before that happened, Togus authorities learned the metal had disappeared.

On May 7, a Friday, Togus police questioned Gardner, 61, of Auburn, and Ecker, 55, of Vassalboro, about the missing metal. They denied knowing anything about it.

On May 10, the following Monday, Gardner and Ecker came clean about the scheme to the police, and each was charged with one misdemeanor count of theft by unauthorized taking.

So here are the two things that ought to be taken from this story. First, don’t talk to the cops. If they suspect you of anything, they are not there to help you. That is not part of their job. Had Gardner and Ecker not talked to the police in the first place or if they did, had they not later fessed up to what they had done (ya know, the whole recycling for charity thing…the horror!), they would still have their jobs. Giving statements to the police means giving power to the police. It isn’t in the interest of the police to use that power for the good of those they suspect of anything.

Second, this is a case of rule internalization. It’s clear what Gardner and Ecker were doing, everyone knows that. Well, everyone except Brian Stiller.

Brian G. Stiller, director of the Togus VA Medical Center, wrote, “I have concluded that the sustained charges against you are of such seriousness that mitigation of the proposed penalty is not warranted and that the penalty of removal is appropriate and within the range of reasonableness.”

The reasons for dismissal cited in an earlier letter to Gardner were “unauthorized sale of government property,” “concealment of material facts in connection with an investigation” and “absence without leave.”

This jamoke is just internalizing rules – and in melodramatic fashion. Drama Queen Stiller is enforcing rules that are in place for the sake of preventing actions with a negative effect on the Togus VA Medical Center from happening. Since no such actions actually did happen at any point – these guys took trash and made use of it – he’s just following rules for the sake of following rules. He isn’t enforcing the reason for the rules. It would seem he ought to retract his statement then that he has acted “within the range of reasonableness”, perhaps replacing it with “within the range of truthiness”.

But maybe I’m just being silly. Afterall, who wouldn’t find it reasonable to shitcan two guys for doing something with the right intentions? I mean, it’s not like they had each been there for nearly 30 years.

Oh, wait.

Thought of the day

The Social Network may be one of those rare movies I want to see twice.

God has been proven

With astounding logic.

#36 ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION
(1) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew.
(2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#37 ARGUMENT FROM POSSIBLE WORLDS
(1) If things had been different, then things would be different.
(2) That would be bad.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#129 ARGUMENT FROM INTEREST
(1) If God really doesn’t exist than atheists wouldn’t spend so much time talking about him.
(2) [Atheist refutes (1).]
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#131 ARGUMENT FROM INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY
(1) [Christian posts argument.]
(2) [Atheist refutes argument.]
(3) Atheist, you obviously didn’t understand my argument.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

#276 ARGUMENT FROM FAITH EQUIVALENCY
(1) You have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, don’t you?
(2) See! Atheists have faith too!
(3) Therefore, belief in science is just another faith.
(4) Just like I have faith in God and Jesus.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

Thought of the day

I actually like Mark Zuckerberg more since seeing The Social Network.

Ken Cuccinelli is on a witch hunt

The Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, is on another witch hunt.

When Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli II on Monday revived his anti-climate science crusade with a new, 30-page civil subpoena demanding boatloads of documents from the University of Virginia, we wondered what he might have discovered recently about the work of former U-Va. researcher Michael E. Mann, the object of the probe, that would justify further investigation. The answer: essentially nothing.

Slapped down once by a Virginia judge in his effort to investigate Mr. Mann, the attorney general is trying again with a screed that rehashes a lot of the old arguments about Mr. Mann’s findings, including the complaint about his famous “hockey-stick” graph in 1998, which shows a spike in world temperature during the 20th century. What Mr. Cuccinelli doesn’t discuss is a 2006 inquiry from the National Academy of Sciences on reconstructing historical temperature data, which found that Mr. Mann might better have used some different statistical techniques but that his methods weren’t unacceptably poor. Instead, the academy stressed that his basic conclusions appear sound.

As I’ve said before, people like Cuccinelli don’t have the qualifications to read, understand, and appreciate scientific papers. It’s frustrating when jokes like this guy go out and attack good science out of political and economic ideology.

Oh, and the cost?

To defend itself from Mr. Cuccinelli’s investigation into the distribution of a $214,700 research grant, the University of Virginia has spent $350,000, with more to come, and that doesn’t count the taxpayer funds Mr. Cuccinelli is devoting to this cause. Sadly, though, that’s the smallest of the costs. The damage to Virginia’s reputation, and to its universities’ ability to attract and retain top-notch faculty and students, will not be easily undone.

Almost sorry

There is an excellent post over at The Stranger by Dan Savage. A listener to his radio show wrote him complaining of the way he placed responsibility on bigots for what happened to Tyler Clementi.

As someone who loves the Lord and does not support gay marriage I can honestly say I was heartbroken to hear about the young man that took his own life after being humiliated by people who should have known better. I think you need to be aware of your own prejuduces and how they might play into your thinking. At best I think your comments were hypocritical.

If your message is that we should not judge people based on their sexual preferance, how do you justify judging entire groups of people for any other reason (including their faith)?

I’ll get to Savage’s response in a second, but he didn’t directly address the listener’s question, so I want to tackle that first.

What is the difference between judging a group based on sexual orientation and judging a group based on any other reason? That question is a non-starter since it’s so incoherent, but the listener does give the specific example of faith. So how is that different? This isn’t that hard. Even though people probably adhere to the same religion as their parents, people do have a choice in their religion. They do choose to have faith, the idea that belief without evidence is a virtue. They choose to base their lives on certain doctrine and dogma. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is entirely different. That same level of choosing simply does not exist. I can choose to be gay no more than a gay woman can choose to prefer men.

But I like Savage’s response better:

I’m sorry your feelings were hurt by my comments.

No, wait. I’m not. Gay kids are dying. So let’s try to keep things in perspective: fuck your feelings.

Being told that they’re sinful and that their love offends God, and being told that their relationships are unworthy of the civil right that is marriage (not the religious rite that some people use to solemnize their civil marriages), can eat away at the souls of gay kids. It makes them feel like they’re not valued, that their lives are not worth living. And if one of your children is unlucky enough to be gay, the anti-gay bigotry you espouse makes them doubt that their parents truly love them—to say nothing of the gentle “savior” they’ve heard so much about, a gentle and loving father who will condemn them to hell for the sin of falling in love with the wrong person.

I wish we could see a lot more of this in the political realm. Of course, that would require honesty.