Unsuccessful Arguments for Intelligent Design

My friend Chad at CCK has this comment:

Robbinsdale Radical reminds us that John Thune doesn't believe in evolution.

I went to robbinsdale radical and found the post that Chad has in mind, but the only evidence of John Thune's opinion on evolution that I found was a link to one of my own posts in which I explicitly confirm my own belief in evolution.  I don't happen to know what Senator Thune thinks about evolution, and I am guessing that RR and CCK don't know either. 

But RR and CCK put us on to an interesting argument.  Here is the Radical's take:

One of the arguments against evolutionary theory is that complex parts that work together could not have developed independently and certainly not placed in their complex structure without divine intervention. It's a very tempting argument, especially if you are inclined to the geological time scale and are amazed (you should be) at structure like the human eye and also in the marvelous interdependence of entire ecosystems.

You may have heard this   as the "wristwatch on the beach" argument. It's a very old and weak line of reasoning that dates back before Christianity, and was a popular criticism of Darwin in the 19th century.

In fact, I think that RR has misidentified the "irreducible complexity" argument.  It is not an example of the argument from design (designed things like the human eye imply a designer), but of the argument from causation.  See St. Thomas Aquinas Five Ways, numbers 2 and 5.  Here is an example of the latter:

1)  The only natural way to get a chicken is from a chicken egg;
2)  The only natural way to get a chicken egg is from a chicken;
3)  There was a time in the past when there were no chickens. 
4)  Therefore: chickens can only have come into being through some supernatural force. 

That looks like a valid argument to me, in so far as the conclusion 4 follows from premises 1-3.  Of course Darwinian theory decisively undermines premise 1: you can get chickens by natural speciation from some proto-chicken species. 

Intelligent Design Theory attempts to repair the argument by showing that Darwinian mechanics is insufficient.  The latter can explain the evolution of complex organic structures from simple ones only if the structure confers some reproductive advantage at every stage of its history.  But some organic structures (the current favorites are complex molecular devices) function only if they are complete and not at all in simpler, partial versions.  Hence they are irreducibly complex.  So you still need chickens to get chicken eggs. 

That is not a stupid argument. It is very sophisticated biologically and philosophically, which is evident from the fact that its failure illuminates and strengthens Darwinian theory.  RR and CCK direct us to an excellent blog post by Sharon Begley that shows why the argument fails.

[The irreducible-complexity crowd] makes a fatal error: they assume that whatever the function of a biological component (gene, protein, biochemical pathway . . . ) today must have been its function in the past. Maybe you noticed that my mouse trap example above wasn’t very persuasive; even without a base and a bar, a spring can be a useful little device. So it goes with biological systems. For instance, of the 42 proteins known to make up the bacterial flagellum, 40 have been found to serve as ion channels or something else in bacteria. It is therefore perfectly plausible that they really were hanging around—serving some function that would have allowed evolution and natural selection to keep them around generation after generation—until they all got together and formed a flagellum.

This seems to me to be dead spot on. The flagellum, basically a fin that bacteria use to swim, has been used as an example of irreducible complexity.  It is in fact the result of simpler machinery turned to new uses by natural selection.  Ms. Begley focuses on a study that found genes for producing synapses (the cellular structures allow that our brain cells to form a network) in sponges, which presumably have no brains. 

Evolutionary theory wins every one of these many battles.  That is why I believe in it.  But it is made stronger by the argument, and that is why Darwinism benefits from an honorable opposition.  I differ from the Robbinsdale Radical and the Clean Cut Kid only in this: I think that evolution is a way to explore and understand the wonders of the world, and not just a weapon with which to belittle persons of faith. 

SD Gorilla Project

Argus Leader excerpt:

The group behind the Gorilla project fears rivals could buy up land in the Elk Point area, which is partly why secrecy is needed, Gov. Mike Rounds says.

Meanwhile, a University of South Dakota professor said Thursday that he and others at the school have been contacted by a Houston firm requesting help with research.

David Carr, an assistant professor of economics in the Beacom School of Business, said he and others at USD were contacted in April by an economic consulting firm in Houston "and asked if we were interested in doing an economic and social impact study for what is known as the Gorilla project."

"The Department of Economics bid jointly with the Business Research Bureau," Carr said. "We didn't get it. And they didn't tell us what it was for."

Other local residents have done work connected to the project. A lawyer at one of Sioux Falls' largest law firms, for instance, drafted the real estate documents landowners near Elk Point have been asked to sign.

Rounds, in Sioux Falls on Thursday to announce increased state funding for the Lewis & Clark water project, would not say when a Gorilla announcement might be made.

But the governor did say the secrecy was partly to prevent others from buying land in the area.

"It's because there is a very competitive industry that this particular organization's going to be competing in," he said.

Speculation about the project has ranged from a large manufacturing plant to a refinery. It reportedly would create as many as 2,000 jobs, and up to 5,000 acres of South Dakota farmland would be used.

Global Warming Dissent: Here Comes the Sun!

There are four really interesting questions about global warming: 1) is it happening? 2) Is it caused in large part by human activity? 3) Is it bad? and 4) Can we do anything about it?  I have written frequently on this topic and I have been mostly persuaded that the answer to the first two questions is yes.  I have argued that the answer to the last question is no.  As for the third question, I think that we have no idea except to say that change always presents challenges. 

Discover magazine has a fascinating interview with a genuine climate scientist who clearly and cautiously skeptical about question number 2.  I haven't been able to find an on line version, but here is the abstract:

This article presents an interview with Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center of Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center. Svensmark has become a controversial figure for proposing solar activity is responsible for global warming. He says cosmic rays suppress cloud formation, which, in turn, affects temperatures on Earth.

The caution with which Svensmark answers questions in the interview indicates the political pressure that honest scientists are under if their research has implications for this matter.  I gather that it is a very bad thing if the Bush Administration pressures scientists to conform to the party line, but global warming activists don't mind at all bringing all sorts of pressure on scientists who don't follow their line.  But Svensmark is man enough to acknowledge the bottom line: to the extent that global warming is due to solar activity, it isn't due to human activity. 

This came to mind tonight as I watched a Nature show on Ireland.  13,000 years ago, if I remember it right, the Emerald Isle was snow white with ice, and dead as a frozen leg of lamb.  Since then it has thawed out and greened, allowing all sorts of flora and fauna to flourish, along with the Irish Republican Army and the Guinness brewery.  So global warming has been going on for a long time without our help, and for the most part it has been a very good thing.  Of course there have been winners and losers.  Why are there stoats in Ireland, but no weasels or snakes?  Because as Ireland thawed, the seas receded, eventually submerging the land bridge between England and Ireland.  The stoats made it across in time.  The snakes didn't.  The Protestants had to use boats.

That is the history of Ireland and everywhere else.  I note that the people of Greenland are delighted with global warming, as their charming chunk of earth is becoming green once again.  Sitting on my deck in June with a jacket on, I am with them. 

SDP Jazz Note: The Red Garland Quintet

Building a jazz library is a challenge because so many different kinds of music are published under that genre title. A lot of stuff gets in that doesn't belong there, and rare is the jazz fan whose tastes are wide enough to encompass everything that does.  I make a lot of use of jazz guides, such as the "building a jazz library" articles at All About Jazz.  I have recently discovered an invaluable resource: the Jazz Discography Project.  This is a very thorough catalog of recordings by major jazz artists listing songs, albums, session dates and recording locations.  It is the single most useful on line jazz page that I have found. 

I blogged earlier about the four great recordings made by the Miles Davis Quintet in 1956. Using the Jazz Discography, I discovered  a similar session recorded in November and December of 1957 by The Red Garland Quintet.  Garland played piano for Davis's Quintet, and he brought John Coltrane along with him.  Donald Bird replaced Davis on trumpet, with George Joyner on bass, and Art Taylor on drums.  It is not really a "quintet" in so far as the group did not travel and do live shows like the Miles Davis Quintet. But the session recorded by Rudy Van Gelder in Hackensack, New Jersey, spawned three albums: All Morning Long, Soul Junction, and High Pressure.

I have listened to the first two and they are marvelous.  They sit quite comfortably next to the Davis Quintet's Cookin' and Workin' on my CD shelf, with the same bluesy energy and deep heart.  High pressure was a little harder to reel in.  Barnes and Noble ran out, but I await a copy from some outfit in the Smoky Mountains, by way of Amazon.  This was a delicious find for a certified jazz nerd.  I at least had never heard of this session, and I am guess that a lot of folks with the Miles Davis Quintet on their iPods haven't heard it either.  If nothing else, this is a bit of undiscovered Coltrane, whose genius is on full display as a sideman.  Check it out. 

Immigration Bill

A cloture vote on the immigration bill has failed on a 45-50 vote.  A majority of Republicans voted against cloture, which permits more debate and additional amendments.   Obviously Congress needs to take measures to improve immigration, but the comprehensive compromise is not the way to go.  With this defeat, perhaps Congress can move on to more serious measures.  Perhaps they'll secure the border, in part by building the fence that Congress authorized and funded last year, and by bolstering the Border Patrol.  Perhaps they'll fix the visa program, which Congress wanted done by 2005, and take measures to punish businesses who hire illegal immigrants.  Congress has a lot of work ahead of itself to rebuild its credibility.

On another note, Harry Reid is telling reporters that he gave the bill plenty of time for debate, but Republicans are wanting too many amendments and are asking for too much time in their legislative schedule.  This from a political party that took 108 days to pass a spending bill for our troops in Iraq?  He's willing to have fifteen weeks of debate over spending, seven times longer than he's allowing for an overhaul of our immigration system.  He's blaming the defeat on the GOP, despite the fact that ten Democrats voted against cloture.

Herseth Sandlin Now Supports Kyoto

The Capitol Journal reports that Representative Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin has thrown her support behind the Kyoto Protocol, saying that her European tour on climate change with Speaker Pelosi has opened her eyes:

U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., said she thinks global warming is real and President George Bush needs to do more to acknowledge the problem.

Herseth Sandlin recently completed a tour of four nations with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and said the evidence is easy to see.

"From the scientific evidence that's been presented in Washington, from the observations and experiences of the native people, as well as witnessing first hand the melting and what's happened, it confirms even more in my mind that global warming is happening," she said.

Herseth Sandlin said some fishermen were saying they were catching foreign species of fish because of the warmer water temperatures. Also, she said they told her that certain areas of snow and ice are melting, which is affecting their dog-sledding industry.

"When we're out in the harbor and we're seeing the icebergs melting and we're seeing the glaciers and where you can see on a daily basis the breaking off from the glacier, when you can see in an aerial view this sort of river coming out it's dramatic," she said.

The international trip was over the Memorial Day weekend and included members of both parties. Herseth Sandlin said the Republican president made an important step when he announced a proposal to reduce the U.S.'s greenhouse gasses, but there is still more to be done.

"We've got to fill in the detail and keep sort of the pressure on to move forward with the immediacy that I think this deserves," she said.

Herseth Sandlin originally was against the Kyoto Treaty - which assigns emissions limits to reduce greenhouse gasses - because China and India were not a part of the framework. However, now she recognizes the need for the U.S. to join.

"I do think that so long as the United States doesn't participate in the multilateral negotiations, that it makes it too easy for China and India to go ahead and say 'Why should we participate when the United States isn't participating,' she said.

The congresswoman's trip has been the target of attack ads from a group called Common Sense for the 21st Century. The ads accuse her of not caring about her home state because she went on the trip soon after the Aberdeen flooding occurred.

"I think the criticism is unfortunate and really ill-informed," she said. "My family and friends in Brown County and that area know that I've been responsive, as has the entire delegation working with the governor, so out-of-state partisan attacks don't worry me much."

However, one of the unintended consequences of signing Kyoto, according to one study, is that it ends up cutting farm incomes by fifty percent:

Kyoto Treaty could cut US farm income by 50 percent

(19 February 1999)

US farmers and ranchers could see their income drop to 50 percent less than 1998 levels if global warming guidelines set out in the Kyoto Treaty and agreed to by the US government are fully implemented, a study released on February 16 1999 claims.

"The impact of the treaty would be a financial last straw for many family farmers," said American Farm Bureau Federation President Dean Kleckner. "The Clinton administration has committed to a flawed treaty without releasing its own analysis of the impact the protocol would have on US agriculture. Meanwhile, agriculture has completed three studies -- all of which show devastating financial consequences for farmers and ranchers."
The study by the agricultural consulting firm Sparks Companies, Inc., states that agricultural production costs could increase by $16.2 billion or 8.8 percent. Because farmers and ranchers do not set the prices for their commodities, recapture of these higher costs would be difficult. Increased costs for processing, storing transporting and handling commodities and food would be forwarded to the consumer and would have the greatest negative impact on low-income families, who already spend a high percentage of their income on food.

"The administration is touting the treaty as a potential source of income for farmers because agricultural crops absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere," said Kleckner. "Yet, that is nowhere to be found in the treaty, and there is little promise that it will be added."

Last year, a group of agricultural interests, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Corn Growers Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Grange and United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, asked Sparks to analyse Clinton administration proposals regarding the Global Climate Change Treaty. The study is based on the final Kyoto Treaty that the US administration signed in November 1998. The study claims the treaty would also force US farmers to compete with more than 100 countries, such as China and Brazil, which do not have to comply with the treaty and its emission constraints.

"This treaty only drives production agriculture to the countries that have environmental problems but don't have to participate in the United Nations' protocol on global climate change," said Kleckner.

Has our Representative considered the Kyoto Protocol carefully? 

Left-Wing Bloggers

In a theme similar to the post below, Joe Klein writing in Time discusses the "free-range lunacy" of left-wing bloggers.  Excerpt:

A strange thing happened to me the day the House of Representatives voted to pass the Iraq-war-funding bill. Congresswoman Jane Harman of California called as the debate was taking place. "Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this," she told me. "We need a new strategy, and I hope we can force one in September. But I flew into Baghdad [with 150 young soldiers recently]. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment... they need. I couldn't do that." I posted what Harman said on Swampland, the political blog at Time.com, along with my opinion that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had changed their positions and voted against the funding for the worst possible reason: presidential politics.

And then Harman changed her position. After we spoke, she voted against the funding. The next day, I was blasted by a number of left-wing bloggers: Klein screwed up! I had quoted Harman in the past tense—common usage for politicians who know their words will appear after a vote takes place. That was sloppy and... suspicious! Proof that you just can't trust the mainstream media. On Eschaton, a blog that specializes in media bashing, I was given the coveted "Wanker of the Day" award. Eventually, Harman got wind of this and called, unbidden, to apologize for misleading me, saying I had quoted her correctly but she had changed her mind to reflect the sentiments of her constituents. I published her statement and still got hammered by bloggers and Swampland commenters for "stalking" Harman into an apology, for not checking her vote in the Congressional Record, for being a "water boy for the right wing" and many other riffs unfit to print.

This is not the first time this kind of free-range lunacy has been visited upon me. Indeed, it happens, oh, once a week to each of us who post on Swampland (Karen Tumulty, Jay Carney and Ana Marie Cox are the others). A reasonable reader might ask, Why are the left-wing bloggers attacking you? Aren't you pretty tough on the Bush Administration? Didn't you write a few months ago that George W. Bush would be remembered as one of the worst Presidents in history? And why on earth does any of this matter?

First, let me say that I really enjoy blogging. It's a brilliant format for keeping readers up to date on the things I care about—and for exchanging information with them. I recently asked Swampland readers with military experience to comment on whether it was General David Petraeus' "duty" to tell the unvarnished truth about Iraq when he testifies on Capitol Hill in September. About a dozen readers responded with links to treatises about "duty" in various military journals. Furthermore, I've found that some great reporting takes place in the blogosphere: Juan Cole's Iraq updates are invaluable, Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo did serious muckraking about the U.S. attorneys scandal, and Ezra Klein (no relation) is excellent on health care. I love linking to smart work by others, something you just can't do in a print column.

But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable. Some of this is understandable: the left-liberals in the blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful—and politically successful—tone that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered. They are also justifiably furious at a Bush White House that has specialized in big lies and smear tactics.

The Left

Nashville Files:  "[W]hen the left attacks, it's much more full of hate and fanaticism than any other group...things that those same people claim to fight against. Yet, they themselves are the complete embodiment of it in their actions."

Could Daschle Run to Replace Senator Johnson?

SDWC:

Denise Ross is over at the Hog House Blog noting that when asked about returning to public service, former Senator Tom Daschle noted that

“you never say never but I have no plans at this time,” line and then emphasized how much he enjoys public service. And, "I’ll be looking at options as they present themselves."

Read it here.

There is a whisper out there that some of "his people" want him to consider taking over Johnson's slot if it becomes available. Hmmmm.....

Iowa Straw Poll

New York Times:  "Bucking a ritual for Republican presidential candidates, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Senator John McCain announced Wednesday that they would skip participation in what has been a significant early test of candidate strength, the straw poll in Ames, Iowa, this summer."

Immigration Bill Survives Killer Amendment

This from Powerline:

Sen. John Cornyn's amendment to the Senate immigration bill, which would have prevented felons from obtaining legal status, was defeated today on a 51-46 vote. My understanding is that most observers considered Cornyn's challenge to the compromise to be the most likely to derail it.

Bob Novak writes that there are only around 30 conservative Senators opposing the bill, with Jon Kyl, Johnny Isakson, Trent Lott and Saxby Chambliss, all of whom opposed last year's bill, supporting the current version.

Meanwhile, Rasmussen reports that public support for the compromise package is slipping. Currently, only 23% support the bill, with 50% opposed. When given the alternatives of enacting the present bill and doing nothing, 49% prefer to do nothing, compared to 32% who favor passage of McCain-Kennedy.

And this from Yahoo News:

The underlying bill would legalize an estimated 12 million unlawful immigrants, tighten border security and institute new enforcement measures to prevent employers from hiring illegal workers.

After his defeat, Cornyn said those who voted against the proposal "failed to take an opportunity to help restore public confidence that we're actually serious about passing an immigration law that could actually work."

Many Americans will conclude instead that the bill's enforcement provisions will not be rigorously enforced, a problem that deeply undermined a 1986 immigration overhaul, he added.

That is indeed the problem. 

Arizona Wildcats Win Women's College World Series

The Lady Vols came closer than any Tennessee team had come before.  And they loaded the bases twice in the third and final game.  But they just couldn't bring anyone home.  Wildcat pitcher Taryne Mowatt never lost her composure.  If anything, she got more devastating the longer the game went on and the more difficult a fix she was in..  The Wildcats broke it open in the fifth inning with five runs, took their eighth title.

Wildcats Win 2nd Game of World Series!

One place that women are not discriminated against is college softball.  Tonight the University of Arizona Wildcats won the second game of the Women's College World Series against the Tennessee Lady Vols, 1-0. The play was maginficient.   Arizona starter Taryne Mowatt (41-12) did what the Vols' Monica Abbott couldn't quite do: shut down the other team.  In the tenth inning (a regular game in Woman's softball is seven), Danielle Rodriguez came in to pinch run for Sam Banister, who had been sacrificed to second.  Ms. Rodriquez reached third on an error, and charged for home on a grounder to the short stop.  She swiped the corner of the plate just ahead of the tag.  Today was Danielle's birthday. 

There is good reason to favor Tennessee.  They have never made it this far before.  Arizona is after their eighth title.  But I graduated from the University of Arizona just before Ronald Reagan graduated to the Presidency.  A couple of years ago I got back to my old alma mater, and one evening in April I sat in the bleachers and watched the softball team work out.  Go Wildcats!  And happy birthday, Danielle. 

Why Can't a Woman Earn More Like a Man II

Anna at Dakota Women responds to my post on gender disparity in income.  I noted the Washington Post article by Linda Hirshman, which summarizes a recent study by the American Association of University Women.  Here is a key passage from Hirshman:

The conventional wisdom assumes that employers are discriminating against young women, despite the laws against it. And some of the disparity -- about 5 percent -- does appear to be at least partly discrimination. But most of it isn't. . . .  In fact, what the AAUW report reveals is that, at almost every step of the way, women could make decisions that would keep them even with their male classmates. But they don't.

Here is some of Anna's reply:

It surprises me that Ken Blanchard would try to minimize the real issue of pay discrimination with a discussion about the types of work men and women choose to do. That's entirely beside the point. Real pay discrimination does exist and needs to be addressed. It obviously doesn't "punish itself," as Ken put it, because this discrimination has existed for as long as women have engaged in the same paid work as men, and it still exists today.   One-quarter of the wage gap is due to discrimination on the basis of gender.

Hirshman puts the influence of discrimination at 5%.  I couldn't find any confirmation of Anna's 25% figure at the link she provides.  And I am quite sure the influence of discrimination here is not a positive finding; it is calculated from what is left over when other factors have been controlled for.  That doesn't mean that it isn't real, or that we shouldn't try to do anything about it, as I acknowledged in my post. 

In American politics everyone wants to play the victim card.  This is just as true of conservative and gender traditionalists as it is of liberals and feminists.  Conservatives love to point out that the Press and the Universities are heavily biased toward the left, and that is of course true.  They also love to believe that without the influence of this bias their cause would dramatically advanced, that conservative principles would reign supreme in an unbiased marketplace of ideas.  That is very unlikely, because such discrimination just isn't that powerful a force.  At best the conservative position would be marginally more successful in an unbiased environment.

The same is true of the kind of income disparities described in the AAUW study. Invidious discrimination can have a major influence only when powerful social and/or legal sanctions prevent markets from working at all.  That was the case when African Americans were systematically excluded from many universities and professions.  A major league baseball team could not afford to take on Jackie Robinson, so long as the manager could be sure no one else would field him.  It is surely not the case that discrimination came to an end with the collapse of segregation.  It just became a marginal influence. 

If Ms. Hirshman's interpretation of the AAUW study is correct, that 5% of the gender pay gap is due to discrimination, that proves my point.  Get rid of discrimination altogether (and I am for that, if anyone knows how to do it), and the outcome would be only marginally different from the current situation.  If you don't like the current situation, you would be well advised to give up playing the victim card and instead try to persuade people to make different choices. 
 

Democrats Lose Their Edge

ABC News:

The Democrats in Congress have lost much of the leadership edge they carried out of the 2006 midterm election, with the lack of progress in Iraq being the leading cause. Their only solace: President Bush and the Republicans aren't doing any better.

Six weeks ago the Democrats held a 24-point lead over Bush as the stronger leadership force in Washington; today that's collapsed to a dead heat. The Democrats' overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now -- with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War.

Pelosi and Jefferson

Don Surber:

When Republican House leader Tom DeLay was indicted by a state grand jury in Texas, Nancy Pelosi wasted no time denouncing him.

On Sept. 28, 2005, Pelosi said:

“The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom Delay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people.”

That followed a remark she made in on November 2004 about a Republican rule that would bench its leaders if they were indicted. Said Pelosi:

“There’s not even a question in our Caucus about allowing leaders who are indicted to continue to serve.”

Yes, no question at all: Indicted Democrats continue to be hailed by the Democratic Party.

Democrats have never, ever had a strip-the-leader rule.

That became crystal clear today. Pelosi said:

“If these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power. Democrats are committed to upholding a high ethical standard and eliminating corruption and unethical behavior from the Congress.”

If?

If?

They found $90,000 in cold cash in his freezer.

I said this when they indicted Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney, and when the Mark Foley scandal broke: Guilty, guilty, guilty. Throw the bum out.

Elected officials are entitled only to the presumption of guilt because it is so hard to indict them.

She wants to give Jefferson the benefit of the doubt she never afforded DeLay.

Attention: Anna at Dakota Women

Jeremy Moser at KELOLAND.com is trying to get in touch with you.  Unfortunately, Dakota Women doesn't seem to have any e-mail links.  Anyway, what's up is kinda cool, and I recommended that you be included.  After all, we're pals. 

Here is the e-mail address: jmoser@keloland.com

Hillary Care Again

Jonathan Cohn in the New Republic has this unintentional joke in his discussion of Hillary Clinton's 1990's health care proposal. 

Clinton had embraced a model of reform known by the clunky moniker "managed competition." Its premise was that it made sense to rely on private insurance as the primary source of coverage for working Americans, just as had always been the case in this country. But, in order to make coverage affordable to everybody, government had to restructure the insurance business.

Okay, now I get it. Private health insurance that is managed by the government!  In fact that was exactly the genius of Ms. Clinton's proposal: it would look like private insurance, but would in fact be managed from above.  That way, whenever the premiums needed to be raised (and that would be often), and the benefits cut (almost as often), greedy bankers would get the blame.  Congress would then come riding to the rescue.  It might work, if Congress were disciplined enough.  It wouldn't be.  Riding to the rescue would just be too much fun, and the system would soon join social security as the next big disaster on the horizon.  Still, you have to admit the stroke of genius. 

The Northern Valley Beacon Turns Its Sputtering Beam on SDP

The NVB is always entertaining reading, and on occasion we have praised its commentary.  I for one read it religiously, and it is clear that the NVB reads SDP, though for some reason Professor Newquist nearly always forgets to mention our blog or ourselves by name.  I will comment on one post, with the title:

And them microbes just keep a-festering away

What got the good professor's dander up, apparently, was that yours truly was quoted in an Argus Leader column by Dave Kranz.  I notice this interesting paragraph:

As one might notice from some of the discussion on the Ouija boards, sometimes called blogs, the regressives think that the data indicating that human activity is contributing significantly to climate change is a vast left-wing conspiracy. They also think that the theory of evolution is a vast left-wing conspiracy, and that the God who rained that shit down upon us created geological strata and the progressive development of fossils in it to play a trick on the vast left-wing conspiracists and make them think that earth is more than 6,000 years old. Iktomi ensnared them bleeding-heart suckers but good.

I note two things that are important in evaluating this paragraph.  First, SDP was earlier identified by Professor Newquist as one of the "regressive blogs."  That is to say, the term "regressive blog" was linked directly to one of my posts.  Second, the rest of the post quoted above is devoted to a criticism of my comments as included in the Kranz article.  One might therefore infer that the views in the paragraph above are the views of SDP, since we are one of the "regressives."  Professor Newquist likes to huff and puff with righteous indignation about how we misrepresent his writing.  Apparently he thinks he has license to misrepresent us. 

No one at SDP believes that "the data indicating that human activity is contributing significantly to climate change is a vast left-wing conspiracy."  I have posted frequently on global warming, and I have expressed my opinion that global warming is very likely happening and very likely is influenced by human activity.  Likewise with the comment that we regressives "think that the theory of evolution is a vast left-wing conspiracy."  I have posted frequently in favor of the theory of evolution, and I have published pieces in the American News to the same effect.

In fact Professor Newquist knows this very well.  In an earlier post he listed some of the "basic rules of the [regressive] blogosphere."  The following was one of those rules:

Argue about whether the world is 6,000 or 6 billion-billion years old, as if no one actually knows.

That was a reference to a post of mine in which I agreed with Chad at CCK that the young earth theory was scientifically absurd.  In that same "How to Write a Blog" post, Professor Newquist says this:

The "straw man" tactic involves making representations about what other people believe or profess and then tearing their beliefs and statements to shreds, even though what they are attacking is not an accurate representation of the other people's positions or statments. . . . A cardinal rule among South Dakota political blogs, especially among the regressives, is to never accurately portray what a person of a differing viewpoint says.

The NVB is the blog that the NVB warns us about.  And by the way, Professor, microbes do not fester.  Wounds fester.  One would have thought a retired professor of English would notice that. 

Why Can't a Women Earn More Like A Man?

Linda Hirshman explains why, in the Washington Post:

The conventional wisdom assumes that employers are discriminating against young women, despite the laws against it. And some of the disparity -- about 5 percent -- does appear to be at least partly discrimination. But most of it isn't. Somewhere during their four years in the college womb, women develop into candidates for the world of work with 15 percent less market value than men.

Why does this happen? It's not as though the women are 15 percent dumber. After all, they enter college with better grades and graduate with better grades. Nor is it self-inflicted, driven by women who opt out to care for children or pick up socks. Most of the competing workers are single and childless and have no gaps in their nascent résumés.

In fact, what the AAUW report reveals is that, at almost every step of the way, women could make decisions that would keep them even with their male classmates. But they don't.

The biggest decision any student keeping an eye on the bottom line can make is the choice of a major. According to the AAUW report, women who major in education make 60 percent of what female engineers make in their first year of work. But far more women still choose education over engineering.

Despite the talk of discrimination, the same disparity holds true for the guys.

Tell me about it.  When I had to decide what to do for a living, I apparently listened to my feminine side and chose education. 

This is no big surprise.  Pernicious discrimination (based on prejudice) is usually easy to isolate, punish, and thus get rid of.  In fact, in the business world, it punishes itself.   An employer  who refuses to hire equally capable women, Hispanics, etc., effectively reduces the size of the hiring pool; this is leaves him with less leverage for wages, and opens up opportunities for his competition.  I am not arguing here that we should not punish intentional discrimination, only that it is problematic for a number of reasons. 

When we do get rid of pernicious discrimination, there is no reason to think that an even distribution of women and minorities in every industry will be the result.  All kinds of free choices and personal histories have an enormous effect on does the banking and the baking. 

Argus

Greg Belfrage blasts the Argus Leader for being complicit in the public relations spin of Tim Johnson's office:

Johnson's office has clearly created the perception that the senator is getting the job done. Which raises the question...if things are going so well without him...why do we need Tim Johnson in Washington in the first place?

But I digress.

Now comes a column from the Imperial Editor of the Argus Leader, Randell Beck. Beck is taking issue with those who are concerned the public isn't getting enough information about Johnson's condition.

Beck says, "Anyway, it's my guess those who are griping about the shortage of information on Johnson's health didn't vote for him in 2002 and won't vote for him next year if he does seek reelection."

This is the kind of hypocrisy from the Argus Leader, and especially Beck, that I find infuriating. When he and the Argus want more information on completely trivial matters, such as the names of those attending the governor's hunt, their motives are above reproach. However, those wanting more information about Senator Johnson's condition are "griping" for political reasons. Does anyone really believe the Argus Leader's position
would be the same if this were Senator John Thune?

Beck concludes, "If we really are sincere about our senior senator representing us on the national stage, what's another few months of rehabilitation hurt? We'd do that for the trash guy or a teacher or uncle Bob. Why not Tim Johnson?"

No, we wouldn't do the same for the "trash guy" and THAT is the point.

Sure, we'd pray for the trash guy's recovery, but the garbage still needs to be collected. We wouldn't let the it pile up month after month, uncertain as to when he might return to work.

Why should it be any different for Tim Johnson, or any other elected official? The state's trash is piling up. It's not unreasonable to ask when citizens can expect Senator Johnson to return to work.

SDP Jazz Note: One Man, Two Horns, At Home

Some jazz critics think that jazz is only real when you are there, listening to it live.  I have never bought into that view, largely because I live where there isn't a lot of live jazz.  But surely the next best thing is jazz recorded in a live setting.  Ken Laster, whose In The Groove podcast has delivered more good jazz to me than any other source, has recorded a couple of numbers by Greg Abate and posted them on YouTube. The setting is a "private function," meaning, as you will see, someone's home.  You can listen and watch at the link above.  In the first clip, Abate plays solo sax and does 'Round Midnight.'  In the second, he plays the flute.  Join the party. 

Senator Brownback on Evolution II

Slate's Today's Blogs feature leads with the blogosphere reaction to Sam Brownback's NYT's piece on evolution.  I posted on this a couple of days ago.  Here is a bit from Slate:

Secular Skeptic takes issue with Brownback's endorsement of microevolution: "[W]hat makes it so obvious that Brownback has no understanding of evolution, is that microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing! Macroevolution is what happens when microevolution goes on long enough.

To which I reply: no, they are not.  Microevolution, change within existing species, can be directly observed.  Indeed it has been, in very many cases.  The breeding of St. Bernards and teacup poodles from the same original stock of domesticated wolves is an example.  Macroevolution involves speciation: the splitting of existing species into two that eventually lose the ability to interbreed.  This process usually involves time spans longer than the time it takes the Cubs to win another World Series.  No wonder we haven't observed a case of speciation yet.  Here is a bit from Evolution 101 page:

We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs—but of course, it’s hard     for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure out that speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it’s more difficult to figure out how they happened.

Now I have no doubt that speciation has occurred frequently in the past, and that it explains the difference between your average chimpanzee and your average certified public accountant.  But speciation is speculative in a way that micro-evolution is not.  If Senator Brownback wants to hold on to the idea that all the species were created at the same moment, well, I think that is a bad strategy.  But it is not a strategy based on ignorance. 

Slease Berger: The Clinton's Burgler on Retainer

Ronald Cass at Real Clear Politics reminds us of a story that the MSM isn't the least bit interested in.

President Clinton designated Berger as his representative to the 9/11 Commission and related hearings, which gave Berger special access to highly classified documents in the National Archives relating to the Clinton Administration's handling of al-Qaeda and similar terror threats. Berger got around rules requiring that the documents only be reviewed with Archives' employees present, purposefully stole documents, destroyed them, and lied about it all. When caught, he first blamed Archives employees for misplacing the documents, then admitted having taken them inadvertently (this is the point at which he cut the plea deal), and finally acknowledged what was obvious from the facts that were emerging - he intentionally removed and destroyed documents.

Berger managed to cut a deal with the Justice Department that allowed him to keep his law license.  But the Board of the District of Columbia Bar, which issued Berger's license, was compelled to launch its own investigation.  The only way Berger could bring that process to a halt was by surrendering his law license, which he has now done. 

Cass makes a compelling case that there must have been something very embarrassing in those documents that Berger smuggled out in his stockings.  But that doesn't tell us what it was.  The significance of this story is that it reminds us of one of the more entertaining aspects of the last Clinton administration.  Important documents under subpoena, like the Rose Law Firm documents, would mysteriously disappear and that just as mysteriously reappear months later.  The Berger heist suggests that we can look forward to more of the same if the Clintons return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  They should start selling tickets now. 

Pictures!

Just a couple from the garden. 

That's a mimulus growing in one of our containers.  And here is a butterfly on our Lilac. 

Dem Congress and Earmark Spending

Associated Press:  "After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.  Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify 'earmarks' - lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states."

Regulating Wind Energy

Washington Post excerpt:

Birds and bats have a powerful advocate in the new Congress, and he is making the wind energy industry nervous.

Rep. Nick Rahall, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, is pushing legislation that would more strictly regulate wind energy to protect birds, bats and other wildlife killed when they fly into the giant turbines.

Wind energy advocates say the bill could significantly cripple the burgeoning industry and they brand the measure as "anti-wind."

A release from the American Wind Energy Association last month said Rahall's plan could "essentially outlaw" the generation of electricity from new wind power plants in the United States.

Political debate over wind projects has intensified as the industry has seen major growth in recent years. According to the association, wind power is growing 25 percent to 30 percent annually.

Congress has encouraged this renewable energy as oil prices have skyrocketed, creating incentives for the industry and promoting its benefits. But some lawmakers are concerned about the effects on wildlife.

Rahall's proposal, included in a larger energy bill, would direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to publish standards for siting, construction and monitoring of wind projects so that they do not harm wildlife. Violators could go to prison.

...

GOP Sen. John Thune, who has introduced legislation that would give the industry more incentives, was more blunt.

"This proposal is badly misguided and is a step in the wrong direction," said Thune of South Dakota, one of the windier states. "Congress should not be blocking the development of one of the nation's cleanest energy resources ... I will fight any efforts to stymie its development because of unfounded concerns for bats and birds."