You Know You’re in Trouble When Alan Keyes is Your Hero

I’m sad I missed the “Values Voters Presidential Debate”, but I’m not alone. All the first-tier presidential candidates skipped it as well. The big winner was apparently Mike Huckabee according to the World Nut Daily, he apparently was the most hateful of them all. But the nuts are clearly upset at being snubbed by the candidates that actually have a chance of being nominated:

Debate panelist Rabbi Aryeh Spero of the Jewish Action Alliance asked, “How can we expect these no-show candidates to take on Osama bin Laden and other world leaders when they’re afraid to show up and answer questions from Phyllis Schlafly?”

I don’t know. Given the choice I’d avoid Phyllis Schlafly and her “values”. She’s a harridan. My favorite quote from her is “It’s very healthy for a young girl to be deterred from promiscuity by fear of contracting a painful, incurable disease, or cervical cancer, or sterility, or the likelihood of giving birth to a dead, blind, or brain-damaged baby even ten years later when she may be happily married.”

I also love how avoiding hateful bigots means that you kowtow to terrorism. Charming group, really.

Anyway, onto Alan Keyes. He made a big score in the hate fest according to the American Family News Network for his vociferous attacks on the homosexual agenda.

Three-time Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes is taking aim at fellow GOP candidates who are reluctant to support a federal marriage amendment. During last night’s Values Voters Presidential Debate in Fort Lauderdale, Ambassador Keyes at times sounded like a fiery gospel preacher. When asked what he would do to counter the homosexual agenda if president, Keyes voiced support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex “marriage,” and said he would defend the “natural family.”

“We have to restore the understanding of what marriage is,” he said. “I heard tonight a shocking statement that somehow the state can withdraw its respect for and support for the natural family as ordained by God.

Apparently the family ordained by god is actually the modern family, not the types of families you usually read about in the good book with polygamy, selling daughters etc. The types of families that are described in the Bible, these days lead to criminal charges, just ask the FLDS.

Verizon: It’s OUR Network

Mark is totally outperforming me on this blog for many reasons, but my newest excuse is that I went to Austin for the weekend to see the Austin City Limits Festival. W00t!!1!

So, I’m going to be covering some divine articles that appeared over the weekend. First up: Verizon, it’s OUR network, baby! The Journal reports:

Verizon Wireless appealed the Federal Communications Commission’s rules for a coming radio spectrum auction, charging the agency with exceeding its authority in requiring carriers to open their networks to any devices and cellphone applications.

i-fdadf3f4eafaf88a43c4ba0f2ec49117-4d.jpg
Yes, you read that right: Verizon wants to change the rules so that they control what devices and programs you can use when using wireless. What ever happened to consumer freedom? Oh, maybe it’s that consumers want control! i-9d936ebcbb671ac98c18d0fb1b4e58c6-4s.jpeg

The good news is that the decision of the FCC, yes, a federal government agency, to give you more choice and freedom, is reviewed on an “arbitrary and capricious” standard. This means that Verizon carries the burden to show that the agency acted irrationally in requiring the spectrum to be free from such carrier restrictions.

OTA Thread II

Let’s keep this ball rolling. On Friday we started talking about the importance of the OTA

It used to be, for about 20 years (from 1974 to 1995), there was an office on the Hill, named the Office of Technology Assessment, which worked for the legislative branch and provided non-partisan scientific reports relevant to policy discussions. It was a critical office, one that through thorough and complete analysis of the scientific literature gave politicians common facts from which to decide policy debates. In 1994, with the new Republican congress, the office was eliminated for the sake of budget cuts, but the cost in terms of damage to the quality of scientific debate on policy has been incalculable. Chris Mooney described it as Congress engaging in “a stunning act of self-lobotomy” in his book the Republican War on Science (RWOS at Amazon).

The fact of the matter is that our government is currently operating without any real scientific analysis of policy. Any member can introduce whatever set of facts they want, by employing some crank think tank to cherry-pick the scientific literature to suit any ideological agenda. This is truly should be a non-partisan issue. Everybody should want the government to be operating from one set of facts, ideally facts investigated by an independent body within the congress that is fiercely non-partisan, to set the bounds of legitimate debate. Everybody should want policy and policy debates to be based upon sound scientific ground. Everybody should want evidence-based government.

We’ve gotten some nice linkage so far:

Links so far:
PZ at Pharyngula
John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts
Major Geek’s LiveJournal
Ordinary Girl at Tales of an Ordinary Girl
John Pieret at Thoughts in a Haystack
Dave Bruggeman at Prometheus writing a month ago
Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub
Alex at the Yorkshire Ranter
Measured Against Reality
One Good Move
La Pobre Habladora at Second Innocence
Dan at Migrations
Mike Dunford at Questionable Authority – with links to presidential campaigns!
Jeremy Elton Jacquot at TreeHugger
Epicanis at the Big Room
Blue Sky Mining
Brian Thomas at Carbon-Based
Bora at Blog Around the Clock
suddenly south at the Cucking Stool
Geoff Davis at PhDs.org Engineering and Science Blog
Amanda at Enviroblog
Kate at Anterior Commissure
Soberish
Chris Mooney at the Intersection
Paul Hutchinson at Paul Hutchinson’s Blog
Kent at Uncommon Ground
DOF at Decrepit Old Fool

As before we ask if you have a blog link this post, spread the word, and contact your senator or congressman about having this office re-established.

We believe that we can make this a political issue in the coming election. If candidates for office support science and reason period, they should support the idea that government and policy should be studied scientifically in a non-partisan and independent fashion. I also believe this can go a long way to undoing the influence of money in politics. While it’s probably impossible to truly expect congress to do away with lobbying or stop listening to crank think tanks, having independent and non-partisan scientific information presented routinely to congress can go a long way to balance out the ideologically-motivated nonsense that currently passes for science on Capitol hill.

Bring Back the OTA – Bring Back Evidence Based Government

So I was thinking. It isn’t really enough to merely react constantly to anti-scientific behavior which seems to permeate the media, the interwebs, and policy discussions on Capitol Hill these days.

It used to be, for about 20 years (from 1974 to 1995), there was an office on the Hill, named the Office of Technology Assessment, which worked for the legislative branch and provided non-partisan scientific reports relevant to policy discussions. It was a critical office, one that through thorough and complete analysis of the scientific literature gave politicians common facts from which to decide policy debates. In 1994, with the new Republican congress, the office was eliminated for the sake of budget cuts, but the cost in terms of damage to the quality of scientific debate on policy has been incalculable. Chris Mooney described it as Congress engaging in “a stunning act of self-lobotomy” in his book the Republican War on Science (RWOS at Amazon).

The fact of the matter is that our government is currently operating without any real scientific analysis of policy. Any member can introduce whatever set of facts they want, by employing some crank think tank to cherry-pick the scientific literature to suit any ideological agenda. This is truly should be a non-partisan issue. Everybody should want the government to be operating from one set of facts, ideally facts investigated by an independent body within the congress that is fiercely non-partisan, to set the bounds of legitimate debate. Everybody should want policy and policy debates to be based upon sound scientific ground. Everybody should want evidence-based government.

For another good article on the OTA, and why it should be brought back I can recommend this one.

In the meantime, what can you do? Well, if you’re a Kossack, go write a diary or three on the topic. If you’re a LGFer, write comments about it there. If you have a blog, write a post about it. Here is a list of emails for senators and congressmen, write yours and suggest that the OTA be re-funded and allowed to scientifically investigate sound policy once more. Link back here so that I can see who is interested in pursuing this, and whether or not this is a popular idea.

It’s not enough to bitch about anti-science when it happens, the root of our problems stems from a government which no longer has a sound, non-partisan scientific body to guide debate. Let’s ask congress to re-insert their brain, and refund the OTA.

Continue reading “Bring Back the OTA – Bring Back Evidence Based Government”

Is the surge working? (or why I need more metrics)

Here’s an excellent opportunity to use the hive mind to look for classic techniques of deception for political benefit on the question of the “surge”.

Reading the news stories about the progress in Iraq, I can’t help but notice a certain partisan nature to interpretation of events. You have the conservative Washington Times saying The Surge is Working, meanwhile, the liberal Washington Post (although as supporters of the Iraq war I feel this designation is non-descriptive for WaPo) indicates the results are at best mixed. We have a GAO report indicating poor performance with only a bare minority of benchmarks being achieved that is regarded as “strikingly negative”. And on top of all that the last three months in Iraq civilian deaths have been increasing. The proponents of the “surge is working” side seem to indicate that military victories and insurgents killed should be a measure of success. However, this is reminiscent of the death ratios in Vietnam which were ultimately meaningless in terms of “success”.

So, what metrics do people feel are more informative? I am of the opinion that military victories are largely meaningless – we can win every battle and lose the war as long as no political solution is reached – consistent with the failings described in the GAO report. The pro-war types seem to think that as long as we’re killing the enemy we’re successful, however against an insurgency I don’t think this is a meaningful result. It’s just whackamole, and insurgencies are historically resistant to suppression by force.

I would like to see the data from the pro-war side that demonstrates that progress is actually happening. I don’t want to hear about new hope in the streets, or markets safe enough for senators to walk through with a brigade of soldiers with them. I want to hear metrics that indicate Iraq is moving towards a peaceful stable state. Are there any?

I guess what I’m saying is, I’m seeing all the signs of a belief forming that is due to wishful thinking, and no real hard data. All the pro-surge people seem to be using three of the tactics, cherry-picking data, getting positive reviews of the surge published in friendly publications, and moving the goalposts. Ad hominems and other fallacies are a given. All they need is a conspiracy and we’ll have a full-fledged denialist campaign to suggest that the Iraq war is being won, when all the data I see suggest the opposite. Increasing deaths, increasing magnitude of violent attacks indicate continued worsening of the situation. Last month a single attack killed 250 – possibly more – the deadliest attack since the beginning of the war. Suicide bombings for this August were almost twice what they were last August. If you look at our casualties there is no indication of a decrease – if anything this looks like the deadliest year yet.

So we have a report indicating no political solutions emerging – the most critical factor for a lasting peace. We have increasing numbers and magnitude of suicide bombings. We have more civilian deaths. We have more soldiers dying. We have millions of refugees who have left the country. We have decreasing provision of public utilities and fuel. I simply can not find any data suggesting things are getting better. Instead, all the usual suspects, including Bill Kristol (or Krissandra – the mythical figure who is never right but is still listened to) are arguing it is working with no clear information to back it up.

How is it working? Tell me. I’m asking in good faith because I want to know, where are the positives? Please, something more than whackamole with insurgents. Give me data. Prove to me this isn’t just a classic denialist disinformation campaign.

Senator Craig – I apologize in advance

Ok, I can’t resist. What do people think of Larry Craig’s arrest for ostensibly soliciting sex in a men’s room? He’s denying he did anything wrong.

Tuesday, in his first public statement on the arrest, the Idaho Republican said he did nothing “inappropriate.”

“Let me be clear: I am not gay and never have been,” said Craig, who has aligned himself with conservative groups who oppose gay rights.

However, I don’t think he has plausible deniability here. From the police account:

A police officer who arrested him June 11 said Craig peered through a crack in a restroom stall door for two minutes and made gestures suggesting to the officer he wanted to engage in “lewd conduct.”

Craig’s blue eyes were clearly visible through the crack in the door, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport police Sgt. Dave Karsnia wrote in the report he filed.

“Craig would look down at his hands, ‘fidget’ with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again,” Karsnia wrote in documents accompanying the arrest report.

Craig said the officer misinterpreted his actions.

Misinterpreted? Maybe Craig was hoping Karsnia could “spare a square”?

It gets worse when you hear about what he might have been up to in 1982.

Continue reading “Senator Craig – I apologize in advance”

If you want to prevent abortions write your senator and congressmen now

Multiple news outlets have been reporting on the sudden increase in cost for birth control prescriptions at health centers on college campuses.

The cause?

Health experts say the price bump for college students was inadvertent — a byproduct of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, a federal law that went into effect in January. The law alters how drug makers calculate Medicaid-related rebates paid to states, but it ultimately made it expensive for companies to offer schools such deep discounts on birth control. As a result, brand name prescription prices for campus clinics rose from about the $3 to $10 range per month to the $30 to $50 range. Organon, the maker of Cyclessa and Desogen birth control pills and the NuvaRing, says the company is not happy about having to increase prices for colleges. But Nick Hart, Organon’s executive director of contraception, says they were forced to make “a business decision” after the law went into effect.

This combined with steep and unexplained price increases from Ortho-McNeil for contraception supplied to Title X family planning clinics, and we’re likely to find a great number of sexually active women choosing not to use oral contraceptive – by far one of the easiest, most-effective techniques.

About 2/3 of college students are sexually active and about a little under half of college-aged women use oral contraception. We know that contraception has been effective in reducing teen pregnancy rates and that financial barriers to contraception are a cause of unintended pregnancies. Why colleges would be dumped from the approved list of which agencies can receive discounted medications is perplexing. Aren’t the democrats interested in safe, legal and rare? Isn’t this a no-brainer?

Adequate funding for family planning is critical to prevent unwanted pregnancies among the populations that are most susceptible. A Democratic congress should prioritize this issue so that unintended pregnancies are not an unintended side-effect of budget cuts.

Turdblossom quits

Karl Rove quits.

I wonder what this means? This administration has so little transparency one always feels like interpreting their actions is like trying to read tea leaves. Does this mean they realize Karl Rove’s advice isn’t pulling Bush out of his terrible approval ratings? Is Rove trying to avoid going down with a sinking ship? Is it to avoid trouble with congressional subpoenas over the AG firings?

Maybe Newdow was right

Fighting the “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance seemed like such a folly a year or so ago, but then Texas reminds us of just how pushy the religious can be.

Texas students will have four more words to remember when they head back to class this month and begin reciting the state’s pledge of allegiance.

This year’s Legislature added the phrase “one state under God” to the pledge, which is part of a required morning ritual in Texas public schools along with the pledge to the U.S. flag and a moment of silence.

State Rep. Debbie Riddle, who sponsored the bill, said it had always bothered her that God was omitted in the state’s pledge.

“Personally, I felt like the Texas pledge had a big old hole in it, and it occurred to me, ‘You know what? We need to fix that,’ ” said Riddle, R-Tomball. “Our Texas pledge is perfectly OK like it is with the exception of acknowledging that just as we are one nation under God, we are one state under God as well.”

And of course, to make it extra-unconstitutional, they are introducing a new concept to free speech in schools – student free speech is only ok if the parents approve.

By law, students who object to saying the pledge or making the reference to God can bring a written note from home excusing them from participating.

Charming. In a way this may end up being Newdow’s dream come true. The national pledge at least had 50 years of history (although the “under God” was shoved in for equally bad reasons) to contend with in the courts. This effort, if challenged, might undo both pledges, because this is completely indefensible.