Ruminations, Haunts, and Errors

• No matter how Scooter Libby’s trial turns out, that enough evidence exists for one indictment (if not more) shows that the administration either intentionally misued information with national-security ramifications or else was insufficiently careful in safeguarding it. This should be worrisome, especially given all the other indications that it was an example of a pattern rather than an anomaly. Yet the media, despite their self-proclaimed role to reveal such problems in support of the public good, haven’t made much of this, instead focusing on what every political side might be able to gain or lose. What’s worse is that I forsee missing the more important point in favor of the spectacle of a public scandal. Sad.
• From FEMA to the FAA and TSA, conflicting agendas and an appalling lack of comprehensive analysis continually subject us to ever-more burdensome security and disaster-management practices that don’t really improve anything.
• The release of classified information regaring possible secret CIA prisons prompted Congressional leaders to call for an investigation of the leakers before one into the more objectively serious issue.
• The administration has now taken to insisting that their Iraq war decision is beyond reproach because plenty of people believed the justifications given at the time, utterly ignoring not only the flaws in the war-making process, how easily intelligence can be manipulated or distorted (even somewhat innocently) but also everything we’ve learned since then.
• The spectacle of Dubya saying that we do not use torture while Darth Cheney is simultaneously lobbying to exempt the CIA from anti-torture legislation working its way through Congress would make Orwell proud. Among the many things they’re not getting here are:
  • Torture’s an unreliable method for getting good information. (Hell, Iraqi instigators like Ahmed Chalabi fed the neocons what they wanted to hear while under no duress whatsoever.)
  • Personal conscience and assessement of the facts guides behavior, not laws. (Think of how much would could save on police and armies if we could simply legislate away bad behavior.) An anti-torture law will not stop an interrogator who is absolutely convinced that a bit more roughing up will provide information that will save lives, and if he turns out to be right he’d probably consider sacrificing his career (or some prison term) for crossing the line an acceptable trade. But the very presence of a law will reduce people from playing bad hunches.
  • Ultimately as Senator McCain said, it’s not about who they are, and whether they deserve good treatment, but about who we are, about saying that there are some things we simply will not do even when they might be to our benefit. As Micheal Kinsley puts it
    

    It could be that all these developments are constitutional […b]ut the Constitution is not supposed to be just an obstacle course for officials who are trying to get around it. It ought to inspire policy even when it doesn’t impose policy. Ditto the Geneva Conventions. Why would you even want to be clever about reasons it might not apply here or there?

Now President Bush must do something that for him, it seems, is the most difficult task: admit a mistake. […]More important, President Bush should follow the ultimate rule of White House damage control: the buck stops here. He should admit that this entire mess could have been avoided had the White House, including the vice president, criticized Ambassador Joseph Wilson openly and directly, rather than whispering “on background” into the ears of certain reporters…The best result of this latest scandal, and the hypocrisy and finger-pointing exhibited on both sides, would be for voters to say, “A pox on both your houses,” reject the scandal culture and gotcha politics of both parties and seek new politics of common cause, collegiality and the public interest. The alternative is that most people will conclude that in American politics today the only standard is the double standard, and the cycles of conflict and rancor will continue.

• I started playing with Flock last night. Still needs a little work, but the potential is there for this to become a great tool. I’m especially looking forwad to the ability to consolidate tags across multiple tools. I believe that the critical mass is now present in tools like blogs, Flickr, del.icio.us, Google, and widespread broadband so that a tool like Flock can now get closer to the ‘network is the computer’ ideal Sun and others have been promising for a generation now. That it’s not coming from one of the Big Guys shouldn’t be a surprise.
• Fans polled support umpires, dislike DH rule
  Good to know I’m not in the minority. Quoth Frank Thomas on the DH:
  

  It’s extended many careers. I think it should be universal; it would mean more jobs in baseball. Who wants to see pitchers hit? Nobody.

  Actually, I do like to see pitchers hit. A number are decent, plenty lay down good bunts, and watching an inept pitcher flail badly at curveball or a big guy (say, Carlos Zambrano) lumber around second for a freak triple is quite entertaining. However, while Thomas’s concern for job security is understandable, it should be considered irrelevant here. The decision to enact or drop a playing rule should be judged only by its effect on the balance of gameplay; how shifts in that balance affect the interest of fans is the only business effect really worth considering.
• What do current controversies like the validity of Intelligent Design, political intransigence and incompetence, the effects of global warming, and others have in common? I think an important thread is the desire by very many people to believe that the world functions accoring to a set of simple, easily knowable rules, and furthermore their insistence not only that those rules are already known but also that there must be something amiss with observations of the world that would seem to conflict with those rules. These types of people often have trouble with the proper interpretation of observations and tend to ignore the limitations or quirks of the mind; what’s worse, even people who do (or should) have the training to know better are susceptible to falling into such modes of thought when it suits them. Myself, I like the philosophy of the Bad Astronomer–”I like reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way”–but if others prefer a different mode of thought that is of course their prerogative. However, their views present a serious problem when used to select public officials and set public policy; if nothing else, we all end up wasting time in pointless debates over topics that should be considered settled.
• Mapping Where You Think You Live
  Ah, the power of the internet being harness for good: elucidating where the true boundaries lie between civic and sports loyalties, and all to be nicely mapped. Isn’t this info in some marketroid database at a big consumer-products corporation somewhere? Well, at least soon we’ll also be able to easily locate which locale officials deserve our scorn, and then marshal forces for the upcoming pop vs. soda war that we all know is inevitable.
• Oink Oink; For a Senate Foe of Pork Barrel Spending, Two Bridges Too Far
  The growth in pork spending over the last decade is truly astounding, especially since it coincides with Republican control of the House–and accelerated after they got the White House. They used to deride the the Democrats as the ‘tax-and-spend’ party, but that ethos is at least more honest in my view than the GOP’s ‘borrow-and-spend’ methods. I suppose the latter better corresponds to most Americans’ fiscal habits, though.
• Cheap Gas Is a Bad Habit; Sierra Club Gets Behind the Wheel
  Hybrid vehicles are still luxury items, purchases that have more feel-good effects than actual significant environmental impact, but it certainly seems that the technology is rapidly improving in terms of both efficiency and price. Perhaps these continuing improvments, combined with the lessons of Katrina and Rita, the rising demand of the Chinese economy, and the security quagmires caused by our Middle-East entanglements will finally give the proper impetus to move on from the petroleum enconomy that has dominated for the last century or so.
• Using Our Leverage: The Troops
  A little reverse psychology to nudge the Iraqis? Actually, we should make this a more general policy in the places around the world–and there are many–where locals simultaneously desire and detest American help. During our inteventions in the Balkans during the 1990s I always thought that the better approach in such situations–where various groups have been warring on and off for centuries over perceived slights, religous differences, and other such pettiness–would simply be to stay out and to use our resources to prevent spillover into neighboring regions that prefer to remain uninvolved. That’s somewhat callous given that many true innocents can be caught in the crossfire, but no amount of military power, American or otherwise, can fix broken societies. We can only offer to help if they sincerely want to change, otherwise we should simply strive to ensure an imploding society doesn’t take its neighbors down with it.
• Kathleen Sulivan, Dick Thornburgh, Ron Klain, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, and Jean Edward Smith published twenty-five questions for Supreme Court nominees in the New York Times. Many of the specifics will soon be dated (if they aren’t already), but I think these cover a number of important topics that Americans should continually ask themselves–and their public officials–regarding the responsibilities and powers of the judiciary in our government and society. John Tierney also posed some more flippant ones that are amusing but also oddly point to good techniques for any sort of important interview.

My post-lunch news check gave me deja vu: Judge Backs Case Seeking End of School Pledge. Didn’t we just do this? Do we really need to go there again? To be honest, I’m sympathetic with the plaintiff’s aims. Being a non-believer, I remember feeling uncomfortable as a child being expected to mutter something about God every morning, and then being more perplexed about this verbiage once they started teaching us about things like the Constitution, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, etc. You know what though? Eventually I learned to omit that part, then just stand in silence altogether, and I got over it none the worse for wear. (Perhaps that bit of early disillusionment helped me down the healthy path of cynicism. :-) The last few weeks have shown there are far, far better things to fight over.

Nothing good can come of this, I fear. A loss may embolden the religious crowd to push for more publicly sanctioned religious expression (almost certainly of that old-time Protestant bent, which will be oh-so-helpful in that global campaign on terror or extremists or whatever they call it this week). Yet a win might be even worse, as it would probably rally the various conservative campaigns pushing their view of what it means to be a Real American and might end up with an uber-amendment to enshrine the Pledge, ban flag burning, and prolly through in a gay-marriage ban and a couple other conservative bugaboos to boot.

Anyway, as for the ongoing debate about the Pledge, a pox on both their houses for completely pathetic thinking and argumentation:

• Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justices sez-
  

  The pledge clearly acknowledges the fact that our freedoms in this country come from God, not government

  Umm, looks like Mr. Sekulow must have flunked reading comprehension, ‘cause the Pledge says nothing of the sort; yes, it says ‘one nation, under God’, but that’s more clearly a statement of geography than anything about social or legal causality; besides, even the Declaration of Independence and various state constitutions that explicitly mention a Creator still clearly indicate that liberties, rights, and powers emanate from the people, i.e. democracy not theocracy, so Mr. Sekulow is 0-for-2 in the space of 17 words. Moreover, if ensuring God is part of our civic rituals is so vital, why aren’t these people fighting to update the Pledge accordingly? Aren’t they bothered by the fact that the allusion is buried deep in the middle of it? Secondary to the nation? Tertiary to a statement of idolatry? And put there by a Cold-War-era political ploy rather than any sort of genuine sense of piety?
• What, exactly, do the anti-Pledgers think they will accomplish with this? Does the scorn of the flag-waving crowd give them a sense of superiority (or social/legal martyrdom)? Why do they insist on being provocative by throwing out the whole Pledge, rather than just the 1954 Congressional resolution that added ‘under God’? (Remove that, or make other modifications, and you’ve likely got a Constitutionally inoffensive incantation.) Why don’t they get worked up about the very first clause, which implies that allegiance to a piece of cloth (or particular arrangement of shapes and colors) is more important than fealty to the people and principles of the U.S.? Woudn’t it be more productive to provoke a debate about whether coercing children (make no mistake, peer pressure and the imprimatur of teachers are coercive even without any formal penalty for a child’s silence) to mumble a banal sentence by rote is leading to better citizenship?

• The Uses of ‘Activism’ ;   Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey
  A subtlety in the definition of democracy that is often overlooked is that majoritarianism is not required. Indeed, it should be imperative of any government to have mechanisms that can ignore or overrule the prevailing ‘will of the people’ when required, lest minorities or posterity be oppressed by political whims that arise from citizenry who may not be fully informed or enlightened enough to appreciate the full impact of their sentiments. When various options (or candidates, or whatever) are all essentially equivalent, then majority-rule is an appropriate way to make a decision. However, when proper analysis of facts and logic can show one to be superior, whether or not a majority of the populace actually like that result shouldn’t be a major factor; conversely, majority support for something provably fallacious shouldn’t matter, especially when few in that majority really have the knowledge and training to assess the concepts properly.
• Most scientific papers are probably wrong
  I think an important difference between those with proper training in science and other forms of reasoning is that they won’t find this conclusion surprising–or, importantly, bothersome.
• PowerPoint: Killer App?
  Of course the problem isn’t with PowerPoint per se, or even that it makes taking a set of too-sparse notes and expand them to a thirty-page deck complete with flashy graphics that obscures the fluffiness of the content ridiculously easy. No, the issue it’s used in situations where neither the presenter has the chops to make the content compelling nor the audience has the analytical skills to notice the weak argumentation. Ever notice that the horror stories come out of places like corporate boardrooms, the Pentagon, and high-level NASA managerial meetings rather than, say, university colloquia?
• The Public Domain: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow
  While I respect Lessig’s opinions, this one seems a bit Cassandra-like. I’m sure there will come a point when the threat to the existence of a public domain will be obvious and critical enough for its protection to be in the interest of forces powerful enough to fight back vigorously. Still, it does make one think how the very existence of a distinction between copyrighted and public works is merely a legal construct and not one to be taken for granted.

• Irreplaceable Exuberance;   Inequality and Risk
  Leans towards supply-side economics, but presented from more of a human-nature point of view so I can sorta buy it. Certainly, innovation and progress require motivated people, and often that motivation is for profit. However, accepting that socioeconomic disparity is unavoidable doesn’t mean we can’t try to temper it; I’ll believe that heavy-handed government policy that tries to force redistribution is probably counterproductive in the long term, but we can certainly provide social pressures on those at the top of the scale to voluntarily decide when they have ‘enough’ and eagerly distribute their surplus to help out others.
• Calif. Senate Passes Gay Marriage Bill

  A higher power created the institution of marriage.

  –Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth (R-San Diego)
  Um, then it really doesn’t matter what the legislature says, so why bother to rail and vote against the measure? Oh, that’s right, because Mr. Hollingsworth is wrong: marriage is in fact a construct of society and its laws, established and regulated by the statutes and constitutions of the several states.
• Blair calls for better parenting
  Good sentiment, but I’m fairly certain that giving the state broad powers to intervene isn’t really going to be a major improvement. On the other hand, perhaps there should be a bit more scrutiny…I mean, why is it that one needs a license to cut and color hair but anyone can become a parent with no training whatsoever?
• Day-After Pill Exposes FDA Rift
  The polticians-vs.-science angle here is obvious, but what struck me more in reading about this was the continued crusade against contraception, in particlar by those who continue to claim that access to it will encourage sexual activity. First off, it’s an untterly unproven assertion. Second, given the well-known inability of most teenagers to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions (beyond ‘getting caught’), it seems laughable that fear of pregnancy is the major factor that is stopping millions of horny American teenagers from getting it on. Finally, despite the claims of any particular religion, cultural rules and taboos about sexual activity are really just a form of ‘behavioral contreception’, and hence the most important concern should be to prevent pregancies among those who are incapable (or unwilling) to handle them properly.
• The Road to Hell Is Clogged With Righteous Hybrids
  Had the Honda Civic hybrids not been a couple months away from production when I bought my car, I would have given it serious consideration. However, it’s become clear over the past couple of years that the technology is still several years (decades?) away from really being cost effective for all but a very small group of drivers in certain types of areas; it’s more of a feel-good purchase than anything else. Still, it’s good to see they are at least becoming mainstream, as that’s the first step towards ensuring future, better technologies will be adopted when their available. Until then, Tierney’s idea to base tolls and other sorts of road charges based on vehicle weight seems a great idea–although obvious in hindsight, the greater amount of road space required by SUVs on expressways never occurred to me.

• NCAA outlines appeals process for tribal mascots
  Glad to see they’re at least pretending that the recent edict won’t be a complete top-down dictatorship of the hyper-PC. However, even this will probabaly turn into a mess…consider my alma mater. A look at the tragic history of the Illini tribes shows that the University’s athletic moniker is essentially their last vestige. If there’s no one left to give blessing, is the school therefore denied any successful appeal? On the other hand, if there’s no one around to approve or protest, who is the team name offending? And if it’s more ‘generally offensive’, why stop at college sports teams? Should GM be forever banned from any association with college sports (or the dollars of the righteous) due to its appropriation of Pontiac? What about place names in the U.S. and Canada, often named after tribes and chiefs who lived hundreds or thousands of miles away? Shouldn’t the NCAA flee the state of Indiana altogether?
• VR Goggles Heal Scars of War
  Good to see that some people are putting some advanced ideas into something that too often gets lost in the debates about war
  

  We spend a lot of money on training people and conducting war, We have to put what’s needed into helping these people when they come back.

• NASA Launches Startups for Ships
  At this point in time, I don’t think there’s any doubt that robotic missions provide a much better cost/benefit ratio for science and engineering than do manned missions, so I would strongly prefer that NASA direct its (taxpayer) funding in that direction. But of course such cold reasoning can be thrown out the window when it comes to privately funded ventures–if some people with tens upon tens of millions of dollars to spare think a few moments of almost-orbital flight are worth the cost, who are we to argue? For NASA to provide seed money, coordination, and encouragement for private ventures to develop new vehicles seems like a wondeful idea. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to more routine manned missions is the efficiency, safety, and cost of propulsion technology, so expanding the base of people who will experiment and explore–even (especially?) if for reasons of vanity and thrill–might improve things more quickly than the centralized, bureaucratic process that is current NASA rocket science.
• Bill in Congress to Overhaul Patent Law Seeks to Quell Suits
  Wow, rather than try to address the issues that lead to the filing (and granting) of frivolous and contentious patents, rather than expand upon our valuable first-to-invent concept, what goal does Congress set for revising the patent system? Change the rules so as to reduce the number of lawsuits that can happen. A brilliant example of treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease if I’ve ever heard one–not to mention why logical-, techical-minded people get so exasperated with politicians and lawyers.

• The Cubs slide began innocently enough with a Little-League type gaffe in Philadelphia last week, but as it has grown longer the losses have become more and more breathtaking in their ineptness. The last few games have held a morbid sort of entertainment value, for while sinking towards oblivion with a series of heartbreaking, close losses seems more valiant, a spectacular implosion has a certain kind of stupefying panache.
• Analyze This: Combining Data
  It seems to me that the ability to sift through unstructured data and drawn meaningful content from it–especially emergent properties rather than mere induction or deduction–is a key element of artificial intelligence, perhaps even more so than the venerable Turing Test. Somewhat ironic here that after decades of academic AI studies, an important step forward may have come out of the simple desire to cut costs.
• Silliness On Stem Cells

  Life, however, is lived on a slippery slope: Taxation could become confiscation; police could become gestapos. But the benefits from taxation and police make us willing to wager that our judgment can stop slides down dangerous slopes.

  And people sometimes thik that politics and law will lead to clarity and simplicity? Ha.
• Privilege at Stake With Nominees
  Executive privilege has its place, but it’s really unfortunate how its extent all depends upon the political climate rather than a more holistic debate on its merits and limits. Really, any public official should expect that any discussions and deliberations made about public issues–on taxpayers’ time and money–are to be public knowledge; anyone who can’t deal with that should go instead into private enterprises where disclosure can be as broad or narrow as employment contracts specify. Certainly there are a few situations–ongoing criminal investigations, specific information that could compromise public safety, etc.–where withholding information is in the public interest, but any such cases should be provable to an independent entity (judge, arbitration panel, whatever) and limited to the minimum time necessary; no one, not even the President, should be able to self-certify information as ‘privileged’ without the possiblity of independent review.
• Bible Course Becomes a Test for Public Schools in Texas
  Given its importance in European and American cultures, the Bible–and the ways in which it is interpreted and used–is most certainly a valid topic for study; in that light I would have no objections to elective courses in public schools. Yet the rumblings from otherwise supportive parents that the current implementations reflect a very particular sectarian bent indicate that, despite protestations of the course creators, the current efforts are less about education and more about proselytizing. Besides, if it’s really For the Children’s Education, given that the course covers material that the kids should already know pretty well, wouldn’t it make more sense to explore other religions–gee, I dunno, understanding the Koran springs to mind–either in comparision with the Bible or on their own merits? I’d love to see how the Bible-course advocacy groups would respond (squirm?) in the face of that idea.

• Montana wisdom
  Here’s a nice sentiment that many of us can get behind:
  

  The Democrats make me ashamed to be an American.The Republicans make me ashamed to be a human being.

• You Can’t Fight Terrorism With Racism
  Certainly we are better off to focus our efforts to deter or capture ‘terrorists’ on those people and groups most likely to have the inclination and opportunity to do so. Yet the difficulty in figuring out exactly how to do that without either violating our basic principles of justice or enacting ineffective programs highlights how preposterously wrong it is to belive that the so-calle ‘war on terrorism’ is a black-and-white, Us-vs.-Them situation. If it were really that easy to spot a terrorist on a train, sidewalk, or airport concourse, would most of the various attacks around the world over the last, oh, several centuries have happened?
• When You Have to Shoot First
  When the Profile Fits the Crime
  The threat of terrorism has highlighted the ongoing struggle to balance the legitimate needs for safety (police power, militaries, etc.) with the just as legitimate need to prevent the state from overusing its power. The tragedy with situations like the recent shooting in the London Underground is that officers have to balance the risk of doing nothing, and possibly letting someone injure or kill innocent people, and the risk of doing something, possibly taking out a ’suspect’ unnecessarily, and they must do it all on the fly with not nearly enough information. I think a major issue becomes one of accountability (for the state in general and its agents in particular), but a solution is possible. For cases like this where an incident escalates into a shooting, if a review and analysis shows that the officers actions were reasonable given the situation yet simply turned out to be wrong (i.e. tragic mistakes rather than capricious or malicious actions), those officers can be absolved of liability–but they should relieved of duty permanently. A bit draconian perhaps, yet it would satisfy the need to not only have some accountability but also stress the principle that in giving our policemen and soldiers great powers over citizens, including the potential to take lives, we hold them to higher standards.
• FBI Faulted on Unreviewed Wiretap Recordings
  Hmm, not only is their ability to mine useful information out of piles of data suspect, now we hear that their not even analyzing it? Why do they want us to agree to fork over yet more personal data again?

• The announcement of the proposed Downtown Drill Bit…wait, Lake Point Birthday Candle…sorry, Fordham Spire has produced a fair amount of buzz, much of it unfortunately unrelated to architecture. Certainly, practical realities like safety and financing are valid issues for a project of this magnitude. Yet from my first look I’ve wanted to know: Why do they propose that it be frickin’ white? Seriously, it’s gonna be 2000 feet tall, plopped in the middle of Streeterville right along the lakefront and Lake Shore Drive, and possess that most unusual twisty-terraced look (whose daring not-just-another-steel-box styling I admire even while reserving judgement on its aesthetic merits)…aren’t those already enough “look at me” items, doesn’t the addition of a white facade take the structure from audacious right on past to obnoxious? Make it gunmetal gray or black, then we’re moving in the right direction.
• The Skeptic’s Dictionary
  For those of us who take cynical pleasure in debunking the stupid and inane.
  Tags:analysisinformationskepticism
• USA to Pass Science Crown to China
  Sadly, we can’t seem to convince enough people of the value of science and engineering on their merits alone, so maybe an appeal to patriotism (jingoism?) will do the trick…it seemed mildly successful back in the 1950s.
• The Best Army We Can Buy
  With the military stretched thin yet missing its recruiting targets badly, rumblings of a draft persist. For a long time I hung my (intellectual) opposition to the draft on the 13th Amendment, although I’ve since come to realize that no U.S. court will carry that argument, ruling instead that application to the military wasn’t the authors’ intent and further that citizens of any country have an implicit duty to come to its aid. However, that still leaves room for a legalistic attack on the current Selective Service approach: if everyone has a duty to be called into service, then shouldn’t that obligation really apply to everyone and not allocated by lot? (Hmm, perhaps the obligations to pay taxes and obey laws could instead be subject to lottery?)
  Yet, perhaps making some period of service a universal obligation could actually be a good thing, provided it allows exemption for cause, alternatives for conscientious objectors, etc. If everyone did a stint in the service (say 15 months), the U.S. would probably never be short of fresh manpower, and the quality of the military ranks might even improve as those truly qualified to be important officers and noncoms would almost certainly be identified while the dregs could easily be discharged–even during a major war–without serious threat of troop shortages. Moreover, with every citizen having had first-hand experience of service–and also essentially guaranteed to know friends or family in current service–there would likely be much more pressure on Washington to avoid use of the military option unless it’s really necessary and has the required levels of public support. This isn’t an idea that I actually advocate, but I think it would be better and more equitable than a return to the draft.

• Grand Theft Adult
  Will we ever get past the bizarre prudish view that it’s more important to protect the impressionable from sex than it is from violence? I always found it strange that GTA didn’t have an Adults Only rating already, but that it just took a dash of sex (that takes some savvy to unlock in the first place) to suddenly push it over the ratings edge.
• In Troubled Times, Bring On the Spartans
  Over the last few years I’ve been leaning towards the view that the way to get the best government is not necessarily to put more intricate legal checks and balances but rather to ensure we put good people in place (that active oversight by the citizenry is of course the most difficult part to achieve). Simple laws can handle complex situations properly when savvy leaders know how to follow, massage, or ignore them to ensure the proper outcome. Character is important, but the character that counts is the ability to stand up for what is in the best interests of the body politic, not just the lack of peccadilloes that would displease X percentage of the population.
• White House Aims to Block Legislation on Detainees
  I’m all for separation of powers, but the argument that Congress (and the judiciary, for that matter) has no power to oversee and regulate how the executive treats people in its custody is as strained as it is disgusting. If the Presdient requires the authority to violate treaties and torture detainees in order to ‘keep us safe’, then I think we’ve failed as a nation.
• Military Trials for Detainees To Resume
  I can’t say I have a lot of faith in military justice in these cases, but at least it’s a start. Even kangaroo-court verdicts will be subject to some sort of appellate process, so finally there may be some hope to start moving these prisoners out of the damnable legal limbo they’ve found themselves in for the past few years.

• Finding Design in Nature
  If Cardinal Schoemborn wants to clarify that Pope Benedict XVI firmly believes that evolution requires the guiding hand of a Creator, fine. (Was this really necessary?) But I call bullshit on a couple points of his so-called logic:
  

  Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.

  Oopsie, the good Cardinal is subtly intermingling truth–the existence of verifiable, repeatable facts–with Truth–the concordance of facts and ideas with morality or ethics; that’s Rhetoric, not Logic.
  

  Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

  Uh, no. Any system of thought that denies the possibility of design (or, notably, the lack thereof) is ideology; any system of thought that tests any proposition–no matter how far-fetched anyone (including the tester) believes it to be–against observations and follows them to a logical conclusion is Science. Moreover, a set of facts cannot provide overwhelming evidence for anything, only against; any conclusion of evidence for a design–rather than merely a consistent pattern–necessarily presupposes a designer, so the only way to infer ‘overwhelming’ evidence in favor of said designer is to somehow show that the possibility that complex, useful patterns can arise via random interactions is impossibly remote…which recent simulations in various fields seem to be refuting.

  Religious scholars are certainly entitled to their views, which may even align with actual truth to one degree or another, but I find it offensive when they dare to hijack and mangle the scientific method improperly to further their ends.

• Judith Miller Goes to Jail
  I find this editorial somewhat amusing in its almost breathless reach to make this into a grand passion play involving deep social and political ramifications for America. I still don’t buy it, I’m more inclined towards the view of Don Wycliff’s editorial in the Trib that she’s picked a fight undeserving of the principles she claims to be upholding. However, I have a little more respect for her current position that she is going to jail as a form of civil disobedience, simply refusing to accept the demands of the court as proper even as she accepts them as legal. That’s the proper approach…why didn’t she do this earlier? Why not have spent effort to create the desired press shield the proper way–through the legislative process–rather than tried to use the courts to finagle a ‘right’ that didn’t exist?