Time for Some Campaignin'

.
The latest from JibJab...

Hannah Montana the Billionaire?

You may need to sit down for this one. Miley Cyrus, whose alter-ego is Hannah Montana, is on course to become a billionaire by the time she is 18. When you're done being depressed about your own life, read this article.

Give the Girl a Break!

A professor at Yeshiva University left two years ago as a man - and returned last week as a woman (see story here). As described on Wikipedia, the school is a private Jewish university in New York City...(whose) programs operate according to the Modern Orthodox Judaism philosophy of Torah Umadda — meaning "Torah combined with secular studies").

That alone does not warrant the story making this blog. What struck me was this quote from the article:

"He's not a woman. He's a male with enlarged breasts," said Rabbi Moshe Tendler, a senior dean at Yeshiva's rabbinical school and a professor of biology and medical ethics. "He's a person who represents a kind of amorality which runs counter to everything Yeshiva University stands for. There is just no leeway in Jewish law for a transsexual.

"There is no niche where he can hide out as a female without being in massive violation of Torah law, Torah ethics and Torah morality."

As usual, a religious fundamentalist is using religion to justify bigotry and prejudice, which in turn can foment hatred, even if that is not the intention. And it is not a misinterpretation of biblical texts that allows these closed-minded lunkheads to squeeze this insight out of religious teachings. In believing that these antiquated texts are the word of God, they are applying Iron Age values to 21st Century society. And yet, many of their more moderate co-religionists believe them to be wise and learned.

They are neither!

I have a lot more respect for reform and secularized religious leaders who reinterpret age-old scriptures and traditions in a modern and enlightened context. I may disagree with many of their supernatural claims and beliefs, but I share their values, which is what ultimately drives behavior. But it is the responsibility of moderate religious leaders to publicly denounce ignorant comments by insane fundamentalists. While the road from bigoted religious leader to the murderous psychopath he inspires is clearly visible in the Muslim Middle East, it is by no means restricted to Islam. Remember, Yitzhak Rabin, the prime minister of Israel, was murdered by an orthodox Jewish Israeli, Yigal Amir, in 1995.

I should add, however, that I would not object on legal grounds if Yeshiva University were to succeed in firing this professor. From a libertarian standpoint, a private business should be able to hire and fire its employees on any basis it chooses, and I completely agree with this viewpoint. I also believe that the free market should decide if this behavior by a business - in this case a University - is acceptable. If its customers - the students - don't support its policies, the school will lose revenue in the form of tuition dollars.

A restaurant that refused to serve blacks would go out of business in a hearbeat, if this policy were legal. In the case of Yeshiva University, however, the majority of students might agree that this professor doesn't belong on the teaching staff. In that case, the professor needs to teach where his/her lifestyle is welcomed. (I must point out that from a libertarian standpoint, the free market should only have this role in the private sector. The government - and all public institutions - should not and cannot discriminate on any basis in a free society.)

Hypocrisy!

Sarah Palin and Creationism

I have been waiting since Sunday for NBC to post it's "Meet the Press" transcript from Tom Brokaw's interview with Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, in which they discussed Sarah Palin's support for the teaching of creationism/intelligent design in public school science classes.

So that there is no confusion over my position on this issue, let me state it clearly: Creationism is an utterly insane belief that flies in the face of mountains of scientific evidence collected since Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. To claim that evolution is a theory, and therefore not scientifically sound, is to not understand what the word "theory" means. From its page in Wikipedia:

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation...and the general theory of relativity.

Visit this article in Wikipedia to see Evolution explained in this context.

Every single argument in support of creationism, and against evolution, falls apart under scientific scrutiny. Let's be clear: The only reason any person would believe in creationism is because they are a biblical literalist, and lacking any logical way to reconcile the Book of Genesis with science, they choose to dismiss scientific evidence. "The sky is blue? I just don't believe it."

Not that any definition of God could be considered logical, but I would propose that the most logical definition would be that God created the laws of science, and everything else happened as a consequence. This would include evolution.

So how does this relate to politics? It relates to the power of politicians to determine what your children are taught in public school. What is taught in science class should be based on the most current consensus of the scientific community. We don't teach that the Earth is flat, even though - believe it or not - some people still believe this. (You don't believe me? See this blog entry.) If creationism is taught at all, it should be in the context of "religious studies," an objective review of what people of different faiths believe. Frankly, this is probably better suited to the college level anyway. Creationism absolutely does not belong in a science classroom. Any politician who promotes this is demonstrating that their capacity for sound decision-making is compromised by their religious beliefs. Is this the kind of person you want with their finger anywhere near the nuclear trigger?

Here is the part of the "Meet the Press" transcript that I was referring to:

MR. BROKAW: In the governor's race, (Sarah Palin) refused to be specific about her views on creationism vs. evolution, but as I understand it, she did say that she thought that the two subjects should be taught side by side in public schools. Do you think that's a good idea?

GOV. PAWLENTY: I saw her comments on it yesterday, and I thought they were appropriate, which is, you know, let's--if there are competing theories, and they are credible, her view of it was, according to comments in the newspaper, allow them all to be presented, or allow them both to be presented so students could be exposed to both, and--or more, and have a chance to be exposed to the, to the various theories and make up their own minds.

MR. BROKAW: In the vast scientific community, do you think that creationism has the same weight as evolution, and at a time in American education when we are in a crisis when it comes to science that there ought to be parallel tracks for creationism vs. evolution in the teaching?

GOV. PAWLENTY: In the scientific community, it seems like intelligent design is dismissed. Not entirely, there are a lot of scientists who would make the case that it is appropriate to be taught and appropriate to be demonstrated. But in terms of the curriculum in the schools, in Minnesota we've taken the approach that that's a local decision, but I know Senator Palin, or Governor Palin, has said intelligent design is something she thinks should be taught along with evolution in the schools, and I think that's appropriate from my standpoint.

MR. BROKAW: Given, given...

GOV. PAWLENTY: But I believe--my personal view is that's a local decision.

MR. BROKAW: Given equal weight.

GOV. PAWLENTY: At the local school board.

MR. BROKAW: And you would recommend it be given equal weight.

GOV. PAWLENTY: We've said in Minnesota, in my view this is a local decision. Intelligent design is something that in my view is a plausible and credible and something that I personally believe in; but more importantly, from an educational and scientific standpoint, it should be decided by local school boards, by--at the local school district level.

100-Year-Old Woman Shot Dead

Does it get any sicker than this? From this article:

Jessie Burke celebrated her 100th birthday on Aug. 7. Three and half weeks later the matriarch of a well known family here was found shot dead in the back of the head, sitting in a chair in the den of her daughter's home...

Roman Invasion Promotes AIDS

Well, sort of. Enjoy this bizarre science story.

Islam's War on Freedom

_
This fantastic commentary by my favorite YouTube commentator, Pat Condell, cuts right to the heart of how and why the Organization of the Islamic Conference is using the amoral, corrupt, destructive and useless United Nations to pursue their goal of fundamentalist Islamic world domination.