Personal Vendetta

Personal Vendetta
L: Gagne, Shanahan, Straka, Robitaille, Calder-P1

Rating: 4

Gagne is an elite sniper but only as long as he stays healthy – something he has increasingly had a problem doing. Shanahan is still a brutish winger capable of 30+, and gives the PV an elite #2. Straka is one the most injury prone wingers in history, but he is capable of ppg numbers if he can stay off of the IR. Robitaille is padding his HOF stats and will be in tough to reach the 25 goal mark. Calder is a grinder with upside, but so far hasn’t shown the talent of a 20 goal scorer. All in all a terrific set of wingers but there are a lot of risks here.

C: Forsberg, Modano, Briere, Cassels, White-P1, Reinprecht-P1

Rating: 4.5

Forsberg is still among the best pivots in the league – but his health woes are becoming equally legendary. Modano was as solid a ppg player the league has ever seen, posting 7 straight campaigns over 70 points, until his last that is. So far, he has recovered most of his scoring touch, and makes for an excellent #2. Briere has started the year like a house on fire, but the diminutive gunner will face increased attention that may blunt his stats moving forward. Cassels is still an above average play-maker, but he is winding down a career that was best when he lined up with Geoff Sanderson. White and Reinprecht are both overage prospects with little upside except as injury fill-ins – which is essentially why they were picked – both will likely be given walking papers next year.

R: Alfreddson, Mogilny, Cole, Parrish, Cammalleri-P2, Michalek-P1

Rating: 3

Alfreddson gives the PV a top end gunner for the 1st line. Mogilny is a solid selection for the 2nd line, and Cole or Parrish are both decent enough for the 3rd line role. A solid quartet overall but nothing overwhelming. Cammalleri has the talent to eventually climb the depth chart, but this doesn’t look like the year he will do so. Michalek is excellent along the boards, and sets up his line mates well, but may lack an NHL calibre shot.

D: Lidstrom, Timmonen, Niinimaa, Spacek, Hannan, Desjardins, Cairns, Hatcher, Girard-P1, Phaneuf-P1

Rating: 3

Lidstrom remains among the best rearguards in the league, and should rebound from a soft season where he registed below 60 points for the first time in half a decade. Timmonen is a pp specialist who should continue to provide steady points. Niinimaa is all but spent as an offensive force, and there are rumours he could return to Europe where the wear and tear on him would be far less. Spacek is a decent enough defender playing on a weak team. Any points he gets are a bonus. Hannan may well develop into a solid #1, but I don’t see it happening this year. Desjardins is playing out the string, no longer capable of rushing the puck up ice or running a powerplay. Cairns is ticketed for the AHL where his lack of foot-speed won’t be such a deterrent to his ice-time. Hatcher is a thumper in the old-school sense, but unless he shows his fearsome shutdown abilities soon a +/- role will vanish and leave him with only meagre goon points as his benefit to the team. Girard is a potential starter should he kick start his career from the idle it has been languishing in. He was supposed to be much better by now. Phaneuf has a chance at being a future all-star, but his shot is still wild, and he’s most noteworthy for the furious abuse he’s been dishing out as a rookie.

G: Khabiboulin, Joseph, Weekes

Rating: 3

Khabiboulin will see a lot of shots in Chicago, but this is his chance to show he’s worth the big money the Chi-Hawks through at him. So far, he’s been decent. Joseph is playing out the string hoping for playoff minutes with the Coyotes. He’ll tutor LeNeveu, but shouldn’t be expected to play the 60+ games he would have in the past. Weekes is a long shot to play regularly for the Rangers, and an even longer shot to make the PV.

Overall: 17.5

The Barbarians

The Barbarians

L: Kovalchuk, Tkachuk, Nagy, Roberts, Pyatt-P3

Rating: 4

Kovalchuk is the world’s purest sniper at the moment, capable of 60 goals if the stars align themselves properly. Tkachuk showed up to camp out of shape (by 30lbs), and then promptly got hurt as he tried to play himself back into game-shape. He should rebound to close to a ppg once he returns, but his lack of effort in the off-season is worrisome. Nagy is emerging as a genuine threat on the portside. He could easily reach the ppg mark for a full season if he avoids injury. However, he is slightly built and has suffered setbacks the last two years running. Roberts is an aging warrior who has already seen the inside of an ambulance this year. He’ll be in tough to make a regular contribution. Pyatt is on the Brad May track and doesn’t appear to have the skill set to get himself out of it.

C: Datsyuk, Koivu, Drury, Conroy

Rating: 3.5

Undersized as a quartet, they still have excellent scoring punch. Datsyuk in particular has taken off as a true #1 capable of ppg+ stats. Koivu is now too fragile to count on for a full season, but in the games he does play he usually gets something. An excellent #2. Conroy has had a blazing start to his season, but we know it’s a mirage for the long term. He’ll settle in nicely as a #3 with upside. Drury is the perfect injury replacement from the 4th line. He won’t trouble any of the three pivots ahead of him, but he’s a solid plug-n-play if needed.

R: Guerin, Walker, Williams, Getzlaf, Fehr-P1

Rating: 2.5

Rating: Guerin is a legit ppg threat with PIM upside if needed, but he is getting a bit long in the tooth to expect 40 goals from him. Walker is also a good blend of scoring and PIM, but his ceiling is well established around 60 points. Williams is the wrong Williams to be excited about. He may turn out to be an above average checker or even a decent third liner, but don’t hold your breath for more. Getzlaf will be groomed to take on power-winger duties, but isn’t ready for prime-time yet. Fehr has all the skills to be an offensive threat, but is still growing into his bean-pole frame – he’s a younger version of Joe Nieuwendyk if he puts it all together.

D: Leopold, Kubina, Visnovsky, Vishnevski, Bouwmeester, McGillis, Kaberle F., Regehr, Whitney-P3, Grebeshekov-P2, Zizka-P2, Koltsov-P2

Rating: 2

Leopold has upside, but has never cracked 40 points to make him legit as a top-end defender. Kubina is slowly devolving into a defensive defenseman. Visnovsky has wicked pp skills, and could take over as the top blue-liner. Bouwmeester is still probably a year or more away from being the impact defender expected, but he’ll contribute this year nonetheless. McGillis and Regehr are filler. Kaberle the elder could also end up as the top defenseman, if only by default. Whitney has a solid future, but Grebeshekov, Zizka and Kolstov are all in the minors without obvious reason to call them up.

G: Theodore, Roloson, Gerber-P2

Rating: 4

Theodore is one of the elite, but he has a tendency to follow an awesome year with a mediocre one – making this likely to be an awesome year. Roloson is an excellent back-up as he is unlikely to challenge for the top spot, but can fill in whenever necessary. Gerber is a project, and one that may well have been derailed by the emergence of Cam Ward in Carolina.

Overall Rating: 16

The Edge

The Edge (logo not available)

L: Ovechkin, Elias, Nash-P3, Amonte, Shelley

Rating: 4.5

Ovechkin is the second coming of Selanne, big, fast, overwhelming shot, and an aptitude for contact the Finnish Flash never possessed. He’s the real deal. Elias has been assured a job by the Devils, but his Hep A makes his ongoing status as an FP doubtful. Nash is the classic power-forward; a bulldozer frame, wingspan, wheels, and deadly accurate shot. A future powerplay monster when he returns to health. Amonte is a good stop-gap till Elias/Nash recover enough to play, and Shelley is a bomb-thrower who will only see duty if the injury gods continue to plague the Edge.

C: Fedorov, Jokinen, Peca, Primeau, Halpern-P1

Rating: 2.5

Fedorov has been bit by the injury bug, but should otherwise be a solid #1 and ppg threat when healthy. Jokinen is a classic #2 pivot who should max out under a ppg but still net at least 30 goals. Peca or Primeau make for a decent third liner, as both have some upside (and either could sub in as a TG), but neither will break out for more than 25 goals. Halpern was derided as a prospect because of his career performance as a checking pivot. Despite some early scoring spurts, he has returned to the role of being the teams designated shadow.

R: Sykora, Lehtinen, Dumont, Domi, Perry-P1, Stewart-P1

Rating: 2.5

Sykora, Lehtinen and Dumont give the Edge a trio of second line calibre wingers to fill the top three spots. Domi has wicked goon potential, but will be tough to crack the lineup ahead of him. Perry is a slow footed scoring machine with unbelievable hand skills – he’s not ready yet, but he is a keeper. Stewart has mammoth strength, and great wheels, but is still learning to hone his overall game. One day he’ll be a tremendous force barrelling in off the wing, but not yet.

D: Leetch, Boyle, Aucoin, Priessing, Tanabe, Brewer, Hamhuis, Martin-P2, Jackman-P3, Staios-P1

Rating: 3.5

Leetch, Boyle and Aucoin form an above average top 3 unit, with Leetch being the most likely to approach a ppg from the back end. Tanabe and Brewer are excellent depth defenders with strong offensive upsides. Priessing is an unknown quantity as far as his points range, but he has a decent chance to land on the SJ powerplay. Hamhuis is a project who may well bear fruit this year. Martin is the longer term cornerstone of the teams D corps, his vision, passing skills and wheels will make him a long term threat, and short term #4-5. Jackman has the tools to be a #1, but most overcome injury and the loss of his long-time partner MacInnis. Staios is an overage AHL defenseman pressed into duty only because of a lack of depth. Will struggle to keep his prospect status for more than a year.

G: Lehtonen-P2, Legace

Rating: 2.5

Lehtonen is already down with an injury in his rookie campaign, but has the resume of a future all-star in the making should he return to health. That said, he’ll see a lot of rubber given the quality of defensemen in front of him. Legace has the benefit of a better D corps in front of him, but is undersized and tends to wear out under a heavy workload. Could be a long year for Edge goalies.

Overall: 15.5

The Highlanders

The Highlanders

L: Smyth, Hecht, Blake, Kvasha

Rating: 2

Smyth is solid but never spectacular – he maxes out his talent the closer he gets to 70 pts, and he seems to suffer a 20 game injury every year – he’d be better as a #2. Hecht might emerge as a decent #2, but I still see him as a #4 with upside. Blake and Kvasha are physically opposite but points wise likely indistinguishable. Both are #3 wingers at best, and easy WD cuts.

C: Thornton, Crosby-P2, Weight, Nylander, Sedin.H

Rating: 4.5

Thornton has the potential to win a scoring title or two, and with a role as TG, he could win it in the FUNHL sooner than in the NHL. Thornton is simply dominant when healthy. Crosby is taking the reigns in Pit as a rookie, and will be close to a ppg if he can avoid injury. He’s an ascendant superstar. Weight has been less than advertised so far, but in the 3 spot he just needs to be average and stay healthy to contribute – and his presence deeper on the depth chart gives the kilted goat-handlers reason for celebration.

R: St Louis, O’Neil, Zherdev-P3, Yzerman, Kastistsyn-P2

Rating: 3.5

St Louis is all-world speedster with soft hands. He’s an offensive grenade primed to go off in the NHLs new free flowing game and should be an above average #1 winger. O’Neil will have a great pivot to set him up no matter who he lines with. Revitalized in Toronto, his totals should climb back towards 30+ goals and solid second line duty. Zherdev is emerging still, and has some bad habits to break, but will contribute to a decent set of wingers. Yzerman is a $5 cab ride from accepting the GM post in Detroit. Kastistsyn has big skill, but needs at least another year in the minors to hone his game.

D: Jovanovski, McCabe, Tverdovsky, Klesla, Pitkanen-P3, Sutton, Zyuzin, Campoli, Kronwall-P2

Rating: 3.5

Jovo-cop may not scare people as an FP, but he is a solid #1. McCabe is currently hotter than Christine Aguilera in her ‘Dirty’ video, and could well end up outscoring the more prolific Jovo-cop. Tverdovsky is a reclamation project and a solid #3 unless he gets another concussion. Klesla is slowly turning into Pavel Kubina. Not bad, just not good. Pitkanen is developing his game along the Kim Johnsson line, but he may be a year or more away from taking over the Philly powerplay. Sutton, Zyuzin and Campoli are all WD cuts. Kronwall would likely have made the roster this year based on his AHL performance, but injuries have sidelined him indefinitely. All in all they possess a wicked top 3 and decent depth afterwards.

G: Nabokov, Graham, Dipietro-P2, Niitymaki-P1

Rating: 3

Nabokov is a mid-grade #1, while Graham has the potential to take over if it all goes amiss. Dipietro should have been a regular starter by now, but he has lots of time to develop. Niitymaki may well leapfrog Dipietro for the future #1 spot, but neither is ready to go now.

Overall: 16.5

The Ramapithicines

The Ramapithicines (logo not available)

L: Morrow, Bondra, Rucinsky-P3, Bouchard-P2, Brown-P1

Rating: 2.5

Morrow is a nice blend of PIM and points who scrapes by to qualify as a #1. Bondra has lost the otherworldly speed he used to possess and is now a stationary sniper for the pp. Rucinsky could rebound big-time if he stays on Jagr’s line in NY – more likely, he’ll end up in the 40 pt range. Bouchard has great skill and could be playable, but barely. Dustin Brown isn’t ready yet, but given his tool-box he won’t be denied for long, concussions or no.

C: Zhmanov, Rolston, Bell, Legwand, Vasicek-P3, Kraft-P2

Rating: 1.5

The cavemen pivots are, in a word, UGLY. Zhamnov is already hurt, sparing me the need to comment further about his propensity for long term injury – and he is the Ramapithicine’s BEST centre-man. Rolston plays in Minnesota, ‘nuff said. Bell is on the slow track for power-forward status – but that has been a VERY slow track. Maybe he’ll ‘get it’ this year, but I don’t see it. Legwand has speed to burn, but is running out of chances to be anything more than a less tough version of Scott Walker. Vasicek holds promise, but Staal’s emergence may have derailed his ice-time in offensive situations (still, he’s rolling for me in my NHL 2004 franchise squad). Kraft is a total bust. Surely we can say that now.

R: Palffy, Zednik, Afinogenov, Dvorak, Lupul-P2

Rating: 2.5

Palffy is a points machine when healthy and a solid #1. Zednik is already hurt, but a safe bet for 25 goals when he isn’t. Afinogenov started out nuclear, but has yet to put a dressable season together - it’s official, he really isn’t the second coming of Pavel Bure. Dvorak is 4th line material at best, and a WD casualty in any case. Lupul has goalscorers hands, and should be a future contributor.


D: Chara, Zubov, Ozolinsh, Stuart, Van Ryn, Numminen, Boumedienne, Markov, Phillips-P2, McCarthy-P2

Rating: 4

A better top 5 probably doesn’t exist out there. Chara is still a monster, Zubov still a pp god, Ozolinsh is still inconsistent, but getting the points, Stuart is still emerging as a true #1 (though the wait is probably killing him), and Van Ryn could be the heir apparent in Florida, Bouwmeester or no. The rest are filler, with Phillips having some potential as a +/- guy, and McCarthy spending another year on the farm honing his offense.

G: Turco, Hedberg

Rating: 4

How much will Turco miss Derian Hatcher and Richard Matvichuk? We’ll see I guess. Till then, he’s still a solid #1, higher than all but one or two other choices, with a pronounced downside if Dallas’ D turns cheese grater.

Total rating: 14.5

The Great Whites

The Great Whites




L: Lemieux, Zetterberg-P4, Frolov-P3, Erat, Semin-P2, Miettenen-P1

Rating: 3.5

Lemieux is God till his hip acts up again. Zetterberg is a solid #2 with upside. Frolov is emerging as an in-close specialist (wrap-arounds, garbage goals, etc), but could develop the snipers touch as he progresses – a safe #3. Erat is a waste of hockey tape and will be in Europe before long.

C: Langkow-P3, Marleau, Gomez, Nieuwendyk

Rating: 3

Langkow could be the best of the bunch, but until he proves it with points, he’s just as likely to be the worst. Marleau has been an emerging threat to roll at a ppg for so long we have become breathless waiting for him – but the fact is he may well have a ceiling of around 60-65 pts he can’t cross without much better line-mates. Gomez is schizo, he could be the rookie who set the table for Mogilny on the way to a 70+pt season, or he could be the soft, confused skill forward whose refusal to play defense gets him traded. Nieuwendyk is padding his stats for his HOF argument – nothing more.

R: Havlat, Kovalev, Ryder, Daigle, Gaborik-P4, Svatos-P1, Balej-P1

Rating: 4

Either Havlat or Kovalev would make a soft #1, but both are above average #2’s. Gaborik is in the same boat, giving the Whites three decent but not overwhelming gunners for the right side. Ryder was a nice stop gap till Gaborik re-emerged, but has likely reached his peak already. Svatos and Balej are both longer term projects in the Rucinsky mold, though Svatos has clearly emerged as being ready for active duty.

D: Pronger, Liles, Johnsson, Kalinin, Ohlund, Boynton, Jackman, Pothier

Rating: 3.5

Pronger will get back to being the best-all-round-D-man in the league sooner or later. Liles is a nice bonus as the pp specialist in offense heavy Colorado. Johnsson is an equal treat in Philly. Kalinin and Ohlund are both more defensive than offensive, but can chip in. Boynton will need to get his feet wet now that he has signed. Jackman has been sucking pp assists like crazy, but that won’t last long. Pothier….uh, who?

G: Brodeur, Osgood

Rating 4

Brodeur hasn’t been the shutdown monster he has in years past, but he is still a good sight better than almost anyone else. Osgood is pure filler, and will never dress.

Total: 18

The Bladerunners

Yeah, it’s better late than never, but here goes;

Bladerunners

L: Prospal, Stillman, Fedotenko, Modin, Vanek-P1

Rating: 3

Prospal had his best year ever in TBay, but a ppg is a bit much to expect. Stillman equally had his best season in TBay, but he is now in Carolina, and a drop to more modest totals should be expected. Fedotenko is filler. Modin has the gun to score 40, and the wheels that will only let him net 25. Vanek is a future all-star, but he may end up travelling the path of another highly touted sniper with questionable work ethic, Pavel Brendl. All in all I count 3 solid #2s and a solid prospect.

C: Sakic, Lecavalier, Turgeon, Staal-P2, Hudler-P2, Malkin-P1

Rating: 4.5

Sakic is God till Nietzsche returns to denounce his existence. Lecavalier has emerged as a solid #1 in his own right and future FP. Turgeon hasn’t scored 15+ goals in 5 years, but he could this season (to put himself over the 500g mark for his career). Staal is having a great first qtr, but I worry about him keeping the pace up for a whole season. Hudler is on the farm for another season which should be worrisome – he should have been ready by now. Malkin is the future, but a zero at present value.

R: Hossa, Demitra, Avery, Doan

Rating: 4

Hossa is a monster, but his team is in a huge funk right now. No worries, he’ll be back. Demitra is a solid #1, but he comes with huge injury risk. Avery is a pure goon, but if he can keep from being suspended he’ll be acceptable. Doan should have been a regular bet for 30 goals and 30 assists by now, but he is officially off the Tocchet path and now on the Brad May track.

D: Kaberle, Zhitnik, Boucher, Mara, Modry, Exelby, Erhoff, Khavanov, Kraijcek-P2

Rating: 1.5

Kaberle is a solid #1, but the rest would struggle to dress for most of the FUNHL. Zhitnik has potential as the Isles only weapon who can log big minutes. Boucher is lost in Dallas, and needs a change of scenery. Mara could be a thumper, could be a weapon, but isn’t either really. Modry, Exelby, Erhoff and Khavanov are all filler – no better way to put it. The GM should burn an Ox in thanks should any of these last four d-men have a multiple point week. Kraijcek has the tools to be a future #1 but is coming along slowly and isn’t ready yet.

G: Vokoun, Cloutier, Garon-P1, Miller-P1

Rating: 3

Vokoun should maintain positive numbers most nights, but shouldn’t frighten anyone. Cloutier is a solid backup who may dress if Vokoun tanks it. Garon is now a long term bust as a 1st rnd pick by the Canadiens way, way back. Miller time is coming, but first Buffalo has to figure out which goalie ahead of him to move (Biron or Norronen).

Overall: 16

Zherdev is no franchise player

Johnny B has bad news for the Highlander GMs dreams of making Zherdev an FP

"From what I've seen, Nikolai Zherdev will never be a franchise player, but merely a component on a very good team. He did a lot of floating and did not show the hair on fire, Metallica energy that Nash provides nearly every shift."

(AR: Emphasis mine)

Hurricane Fever

A CNN reporter accidentally caught two people 'in flagrante delecti' during their hurricane coverage.

I wonder if the FCC was watching?

How wide the net?

From the CBS Evening News, at 6:30PM:

CBS’ JOHN ROBERTS: Lawyers familiar with the case think Wednesday is when special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will make known his decision, and that there will be indictments. Supporters say Rove and the vice president’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, are in legal jeopardy. But they insisted today the two are secondary players, that it was an unidentified Mr. X who actually gave the name of CIA agent V alerie Plame to reporters. Fitzgerald knows who Mr. X is, they say, and if he isn’t indicted, there’s no way Rove or Libby should be. But charges may not focus on the leak at all. Obstruction of justice or perjury are real possibilities. Did Rove or Libby change statements made under oath? Did they deliberately leave critical facts out of their testimony or did they honestly forget? Some Republicans urged Rove to step down if indicted. Not a happy prospect for president Bush.

With Rove and Libby now seeming likely, who is the 'Mr. X' of the saga?

Here are my odds based on my best guesses;

BushJr: (wouldn't that be hilarious) negligible.

Condi Rice: 1% She was on the plane when the info got handed out, and the Globe had speculation that she informed Rove, but there is otherwise nothing to tie her to the mess.

Rich (The Plant) Gannon: 2% The Oswald of the conspiracy, he's the perfect patsy.

Ahmad Chalabi: 4% Weak, but possible.

Robert Novak: 5% Sang like a canary, so he's probably not it.

Other journalist: 5% Best bet of the longer shots.

Judy Miller: 8% Worst. Journalist. Ever.

John Bolton: 25% Would kick puppies for a nickle.

Dick Cheney:50% Unindicted co-conspirator? Fits. Libby's his boy and everyone knows it. Libby wouldn't have peeped about Plame without consulting with Darth Cheney first, and yet Scooter has been outed as one of the sources inside the administration. Rove, nobody has a problem seeing him throwing a kidney punch at Plame and Wilson over Wilson's objection to the Yellowcake story, but Libby? Not without permission first he wouldn't, and the only people Scooter takes orders from are Bush and Cheney - and not necessarily in that order.

As for:

"...and if he (Mr X.) isn’t indicted, there’s no way Rove or Libby should be."

Seems like sour grapes from Libby's and Rove's lawyers to me.

Rove and Libby - no Cheney

The buzz on the web is that indictments will be announced tomorrow.

My best bet is;

Libby for blabbing Plame's identity to the press (Miller, etc.), and perjury (lying about it)

Rove for perjury, and maybe also for revealing Plame's identity, though my bet right now is that Libby gets the full brunt of that charge.

Cheney gets a pass. Why? Because he is allowed to talk to Libby about Plame (he is Libby's source), and because Libby had clearance. While everyone 'knows' that Cheney put Libby up to the leak itself, I have no doubt that he'll throw Libby under the bus to save his own skin.

But if Rove and Libby are all they get, that's good enough for me.

ID defense witness ends up helping the prosecution

The post is in regards to the Dover School Board's attempts to get ID taught in high schools. Steve Fuller (after two other ID witnesses bailed on testifying - likely the result of seeing the utter savaging that Michael Behe went through) tries to suggest that ID be taught in schools as a means of recruitment.

Money Quote:

"But during cross-examination, he (Steve Fuller, an ID proponent) said intelligent design — the idea that the complexity of life requires a designer — is "too young" to have developed rigorous testable formulas and sits on the fringe of science.He suggested that perhaps scientists should have an "affirmative action" plan to help emerging ideas compete against the "dominant paradigms" of mainstream science."

AR: The response to this was on point;

"Fuller is of course correct to point out that there have been scientific revolutions in the past that have overturned much of what we thought we knew about the world. But those revolutions were the result of scientists actually doing science - building theories and models, testing them against the data, publishing the results for their peers to see and arguing over the results to reach a consensus - not by hiring PR firms and lobbying legislatures and school boards. As always, the ID folks want to skip over all that pesky scientific stuff and jump right to the conclusion.
And the really funny thing is that this witness was called by the other side. This is beginning to edge into the surreal.

AR: 'Surreal' doesn't begin to describe it. 'Offensive' does a better job, but I think 'totally bugf*ck crazy' is perhaps best. Here is how Panda's Thumb (love these guys!) saw it:

On Monday, the defense brought in Steve Fuller, to give the postmodernist version of why “intelligent design” should be taught in the classrooms of Dover, Pennsylvania.

Did you hear the one about the mafioso who studied French deconstructionist philosophy? He goes around making people offers that they can’t understand.

AR: In other words we have the perfect marriage between leftwing moonbat po-mo theorizing (there is no truth, everything is relative, blah blah blah) and rightwing theocrat fantasies of power and persecution (Why can't our stuff be science too? How come we need this thing you call evidence? I see a conspiracy of religious materialism!)

I guess the spectrum of intelligent discourse really does wrap around to form a circle where the extreme far-left and extreme far-right find they have much in common.

Turns out that whenever they agree, it's because they are both insane.

Picture of the Day

N132D - Supernova Remnant

Lumbering to a conclusion?

Money quote:

In the House of Commons, Mr. Martin — responding to suggestions from the Opposition that the government's position was softening — again insisted Canada won't negotiate with the United States on the NAFTA decision."We will not negotiate a win," he said. "NAFTA will be respected."


Martin has made exactly the correct response, both diplomatically and politically to the obstinance of the US in obeying recongized trade and international law on softwood lumber.

Martin's clever political move was to suggest that if NAFTA isn't obeyed Canada would seek to trade it's energy surpluses with other nations like, say...China. A move that certainly got the attention of the US, which has been content to dicker over this rather than swallow their pride and obey the rules they agreed to.

The first of his diplomatic moves was to correctly ignore the requests of the US for a 'negotiated settlement' - i.e. the 'we'll agree you are right, but don't want to pay you what we clearly owe' move we've been getting from our esteemed US representative to Canada. Kudos for recognizing that we have the upper hand, and that we should not place ourselves into negotiations on something that should be every right already belong to us (the aprox. $4.5B in revenues illegally collected by the US on Canadian imports).

The second solid diplomacy move was Martin's insistence that the ball is firmly in the US court to play, and that if they are serious about resolving the dispute they need to face up to their responsibilities and give a hard indication that they will obey the law moving forward.

Not coincidentally the US is just about due to ratify the illegal tax they have placed on our lumber - so Martin's diplomatic message is really an unequivocal - 'You say you want to obey NAFTA, well, put up or shut up and drop the tax moving forward - then we can talk'.

The US is clearly caught between a rock (the rule of law, and the fact they lost on every round of the dispute in NAFTA's own dispute mechanisms) and a hard place (the US lumber industry which funnells money into GOP coffers to enshrine exactly this kind of protectionism).

Are they feeling the squeeze? Definitely. Rice wouldn't be here if they weren't.

Is Martin winning? Yes he is, and with no small amount of elan either.

Quote of the Day

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience.

It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

–St. Augustine

Hubble finds Oxygen on the Moon

Damn this is a good time to be alive! The O2 discovered isn't part of the Moon's atmosphere, it's locked up in the rocks of the moon itself.

Money quote:

"The Aristarchus plateau has long been of interest to geologists because of its volcanic vents, collapsed lava tubes called rilles, ejected volcanic material and recent impact craters. The Aristarchus crater, 26 miles wide and two miles deep, could be as young as 100 million years old and has a sharp rim and other fresh features that reveal the varied geology of the area, said Mark Robinson, a planetary geologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill.
The crater slices into the side of the plateau, exposing its interior layers and features.
The telescope's images showed a diversity of materials in the crater, including basalt, olivine, anorthosite and ilmenite. Researchers said ilmenite, a glassy mineral made up of titanium, iron and oxygen, was particularly interesting because it could be an oxygen source for visitors. Oxygen can be extracted by heating or chemical processes. High concentrations of ilmenite were found at the Aristarchus site, scientists said."

The possibility of a permanent presence of humanity on the Moon just got an awful lot more possible. O2 available on the moon creates the possibility of not just a permanent moon base, but also using the moon as a launching pad (one that doesn't have the problems of our gravity well, which makes the delta v calculations of weight etc. so onerous) to reach Mars, the solar system, and the stars.

How Religion is Bad for your country

A cross-national study on religiosity and how it correlates with a variety of social problems. The result? If you want to make your country worse, give it that old time religion.

Money Quotes:

"The positive correlation between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile-adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.<6>"

(AR: emphasis mine)

Decrease religion, increase life-span - wow, doesn't get more combustible than that does it?

What is it about religiosity that makes lives shorter? Less respect for medical science? Faith healing?


"Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies"

More religion equals more likelihood of STDs. So if it burns when you pee you can say 'Thanks' to the Catholic Church that told you condoms were evil.

"Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest"

More religion leads to more abortions, and more teen pregnancies. Ignorance is bliss, indeed.


"The absence of exceptions to the negative correlation between absolute belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution, plus the lack of a significant religious revival in any developed democracy where evolution is popular, cast doubt on the thesis that societies can combine high rates of both religiosity and agreement with evolutionary science. Such an amalgamation may not be practical. By removing the need for a creator evolutionary science made belief optional. When deciding between supernatural and natural causes is a matter of opinion large numbers are likely to opt for the latter. Western nations are likely to return to the levels of popular religiosity common prior to the 1900s only in the improbable event that naturalistic evolution is scientifically overturned in favor of some form of creationist natural theology that scientifically verifies the existence of a creator. Conversely, evolution will probably not enjoy strong majority support in the U.S. until religiosity declines markedly."

(AR, emphasis mine).

In other words, the rest of the developed world has a serious advantage over the US. They are shackled by their religiosity, and giving the rest of us a huge advantage in terms of education and social policy - and until they eschew the invisible for the tangible, they will continue to hand that advantage to us.

E = mc2 Explained

In short there is no short, it's extremely complicated.

The experts here all give it a whack - and while each viewpoint is different, each also illuminates the genius of the small, now ubiquitous, equation.

The Polite Revolution

Ibbitson hits the nail on the head. Canada has transformed itself over the last few years to become something that the rest of the Western world (let alone the rest of the wolrd in general) can only dream of.

A cosmopolitan, polyglot country that gets more things right than wrong.

Money quote:

"Some time, not too long ago, while no one was watching, Canada became the world's most successful country. Canada works. In fact, it works better than any place else.

Partly by intent, mostly by luck, we find ourselves at the forefront of a social revolution.
While hand-wringing commentators have been lamenting our lack of a national identity — and trying to construct one, as if such a thing were possible — millions of new arrivals have landed at our docks and our airports, transforming us.

We are fashioning the world's first truly cosmopolitan society. After laying a solid foundation of liberal democracy — based on the best of the British and French traditions in governance and law — we have imported millions of new arrivals, first from eastern and southern Europe, then from eastern and southern Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa.

The result is nothing less than a miracle. Certain cities in Canada have reached escape velocity. They are becoming the first places where no one race is dominant, where women can live in real equality with men, where it's okay to be gay, where people pick up after their dogs. This has never happened anywhere before. Not like this."

Ibbitson calls this the 'Polite Revolution' - and I admit to liking the sobriquet quite a bit.

Living in Vancouver (one of the cities he talks about that has reached 'escape velocity') I see the world he talks about everyday. It's like Bladerunner with a liberal dose of Prozac - the people are a non-homogenous ethnic blend, the new is built on top of the old, it's always dark and always raining, and even androids are people too.

Take a bow Canucks - we rule.

Probably blasphemy to the cause of Pastafarianism, but I find the case for Cthullu more compelling than for the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'. Is it possible the two are one and the same? Could they be sister religions?

If so, I wonder if anyone warned Cthullu about it. He might take the worshippers of FSM as being run of the mill humans fit for slaughter at the hands of the Ancient ones.

(Side note to the Highlanders GM - you know way back when in the day when you had that bad little freak-out over my 'Slithis' poster? Consider if I had had this one instead....)

Archimedean Death Ray? More like big Ciggarette Lighter

Those kill-joy scientists take all the fun out of ancient Greek history.

This time MIT students (after a go at it from the geeks at Mythbusters) tried to recreate the famed Archimedean death ray - and failed.

Since this is science rather than religion, this series of disconfirming results is genuinely troubling for the historic account which claimed the 'death ray' lit Roman vessels on fire from a great distance.

Damn scientists. Next they'll be telling me there is no such thing as 'Greek Fire' or that Archimedes wasn't actually in his bathtub when he screamed 'Eureka' after discovering the Archimedean principle of volume.

Who doesn't love hockey fights?

Video available at the link.

Antiphon vs. the Lost Boys part II

AR: "‘Origin of Species’ isn’t exactly a riveting potboiler."

LB: Well, no, it doesn't have to be, it's the theories in it as taught by grade 10 biology textbooks that are problematic to the philosophy at hand.

AR: Science isn’t problematic to philosophy – philosophy has as part of its concern revealing ‘truth’ – it can easily accommodate itself to new information. The only thing science is problematic for is head-in-the-sand theology.

LB: Liberal protestantism has a lot going for it, as a faith, not the least of which is the belief in a personal saviour and redemption, and the core belief that God is accessible to anyone. To take the key font of that away (anyone can open the bible and discover salvation therein) by saying the correct interpretation of the bible is only available at the dictum of a select committee... well you'd be undermining a lot of progress. Progress which made your viewpoint possible.

AR: Actually, my ‘viewpoint’ pre-exists liberal protestantism thank you very much. Atheism (as well as scientific naturalism) were present in Ancient Greece, and surely present in societies prior to that as well (anywhere there was a religion there would have been dissenters to the dictatorship of the invisible). All religions are like racism, you aren’t born with it, you have to be taught it. As such, all babies are atheists until someone decides to ‘educate’ them into a particular faith.

LB: No, the correct answer is as you've suggested: literalists must catch up on their reading.

AR: I was making a reductio ad absurdum – obviously religious literalists spend time reading their documents and scriptures carefully and I think it pedantic that you would suggest that they have simply bailed out before they reach the Gospels.

LB: Another solution may well be to reorganize the bible, so the important parts actually are at the beginning. Any read of the bible which starts off with Christ using metaphors will generate much more intelligent readers than one where the first thing God says is "let there be light" and there suddenly is.

AR: Yeah, like that will happen.

LB: Your interpretation of "his children" is specious. But you know that. We're God's creation, not his literal children. I don't fancy those raised only on the whim of God make for very nice people.

AR: I was merely trying to point out that evolution is not incompatible with the morality you glean from scripture. Not sure why you would insist on a less than literal reading of 'God's children' since it seems plausible to me that we might consider him an ancestor rather than an invisible superbeing responsible for; the creation of the universe, handing out stone tablets, burning bushes, and inoperable cancer.

LB: Finally, what you aren't appreciating is that it is not science but the method in which science is being wielded as a weapon to undermine people's philosophy's that is offensive.

AR: You’ll notice that I don’t accuse the religious of being stupid. I do accuse them of being; disengenuous, philisophically sloppy, and overall very confused, but I won’t add insult to their already glaring injury. The ID debates taking place in courtrooms in PA and KS are not the result of science seeking to stamp out literalism. They are precisely the result of the religious trying to get their theology taught as if it were science. So let’s be clear about who is actually being offensive and wielding their belief system as a weapon.

LB: Perhaps the issue of daily prayer in public schools is a situation that has equal parallels. Prayer itself is innoffensive, and common to most people and a useful tool (even if only the metaphorical prayers of hope employed by Atheists.) But prayer can be used as a tool of faith to destroy others... in which case it's nasty and dangerous, and not useful at all for constructive purposes.That's what science is being used for in this case. Saying "it's neutral and not problematic" is overlooking the fact that in this situation what it is being used to achieve is not neutral and is problematic.

AR: Incorrect. The truth is that we evolved from other species of apes over an incredibly long period of time. That is simply a neutral fact. If it contradicts a particular faith it is not because science has singled them out for abuse, but rather because that faith is defective when compared to the evidence of the real world. Now that may well be problematic – but it is so only for those of that faith. Those faiths that find themselves in conflict with the facts must either ‘adapt or die’ – an evolutionary concept to be sure, but one that suits the situation perfectly.

Tom Delay in Orange

(note: this pic was photoshopped)
Hat tip to Daily Kos

Wilma

US Soliders burn Taliban bodies for propaganda

What's next for US soldiers? On-camera necrophilia?

I understand the 'few bad apples' theory, but contrast the persistent abuses perpetrated by US soliders (with approval from superiors) with how Canadian politicans reacted to the death of Sidane Arone in Somalia at the hands of our infantry men.

A kid was murdered by our own bad apples, and our government;

- disbanded and dispersed the unit
- held a public inquiry into Arone's death
- punished the soliders responsible, and the commanders of the soldiers responsible

In all, we insisted on accountability and responsibility up the line. Nobody got to pass the buck.

Yet nothing remotely like this is taking place in the US where it is all denials, buck passing or scapegoating.

The Lost Boys Survey takes up the gauntlet!

Darwin is a problem because every ambitious attempt to read the Bible starts at Genesis, instead of where it really should which is the Book of John. So most people stop halfway through Exodus when the reading gets dense... and there is no mercy for those who wade into the unforgiveable morass that is Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Those who go at it with the King James are in even more trouble, because archaic English is really tough to read.

AR: ‘Origin of Species’ isn’t exactly a riveting potboiler.

So, everyone who orthodoxly attempts to read the bible absorbs one key point: In the beginning there was God, who created the earth and all there is in six days, etc. Key lesson: we are special creations, albeit imperfect, and must live up to what our creator expects of us; after all, we're created in his image. As far as personal philosophies go, I think this is a grand starting place.

It's also disastrously undermined by Darwin. All I can compare it to is Western capitalism unleashed in Confucian China; and that mess is still sorting itself out. Learning Darwin, when you keenly believe Genesis Chapters 1-5 tells you that everything you have personally investigated and invested in about God is false. The values around which you've built your life are fictional and meaningless. The code of rules by which you live and conduct yourself are based on nothing. Einstein and Freud are equally disturbing, but aren't taught in Grade 10, and aren't that confrontational to core beliefs.

AR: I don’t dispute your characterization of the world views in collision – I think they certainly are, but I also recognize two areas you touch on where I think the problems are deepest; when you mention ‘orthodox readers’ or biblical literalists, and that the animus to Darwin is motivated by the investment in a literal Genesis reading as key to the values expressed in it.

Two solutions present themselves, both of which are painful but necessary;

1. Abandon biblical literalism – it is a discipline that is circular, archaic, and ultimately patently false. I suspect that this will happen. The bible as written is simply too askew from basic facts (Helio-centrism for example) to be held as absolutely factually true. Most churches have already long ago developed sophisticated theologies, clerical experts, interpreters, committees, mixed with other historical and authoritarian sources to interpret the words in the bible ‘correctly’, and they for the most part, treat science as the means of exploring God’s world, rather than as a threat to their world view. All that biblical literalism does is force it’s adherents into a purely defensive intellectual stance – and the end result is ‘Creationism’ and the updated post-modern transvestite version of it ‘Intelligent Design’. Now as theological exercises go, they are first rate. As philosophy they are third rate, and as science they are complete failures. Since they seek to have their ideas canonized as of the same quality as ‘science’, rather than confining their ideas to being of the realm of theology, or perhaps worse, as philosophy, it is absolutely vital that they be opposed.

2. Biblical literalists should understand that the values of Genesis as you recount them are actually upheld by Darwin.

“we are special creations, albeit imperfect, and must live up to what our creator expects of us; after all, we're created in his image.”

Genetics (interesting root word, eh?) tells us that no two human beings are exactly alike – not even identical twins. Nor are we perfect – which anyone who suffers from sore knees, diabetes, or appendicitis will confirm. Darwin makes no comment about what our creator expects of us, but it is fair to say that he solves whose image we bear. Perhaps it will sound too facetious, but if we do bear the face of ‘God’ than wouldn’t a fair reading of Darwin conclude that ‘God’ is a common genetic ancestor, and isn’t that ultimately compatible with all of humanity being ‘His children?’ Or am I taking that ‘His Children’ thing too literally?

An equally comparable situation: Islamic fundamentalists unleashed in Red America. The local moral code just has no way of dealing with it other than lashing out and back in horror and fear; and that is exadctly what they do.

AR: I think you are being far too harsh on Red America. Americans ‘on the ground’ haven’t been the ones to demonstrate problems with fundamentalist Islam. Muslims in the US aren’t being routinely hassled, arrested, or tortured by their neighbours, it’s the current government in power that is doing that.

There is, therefore, to the holder of these beleifs, no difference between the scientific method used by atheism and the atheism itself. Both are equally destructive. It's like asking which death is worse: One at the hands of muslim fundamentalists, or one in an explosion caused by muslim fundamentalists? Remember, the explosion is ethically neutral. That's a pretty stupid distinction, isn't it? Well, that's the distinction you're asking the Christians to make.

AR: My thesis though is exactly your point – they either, can’t or won’t make the distinction between what they propose, and science and philosophy – indeed I believe their stated purpose is to get religious ideas taught as science. If they can’t make the distinction more is the pity, but I notice the Amish seem to be doing just fine and they live in a quasi-pastoral dream world of hook and eye clothing and V-8 Hemi trucks. Not coincidentally, I don’t want the Amish way of life taught as science either.

I don't know enough about Soviet atheism, but it seems rather spurious of you to say atheism abjures the scientific method, when you then proceed to hammer Christianity as wrong and atheism as right with scientific method as your very methodical and precise tool. It's kind of like saying, "I don't need to break your knees with a hammer, I could use a baseball bat. The hammer is in fact, a very useful tool for other purposes."

AR: Soviet atheism looks remarkably like Mongolian, Australian and Canadian atheism, with the chief distinctions being cartographical. What I was saying was that being atheist (lack of belief in Gods) is a philosophical position, whereas science is a practice. Atheism, as powerful a force for good in the universe as it is, is not going to discover a new method for extracting energy from aluminum, or place men on Mars, and being a scientist is by no means the same thing as being an atheist.

As for scientists, evolution and God, again, I emphasize that this crisis of Darwin becomes a very real and acute problem for anyone when your definition of God begins and consists primarily of the first 20 chapters of Genesis. Similar problems would arise for anyone who took an equally narrow proportion of text of any body of work and based their personal philosophy on it. The solution however, is sympathy, empathy and education, not antipathy, insults and denigration.

AR: Gimme a break. You can’t be seriously suggesting that the real problem of people who subscribe to biblical literalism is that these self-professed passionate enthusiasts of the bible have, as a group, gotten behind in their reading?!?!

Finally, you should be aware that the scientific method, no matter who is wielding it, has a very real flaw: "Start with the answer you want to find, and you will eventually ask the right question." It doesn't matter who is wielding it, if they already know what answer they want to find, they will.

AR: Which is why good scientists aren’t guided by expected results, but instead by hypothesis. A good scientist understands that a negative result – even if disappointing, is still valuable science. It’s in theology that you start with the answers and then argue to prove them.

Behe admits his ID theory is science in the same way Astrology is

Worth a read if only so you can ponder exactly which crackerjack box Michael Behe got his degree from.

Rambling, incoherent, jargon filled, and ultimately self-contradictory would be the kindest things one can say about his testimony.

City declared to be 'totally unprepared' for Zombie attack

"When it comes to defending ourselves against an army of reanimated human corpses, the officials in charge have fallen asleep at the wheel," Murphy said. "Who's in charge of sweep-and-burn missions to clear out infected areas? Who's going to guard the cemeteries at night? If zombies were to arrive in the city tomorrow, we'd all be roaming the earth in search of human brains by Friday."

Arrest warrant issued for Delay-R Texas

One down....

Foreign Policy readers nominate their top 20 intellectuals

Top 20

1 Noam Chomsky

Still #1 after all these years.

2 Umberto Eco

Increasingly I find his fiction all but unreadable. 'Name of the Rose' was beyond dense but also a breathtaking endorsement of the Enlightenment, 'Foucault's Pendulum' was almost totally impenetrable - but I struggled through it, and 'Island of the Day Before' still languishes on my shelf only half read, but his essays still hold impressive punch.

3 Richard Dawkins

Dawkins is THE MAN. If it were up to me, he'd be #1. Best work is...hard to choose just one...ok...'Blind Watchmaker', no...wait....'Selfish Gene'...uh....'Unweaving the Rainbow'....hmmm...but then again I REALLY liked 'The Devil's Chaplain', ok, that's my pick, 'Devil's Chaplain'.

4 Václav Havel

A poet before he became the first president of post-Soviet controlled Czech Republic. I revere him for his fight against totalitarianism, but otherwise have never engaged his writings directly.

5 Christopher Hitchens

Ex-Trotskyite turned Liberal, turned Liberal Hawk, turned professional drunken lout and pundit. He'll spend the rest of his career trying to remove the stain of supporting Bush's war in Iraq from his resume and the merlot spots from his tie.

6 Paul Krugman

A writer for the NYT who I barely ever read. Thanks to NYT's move to place him behind a subscription wall, I never will again.

7 Jürgen Habermas

Communication and Political theorist best described as a neo-Marxist. A philosopher so in love with his own overly-complex thoughts only Europeans who once worshipped Michel Foucault could love him. I have two of his works in my library, and neither is coherent past the introduction without a steady intrvenous drip of caffeine and hallucinogens.

8 Amartya Sen

Indian economist whose work on social theory, famine and 'Arrow's Impossibility Theorem' emminettly qualify him. My exposure is through two essays in 'Critical Review' - neither of which were especially memorable.

9 Jared Diamond

After Dawkins, my favourite guy in this list (Yes, he's ahead of Chomsky). Read 'Guns, Germs and Steel'. Don't argue, just do it.

10 Salman Rushdie

Like Eco, I find Rushdie's novels far less interesting than his essays. Favourite is easily 'East/West', and of that collection his review of Terry Gilliam's flick 'Brazil' is a must read.

11 Naomi Klein

The No Logo-Girl is ranked #11? I guess. She seems more than a tad lightweight for a list of this kind. The Harriet Miers pick.

12 Shirin Ebadi

Persian lawyer and human rights activist. Confession time; I read the name and went 'who'?

13 Hernando de Soto

Chicago school trained (ie. Straussian) neo-con who was Fujimora's advisor while the latter ran Peru into the ground. Wouldn't make my list except as part of the 'who would I never put on my list' list. 1st of two Straussians to make the list (the other being Wolfowitz).

14 Bjørn Lomborg

Author of the 'Skeptical Environmentalist'. While he brings some sanity to the discussion of enviromental issues, I also find him too apologetic of global warming to my liking.

15 Abdolkarim Soroush

Islamic philosopher critical of the Iranian clergy. No, I'd never heard of him either.

16 Thomas Friedman

'The World is Flat' author can only make sense of things when presentable as an easily digested cliche'. Facile writer who has gotten away with mediocrity too long. Latest thought crime is defending Judith (the White House Plant at the NYT) Miller's alleged acts of journalism.

17 Pope Benedict XVI

Steadily moving the Catholic Church back to the dark ages.

18 Eric Hobsbawm

Un-apolgeticly pro-communist British professor. Nothing new here.

19 Paul Wolfowitz

One of the neo-con 'Vulcans' straight out of the American Enterprise think tank, and currently head of the World Bank. From his presence on the list this high up I conclude he has an excellent PR firm working for him.

20 Camille Paglia

Iconoclast US philosopher, she deserves to be much higher on the list. Eerily able to take the pulse of US culture, unafraid to make mistakes and recant them, my favourite critic of postmodern relativism in academia, and champion of gay rights while maintaining her Catholicism. Someone I'd adore to have over for dinner.

Just for the heck of it: Bettie Page

The ideal debate with Creationists!

The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

The real mistake of ID theorists

“What made Darwinism so important and impactful [sic] was theological and not scientific: it pulled the foundation of moral absolutes out from under every law, action, and relationship. If God is sovereign, his law as given in the Bible is the absolute standard; if God is an uninterested or helpless bystander and pointless random chemical reactions underlie all of life, God’s law is superfluous. The abandonment of absolute standards of morality and behavior eventually transformed the American cultural and legal landscape. Pornography became free speech, with public decency standards marginalized. The destruction of moral absolutes paved the way for welfare programs that held no one accountable for his actions and choices and set out to apply materialist solutions—money—to metaphysical problems of the heart and spirit.”

- Marvin Olasky and John Perry - 'Monkey Business, the True Story of the Scopes Trial'

Here we see directly the mistakes made by the Christian right with regards to evolution. They conflate the agnosticism inherent in the scientific method with philosophical atheism, and pretend that there is no difference between them.

Evolution and science are NOT equatable with atheism. Evolution is a scientific theory ( like the theory of gravity - it is extremely well tested and supported by all the available evidence) for how species change, profligate and occasionally die off over time. Science requires methodological naturalism - that is, it requires that when looking for explanations we confine our search to the natural world and not invoke supernatural forces whenever we run into trouble. If this were not the case, science would never produce results, it would stall out whenever a scientist simply through up their hands and declared 'and then, a miracle happens'.

Atheism in contrast to science is a philosophy, one with only one basic tenet - that there are no supernatural beings. Atheism takes the agnosticim of methodological naturalism a step further - rather than simply ignore potential supernatural causes, atheism is a position that there aren't any supernatural causes at all.

Atheism is certainly consistent with both Science in general and evolution in particular, but they are not intrinsically linked to atheism in any way. Soviet scientists were also often atheists, but as a result of Communist party interference 'Lysenkoism' was considered to be the prefered explanation for species modification over Darwin's theory of 'natural selection' - their atheism may have been consistent with science, but it didn't prevent them from doing science very badly.

Many scientists (and I mean REAL scientists, not uncredited poseurs like Michael Behe or Phillip Johnson) find no difficulty in maintaining their faith while also performing good science based on methodological naturalism. For these people, God is not something disproved by evolution - they have no problem in reconciling the results of science with their faith in a transcendent supreme being. Nor should they. Science will show how the natural world works. That its job. It has no ulterior motive, it is concerned only with what can be repeatedly tested to be true - and it explicitly avoids subjects of transcendent belief which are beyond its powers to test or assess. On matters best suited to religion science is resolutely mute and refuses to take a stand.

What Olansky, Perry, Behe and Johnson seek to do is to return to a 'God of the gaps' theology - an attempt to shore up their faith by tearing down science (and replacing it with 'faith directed science', a paradox if there ever was one) under the mistaken impression that doing so will in some way expose the 'moral decay' of atheism and lead everyone back from science into the arms of the Church.

I respectfully submit that they not only miss their mark (because atheism isn't equatable with moral decay), but they also do great harm to the intellectual foundations (such as there are) for their faith - because like it or not, evolution is fact and the evidence supports it fully - and in a conflict between truth backed by evidence and faith backed by belief, the truth will win every time.

Placing ones faith in opposition to the truth, is no different then stepping in front of a speeding car while uttering a hopeful prayer that God will slow it down.

The car will slow down - but only after it has used the inertia of your body mass as a brake.

How bringing Democracy to the Middle East is bad for the US

From 'Foreign Affairs'

Money quote: "Al Qaeda's leaders distrust democracy, and not just on ideological grounds: they know they could not come to power through free elections. There is no reason to believe that a move toward more democracy in Arab states would deflect them from their course. And there is no reason to believe that they could not recruit followers in more democratic Arab states -- especially if those states continued to have good relations with the United States, made peace with Israel, and generally behaved in ways acceptable to Washington. Al Qaeda objects to the U.S. agenda in the Middle East as much as, if not more than, democracy.

If, as Washington hopes, a democratic Middle East continued to accept a major U.S. role in the region and cooperate with U.S. goals, it is foolish to think that democracy would end Arab anti-Americanism and dry up passive support, funding sources, and recruiting channels for al Qaeda.When it works, liberal democracy is the best form of government. But there is no evidence that it reduces or prevents terrorism.

The fundamental assumption of the Bush administration's push for democracy in the Arab world is seriously flawed."

AR: This of course speaks directly to the assertion that a free Iraq would be a deterrent to terrorism. It wouldn't. But the article only gets things half right. The virtue of toppling dictatorships is in the end, it's own reward. Installing a democracy in place of a brutal regime may not play to US interests in the short run, but having a functioning democracy in the ME to compliment Israel (and Turkey though geographically it is Europe and not ME), would still be a worthy goal of US power to pursue. I still don't fault the goal of toppling Hussein and replacing his autocracy with a more responsive democracy, as it remains a worthy one. What I fault is the shameless lying (WMDs, Plame Affair, 'mushroom clouds', defeating the terrorists there so we don't have to face them here, etc.) when the simplest case was the best. Hussein was evil and deserved to be removed.

Unfortunately, Bush Co. bungled this horribly. They had the right idea, and the worst possible execution. International involvment by coddling rather than slapping the UN members, real coalition building efforts instead of bullying and threats ('old' vs. 'new' Europe anyone?), the committment to send sufficient troops, and a genuine rebuilding plan (rather than a kleptocratic looting of the US treasury by Halliburton etc. under the guise of supporting the troops) would have ameliorated the need for such repulsive spin doctoring.

But you go to war with the president and the cabinet staff you have I guess.

American Mad Cow

9 cases of CJD in Idaho - makes me wonder when the US will fess up that they have a problem.

Consider too that they closed the border to Canadian beef after one infected cow was discovered - so what will they do when you have people dying by the handful?

If the CJD accounts check out, this is going to be explosive - and potentially destructive to the current administration.

The Onion points out an unexpected side-effect of pot smoking

Money quote: "Drug offenders, many of whom have committed no prior mortal sin, rack up infinite consecutive life sentences," Horowitz said. "Meanwhile, rapists say they're sorry, recite a few Hail Marys, and wind up basking in God's divine radiance within 10 years."

AR: Uh oh.

Another Buccigross gem

Johnny B got asked the following question in his mailbag:

"Mr. Buccigross,According to the data I was able to find, the NHL plus/minus mark for all 912 skaters from [the NHL's] last [season] was a minus 313. Now this made no sense, so I tried to figure out how that was possible. This is what I found out. Plus/minus considers it an EVEN situation when, at the end of the game, the goalie is pulled (since technically this is NOT a special teams situation). I was able to find 189 empty-net goals that were scored last year. Therefore, since it was technically a five-on-five situation, the regular plus/minus applies. But since the goalie was pulled, it would actually be a six-on-five situation, meaning that there would be an aggregate score of DEFENSE (minus-5) and OFFENSE (plus-6) for an overall total of plus-1. That means the 189 ENG would make the league's overall plus/minus a plus-189. However, if you simply add together the plus/minus numbers of all skaters from the 2003-04 season, their total for plus/minus is minus-313.

What gives? Can you help to answer this mystery? Thanks for your time.
Ray Flowers

Johnny B's considered response?

"My head just exploded."

Sweet.

AR ups the sex quotient

I haven't blogged much about sex lately, so here are a couple of items from the Village Voice:


First an article on our modern fascination with going 'in through the out-door'.

"What other hole do you know that is associated with Freudian pathology, puritanical repression, and homophobia? That's one busy orifice."

Second is an article on what the discovery of retro-porn tells us about where porn is heading.

"Can porn get more outrageous, more circus-like, more limit pushing? Legally, there are probably few things left to explore that won't get someone charged with obscenity, especially under this administration. Just last week, Max Hardcore's offices were raided by the feds, and copies of several of his recent movies were seized for possible prosecution."

Now I just have to up my sci-fi quotient and I'll be happy.

Dog is just 'God' spelled backwards

Damn this was funny. I won't spoil it by making any commentary - just trust me, and check out the link.

Frum on Miers

David Frum has some interesting points to make about Miers at NRO.

I supply my commentary beneath each of the bullet points he makes.

1) Conservatives have argued for years that it is utterly improper for senators to probe nominees' personal views on religion and abortion. With this stunt, the White House has not only invited but legitimated a line of questioning that conservatives have opposed for almost two decades.

AR: Conservatives have opposed the questions about religious beliefs for two decades (since Bork was Borked) because they wanted to insulate themselves against similar revelations of intent for future nominees. Bush reverses that trend by making her religious beliefs the ONLY reason he has for placing her on the court.

2) If Fund is right, the White House was acting in such a way as to persuade a group of religious leaders that they were being given more information on a nomination than would be given to the US Senate. Congress - and yes Republicans in Congress - already feel that the White House treats them with contempt. Now congressional-executive relations have been damaged even further, with potentially lethal consequences for everything that remains of the president's legislative agenda.

AR: Shock! Surprise! The GOP talks more with their religious advisors/backers than their own congressmen? Say it isn't so! The fact that unelected people like Dobson have more influence over policy and supreme court nominees than republicans themselves shows how far off the rails the GOP has gone under this administration.

3) The stunt also threatens Republican relations with religious conservatives. The assurances offered to the Arlington Group were almost certainly empty. Newsweek is reporting that the White House has also recruited New Hampshire politico Tom Rath to threaten to oppose the presidential bids of any senator who opposes Harriet Miers. But Rath is as responsible as anyone for putting David Souter on the court. What on earth did they say to him? And if those assurances were contradictory, why should anybody believe either?

AR: If this is true, then I say 'Great'. Disconnecting the GOP from the wingnut right wing religious element would go a long way to restoring a healthy intellectual and political climate to the GOP. It would also reflect in a lower GOP voter turnout (especially if they can't get anti-gay initiatives onto swing state slates this time round), and could lead directly to the Dems recapturing seats in Congress and the Senate.

What remains to be seen, is what the Democrats should do re; Miers. She is clearly way underqualified, totally an enigma with regards her personal beliefs (outside of assurances from Bush that he 'knows her heart'), and a crony pick to boot. She'd be ripe for a fillibuster - except that the alternatives are likely far worse for the Dems. Bush could simply renominate her (which I wouldn't put past him), offer up Gonzales (who he wanted anyway), or worst of all, turn to a Luttig or McConnell for a more powerful and dangerous selection.

She's bad, but is she so bad the Dems can't live with her?

Master Blaster retires

I've long had mixed feelings about Hull. In part because I wish he could have remained a Flame. In part because he was so immensely talented and yet totally indifferent to any facet of the game outside of getting open for his shot. In part because he eschewed his Canadian heritage to play for the US (though I forgave him for that).

Never all that fleet of foot, Hull prospered as the ultimate stealth weapon. Periods of play would go by with him all but invisible in terms of his contribution, and then in what would seem a micro-second he would get open, Oates would put the puck would on his stick and he would have another goal.

Bossy was faster. Gretzky more prolific. Lemieux more dazzling. But Hull may well be the best pure shooter of all time.


He'll make the 2008 HOF selections a very tough call - for someone else (my bet is Doug Gilmour) - because like Messier, Hull is simply a gimme.

Ultimate Christian Wrestling!

I couldn't make this stuff up.

Now perhaps someone can explain how dressing up in superhero costumes and engaging in homoerotic displays of man on man action AT A CHURCH makes any sense at all in terms of being a Christian event, I'd be happy to hear an explanation.

Scotty returns to space one last time

From the IMDB website:

Doohan of 'Star Trek' Off to Space
Star Trek actor James Doohan's last wishes are set to be granted on December 6, when his cremated remains are launched into space. Commercial space flight operator Space Services Incorporated will launch the late actor's remains into space aboard its Explorers Flight, according to a company spokeswoman. She adds that the remains of more than 120 others will be aboard the flight, including those of an unidentified astronaut and Mareta West, the astrogeologist who determined the site for the first spacecraft landing on the moon. Doohan, who portrayed chief engineer Montgomery 'Scotty' Scott on the Star Trek TV series, died in July at the age of 85. To mark the flight into his final frontier, Doohan's family will hold a service for fans on a site near California's Vandenberg Air Force Base on the day of the launch. The actor's widow, Wende Doohan, says, "I can't think of a more fitting send-off than having some of his fans attend this, his final journey." Doohan's cremated remains will be packed into a special tube which will be ejected from the rocket and expected to orbit Earth for about 50 to 200 years before plunging into the planet's atmosphere and burning up.

How a good blunt makes you sharp

"Chronic use of marijuana may actually improve learning memory when the new neurons in the hippocampus can mature in two or three months."

-Xia Zhang, an associate professor with the Neuropsychiatry Research Unit at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon

My prediction (Ok, so I stole it from Phillip K. Dick) is that in 20 years pot will be legal and sold over the counter, but you'll only be able to get ciggarettes on the blackmarket.

Rachel, Pris and the Cherry 2000, coming soon!

If only she could cook.

Q: "Is having sex with a doll just creative masturbation?"

A: I think so.

Q: "How long before we mesh AI with the dolls to create responsive sex bots?"

A: Given the slow state of AI growth despite some interesting developments in 'learning nets', etc., I suspect the next wave of sexbots will have improvements in the physical characteristics (i.e. even more realistic movements, flesh and skin tone) coupled with software that lets the doll 'respond' with rote phrases (or perhaps just the appropriate grunting), to their user.

Q: "Is it a reflection of male misogyny"?

A: I don't think so. I would assume that even the most desperately lonely man would prefer a real woman to a doll, and that the choice of having sex with a doll is made not out of dislike (or overt hatred if you read Andrea Dworkin - and let me add that you really shouldn't) for women, but rather because the guys are finding that women for whatever reason, aren't interested in them. If anything then, this is a reflection of 'mis-androgyny' (someone will have to confirm the Latin for me).

Rice slips up and tells the truth

The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al Qaeda…or we could take a bolder approach.

(emphasis mine: AR)

- Condoleeza Rice (On Meet the Press)

I know there is a word for it when politicians inadvertantly speak the truth instead of the expected spin, and this is definitely one of those situations, but my lexicon fails me.

Of course the 'bolder approach' was using 9-11 as the excuse to invade Iraq. Rather than pursue the terroritsts who actually launched the attack, or persecute/pressure the country from which they came (Saudi Arabia) Bush Co. determined the time was right for them to enact their master plan for the middle east.

Worth noting that Rice is the same person whose job it was to brief the President on such things as CIA information that 'Terrorists plan to attack US with planes', etc.

I am the Great and Powerful Oz ! Whatever you do, don't look at the man behind the curtain.

Quote of the Day

"Atheism - the religion devoted to the worship of one's own smug sense of superiority"

Steven Colbert (The Daily Show - "This Week in God")

Guilty on all charges I'm afraid - and cheerfully so!

37%

Bush's latest approval numbers represent an all-time low. How much farther can he sink?

Money Quote:

"President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to his lowest rating ever. 37 percent now approve of the job he is doing as president, while 58 percent disapprove. Those in his own party are still overwhelmingly positive about his performance (nearly 80 percent approve), but the president receives little support from either Democrats or Independents. And while views of President Bush have lately not changed much among Republicans or Democrats, his approval rating among Independents has dropped 11 points since just last month, from 40 percent to 29 percent now.

AR: All emphasis mine.

Bush's cronies are also gradually being lined up for firing squads;

Rove (Bush's spin doctor and all-round dirty tricks specialist): About to be indicted for 'Plame-Gate'. If he is charged with a crime, chalk this up as a win for the CIA who really don't like it when you tell Bob Novak who their secret agents are.

DeLay (former Congress Majority leader): Currently facing indictments for laundering money to Republicans in Texas from corporate donnors forbidden from doing so. It looked weak at first, but I think Delay really got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and will be convicted.

Frist (currently Senate Majority leader): Sold shares from his families medical company a few weeks before it tanked. Which isn't illegal per se, except the shares are supposed to be in a blind trust and outside of his reach. I think it's 50-50 he'll get his wrist slapped, but I hope I am under predicting.

As for his pick of Miers for Supreme Court - I'd say two things; I think she would be reliably 'anti-choice' (or against Roe V Wade), but I also think she'd be 'gay friendly', and might even be something of a moderate. That all said, she's a crony of the worst degree, having zero judicial experience, and less than zero track record.

Which makes the decision by Dems on whether to confirm her or not, interesting. If the Dems open fire, the Bush people may withdraw her nomination and try for a fire-breathing conservative with genuine intellectual stature like Luttig or McConnell - one that would be far worse than Miers in the long run.

The Bush 'Hackocracy'

The New Republic has an excellent run-down of the worst hacks appointed by Bush.

My favourite (or least favourite) is this one;

#5: David Wilkins American Ambassador to Canada

"An unspoken rule dictates that politically appointed ambassadors should be seen and not heard--or, at the very least, not heard provoking international incidents with close U.S. allies. But David Wilkins--a former South Carolina legislator whose chief contribution to world affairs before this year was raising $200,000 for President Bush's 2004 campaign--is not one to stand on ceremony. Though he'd only been to Canada once (Niagara Falls) prior to his nomination in April, the Bush Ranger assured Congress that "I won't be afraid to talk about the tough issues." A man of his word, Wilkins promptly escalated the two countries' dispute over softwood lumber by accusing Canadians of being overly emotional and by threatening an all-out trade war that would have affected multiple industries, from broadcasting to eggs. The Canadian government fought back, however, and, although generally disinclined toward mea culpas--"You talking about regrets by the United States?" he asked a Canadian reporter with incredulity--Wilkins eventually admitted his approach to the lumber dispute had been flawed. "My attempt to bring the emotion down increased the emotion," he said. To demonstrate his diplomatic sensitivity, he continues to open speeches with a jolly, "Bonjour, y'all!"

- Wilkins is a joke. Unfortunately, no one is laughing.

The 2005-06 FUNHL ENTRY DRAFT!

First off, my apologies to those regular and irregular readers for the weeks delay in updating AR – my holiday to Fairmont with the GF was the reason, and it was of course, excellent.

10 ED Moments of Note:

10. The ride from Fairmont to Calgary with the Great White’s GM. Time flies fast when you have a good friend to talk to, and when that friend is willing to drive three hours alone to do the pick-up, that’s better than solid gold.

9. The endless speculation about who the Dogs GM would pick first overall. Kudos to the Shadowmen GM who had Gonchar pegged at least a month back. Also worth noting that I had the top 7 (slightly out of order) nailed, including the availability of Mark Recchi for the Severed Heads at pick 7. (cue Evil Laugh)

8. The team logos produced by the Highlanders GM. It was enough to bring tears of jealous rage to fantasy pool geeks everywhere outside the FUNHL. They ROCK.

7. The grotesque pleading of the Severed Heads GM for someone, anyone, to throw a bone to Bobby Ryan and Robbie Schremp and draft them in the prospect draft.

6. Receiving a ‘I’ll be right back’ message in the 4th rnd from the Barbarians GM who were drafting on-line, only to have that turn out to be the last communication we received from him on the day. It’s in circumstances like these that you see the real character of our GMs as the primary concern expressed by all was to how to conduct the rest of the draft on his behalf as fairly as possible. Big Thanks to the Bladerunners and Edge Gms for how they conducted the rest of the Barbarian draft. Someone named Mike owes you boys a beer or two - and perhaps even a case should he win the Predator this year.

5. Winning back both my own and the Shadowmen’s stake in poker on Sunday night. My distaste for poker as a game is fading fast.

4. The Ramapithicines GM arriving EARLY. The Rapture must be near.

3. Watching Spezza and Heatley toy with the opposition in pre-season highlights. Oh yes, the Cup will be mine. It - Will - Be - Mine.

2. The marvelous spread and hospitality of the Edge GM and asst GM who once again hosted the event with élan, style, and the best bargain on great food anywhere. Special notice for the decorated cake that was desert. It was a hall of fame worthy dish and event by our hosts.

1. Getting a chance to be in the same room as 9 other FUNHL guys, and on-line with 2 others for the day. You are my people, and MY PEOPLE RULE.

Five Most Jaw Dropping Picks

5. Brandon Bochenski in the free agent rounds. Given that all the pedigree Bochenski has is a season potting gimmes on Spezza’s wing in the AHL and a handful of pre-season games lining up with Spaz and Heatley, the Shadowmen’s GM could have waited until the RFA rounds before worrying about tabbing him for a roster spot.

4. Teemu Selanne in the free agents rounds. That the broken down Selanne, fresh of full lower torso replacement was picked ahead of Kovalev and others was shocking to many.

3. The Dogs single-minded drafting on defense. There is drafting for position, and then there is drafting for ONE position. By the RFA rounds it became obvious that the Dogs had invested heavily in D. By the end of the draft it was obvious that this focus was to the detriment of everywhere else. The Dogs will have the leagues best defense out of the gate – no question, they will also have by far the worst collection of forwards in the league.

Vegas has the Dogs as early favourites for the Herbivore.

2. The Edge GM’s attempted poach of Zdlicky at the top of the 2nd rnd, and as the first defenseman drafted after all-star Gonchar. Though it was unsuccessful, it was still a good two rounds and several D-men earlier than anyone had predicted for the one-hit wonder defender.

1. The Personal Vendetta’s selection of Steve Reinprecht in the prospect draft (and the Edge's selection of Halpern - but that is another topic). There seems to be no logic to this pick. Even if Reinprecht has a career year, he’s still looking at a max of 60-65 points – which would make him a solid 4th liner. So as an injury call-up he’d be of questionable value at best. When there are solid prospects who in 5 years should be much more productive than 65 points, it should make more sense to groom one of them than to invest in a one-off who will turfed at the next draft.

My five favourite picks of the Draft

5. Andrew Ladd-L Car (P1). He’s a power forward with hands. He plays for the Hitmen. He gets compared to Rick Nash. What’s not to love? Oh yeah, he’s owned by Carolina. Nobody’s perfect.

4. Roman Hamrlik-D Cgy. A legit #1 D-man, and he plays in Calgary. That the Calgary fans in attendance were non-plussed with Hamrlik still perplexes me given that Hammer-Lick will be feeding Iginla two-line bombs all year (as we just saw in the highlights from Cgy-Min).

3. Paul Kariya-L Nsh. I was sweating bullets that he would make it to me in the 2nd rnd. A huge sigh of relief was let go when I called his name out.

2. Chris Bourque-L Wsh (P1). The pint sized scoring machine is Ray Bourque’s kid(!), how could I pass a set of genes like that up?

1. Mark Recchi-R Pit. Keeps me in the hottest game in town, and gives the Heads an unrivaled base of power at right wing with Jagr and Heatley. (cue another Evil Laugh)

Allright, expect my analysis of each team this weekend - things are too busy for me to get to it till then.

The Catholic Church comes to its senses (for once)

The RC's have announced that not everything in the Bible can literally be true. A remarkably progressive stance for them to take despite the fact they continue to turn back their clock on gays, evolution and other matters under the ulra-conservative Ratzinger.

Money quote:

"As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb. The bishops say:

“Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”

I bet this gives fits to the crazy Dobson crew in the US, and to the ID proponents everywhere.
Sweet - I never thought the Catholics would step up and admit something that is obviously TRUE - it just never occurred to me that it was in them.

Why hast though forsaken reason?

I am in a foul mood over the Intelligent Design lawsuits taking place, so I thought I'd vent my spleen about Biblical literalists.

***********************
What were Jesus' last words?

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

************************

So which is it? Is he forsaken? Commending his spirit? Or just finished?

Fish rot from the head down

'If this be treason' has collected some of the all-time best quotes of Republican House Leader Tom Delay.

I should add that with Mr. Delay facing indictments from the House Ethics committee and now a potential criminal conspiracy charge, he is but one of the prominent GOP leaders to finally face the music (I hope) for his profound corruption.

The following is my favourite, but the entire list should be checked out.

“Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth control pills.”

–Tom DeLay, on causes of the Columbine High School massacre, 1999

Anti-Evolution Legislation on the rise in US

Money quote:

"After each defeat, creationists have reinvented themselves in ever more sophisticated guises. First there was creationism, then creation science and now intelligent design, also known as ID.
On the heel of each reinvention came a rash of antievolution legislation. The same spate of activity has occurred with ID.

This year alone, at least 17 bills challenging evolution's place in the public school curriculum have been considered in 13 states. Many of them also argue that a place be made in the classroom for ID."