Ho-hum. I refuse to listen to the talking heads on the networks discuss this. I just don’t need Blitzer’s opinion on how Cheney and Hastert look in their suits. Sorry.
Also, can I get one of those human-animal hybrids? Is Bush seriously worried that someone will create a mermaid?
Is this a misleading statistic?
In the last two-and-a-half years, America has created 4.6 million new jobs – more than Japan and the European Union combined.
A proper comparision would have to adjust for population size and growth, correct?
Bush is living in some sort of budget deficit fantasy world. In half by 2009? This looks like an awfully straight line to me.
UPDATE: I’m over here thinking about mermaids, while other people point out that Bush’s comments do actually mean something.
Also, this is a better SOTU.
Wouldn’t want all the information out there for everyone to see, would you?
He’s also apparently in the business of employing people who aren’t concerned with grammatical/typing errors:
Burns has been an[sic] true advocate of the agricultural community. Given the fact that over 64% of Montana is used for farming or ranching, Burns has worked hard to secure federal funds to aid cultivation.[I don't know that this sentence is wrong, but it's very awkward] He has also dome[sic] his part in supporting the trade imbalance that harm[sic] many ranchers and farmers.[Isn't that a negative?]
What the hell is wrong with Alternet?
Homeopathy is a joke. It’s based on the idea that something that gives a person certain symptoms will cure a disease with similar symptoms and that water can remember whatever remedy was in it before being diluted into oblivion.
I have to say, the Barnes & Noble Current Events section is a mess. Have you ever noticed that customers sometimes put books of a certain political viewpoint in front of books with the opposing political viewpoint? Well, there were around seven conservative (-ish, The Case for Israel isn’t conservative, but the point of view is found more on the right than the left) books placed in front of liberal (again, generally – James Yee’s memoir was covered up) books. I’ve seen this done before, by both sides, but not quite to this extent. I don’t understand the motive. I’m quite convinced whoever did this is a moron. I’m not looking at those books and saying “hmm, this book about Bush is in front this book by Jimmy Carter, Bush must be better than Jimmy Carter.”
For whatever reason I now have another fairly long book to read. It’s not like I don’t finish these 450+ page (I’m not counting footnotes) books, but it can easily become a chore. One of the few books I’ve bought and not finished, The Columbia History of Western Philosophy, is in this category. It just got too boring (sorry Wulfgar!) to finish. You’d think it’d be more interesting than books about Nazi Germany, but no dice. This one’s on the Constitution, so there’s potential, but I’m fairly sure I’ll finish it.
Traditionally, evolutionary biologists like Stephen Jay Gould insisted on keeping a separation between hard science and less knowable realms like religion.
He was the evolutionist laureate of the U.S., and everybody got their Darwin from Steve. The trouble was he gave a rather biased view of evolution. He called me a Darwinian fundamentalist.
Which I imagine was his idea of a put-down, since he thought evolutionists should not apply their theories to religion.
Deborah Solomon’s comments are in italics, Dennett’s are normal.
It sounds like Solomon is saying Gould called Dennett a “Darwinian fundamentalist” for applying evolution to religion. Anyone who knows anything about that label of Gould’s knows it was used as a criticism of their devotion to natural selection:
In this light, especially given history’s tendency to recycle great issues, I am amused by an irony that has recently ensnared evolutionary theory. A movement of strict constructionism, a self-styled form of Darwinian fundamentalism, has risen to some prominence in a variety of fields, from the English biological heartland of John Maynard Smith to the uncompromising ideology (albeit in graceful prose) of his compatriot Richard Dawkins, to the equally narrow and more ponderous writing of the American philosopher Daniel Dennett (who entitled his latest book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea). Moreover, a larger group of strict constructionists are now engaged in an almost mordantly self-conscious effort to “revolutionize” the study of human behavior along a Darwinian straight and narrow under the name of “evolutionary psychology.”
Some of these ideas have filtered into the general press, but the uniting theme of Darwinian fundamentalism has not been adequately stressed or identified. Professionals, on the other hand, are well aware of the connections. My colleague Niles Eldredge, for example, speaks of this coordinated movement as Ultra-Darwinism in his recent book, Reinventing Darwin. Amid the variety of their subject matter, the ultra-Darwinists share a conviction that natural selection regulates everything of any importance in evolution, and that adaptation emerges as a universal result and ultimate test of selection’s ubiquity.
The question remains:
So that’s the world’s best newspaper – assigning a clueless hack to ask questions on a substantive subject. What on earth is the point? Why not either do it right or refrain from doing it at all?
As an aside, Dennett’s book looks sort of interesting. I doubt it can match Scott Atran’s In Gods We Trust, though.
Pink Floyd – [Animals #05] Pigs On The Wing (Part Two)
Atheist – [Elements #09] Fractal Point
Radiohead – [Pablo Honey #09] Prove Yourself
Dark Tranquillity – [The Mind's I #02] Zodijackyl Light
Killswitch Engage – [The End of Heartache #09] World Ablaze
In Flames – [Jester Race #10] Dead God in Me
Pain of Salvation – [Remedy Lane #05] This Heart of Mine (I Pledge)
Andrew Bird – [The Mysterious Production Of Eggs #13] Tables And Chairs
When Day Descends – [Transcend #04] Suppression
Dead Can Dance – [Aion #03] Mephisto