I Believe it is Time to Part Ways with the Republican Party

I have been a Republican my entire voting life.  I registered Republican when I was eligible and while I have never voted strictly down party lines, I have believed in much of what the Republican Party has stood for in previous years.  But now, does anyone know what the Republican Party stands for today?

You see my dilemma, and while I would love to blame this parting of the ways on Donald Trump, I have to say it's been a long time coming.

For example something happened recently that makes me question much of the existing crop of Republicans, and it's something that has happened before.  Let me explain -- anyone remember the Dixie Chicks?  They made a few comments about then-President Bush that got them in a hot water with their fans, radio stations, and record companies.

Let me be clear, I disagreed with what they said. But as this quote, often mis-identified as being from Voltaire, explains my position:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

John F. Kennedy said something similar:

"If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity."

We are supposed to have certain individual freedoms in this country, and one of those freedoms is free speech.  While I disagreed with the Dixie Chicks comment, they have the right to say it!  They were subjected to comments that threatened their citizenship, their career, their lives, and the lives of their children!  Much of the worse invective came from self-described patriots and conservatives.  I can understand not wanting to buy or listen to their music anymore, but death threats!

Apparently when it comes to 'free speech', far too many people think it means that folks are only free to speak publicly if they say something you agree with -- if not, you get to threaten their children.  That's not free speech!  Free speech doesn't not give anyone the right to threaten!  Make no mistake, death threats are an assault!  You've heard the phrase 'assault and battery'?

"In criminal and civil law, assault is an attempt to initiate harmful or offensive contact with a person, or a threat to do so.  It is distinct from battery, which refers to the actual achievement of such contact."(Wikipedia: Assault)

The Republican Party was founded on the ideology of 'Republicanism' which, among other things, stresses the rights of the individual.  Tell me what part of individual rights means you cannot speak out your opinion without fear of death threats for you and your children?  It is not patriotic to threaten someone with whom you disagree!  I would go as far as to say it's Un-American -- but when you consider the bombast and vitriol dripping from many self-avowed Republicans in recent years it's seems to be becoming Un-American not to threaten those you disagree with!

I would love to say this is an isolated incident, but it's happening again!  I disagree with Colin Kaepernick, one of the quarterbacks on the San Francisco 49'ers.  If you haven't heard, he refused to stand for the National Anthem and has cited several reasons why he will not stand.  Like I said, I disagree with him, but he has that right!  Like the Dixie Chicks, he's getting quite a backlash, again from self-described patriots and conservatives, including that rather ridiculous figure that gives Alaska so much negative publicity:

"America - let's sack this ungrateful punk. Kaepernick - yeah, you're really "down with the oppressed" in this nation. Enjoying your $114 million contract, your previous adoring fans, sucking up a life of luxury... GOD AND COUNTRY GAVE YOU THIS OPPORTUNITY. You can't acknowledge that? Then on behalf of every Vet I'm privileged to know: GET THE HELL OUT."(Palin's Facebook)

Agree or disagree -- fine -- but demand he leave?  He's probably cost himself millions in endorsements and it might jeopardize his position as an NFL Quarterback, but he has that right!  But no, right-wing nut jobs are threatening him and ones like Palin want to kick him out.  You know when people disagreed with Palin, they simply didn't vote for her.  Imagine the hue and whine if people treated her the way she's trying to treat Kaepernick!

I didn't want to turn this into an anti-Palin piece, but anyone else remember her defending that Duck Dynasty guy, claiming his right to free speech was violated?  Hmm, where was her defense of the Dixie Chicks, or for that matter, Colin Kaepernick?

 "Sarah Palin for one said (per CNN):

"Those 'intolerants' hatin' and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us," Palin, who met the series' cast while on a book tour in Louisiana, wrote on Facebook, along with a photo of her and the cast of the A&E series." (What’s the difference between Duck Dynasty & The Dixie Chicks?)

See what I mean?  As much as I would love to put the blame on people like Palin and Trump, it goes deeper than that.  They epitomize the problem, but they are not the cause for it.  I almost had some respect for Paul Ryan, but when he kowtowed and supported Trump, it was gone!  There don't seem to be any Republicans worthy of the label 'Republican'.

What I see is a disturbing trend that is being exemplified by people all too many people who self-identify as Republicans.  For quite some time I have felt that electing a President and Congress folks has not been an exercise in selecting the best person, but all too often it has boiled down to selecting the lesser of two evils.  That was bad enough several Presidents ago, but it's gotten to the point of being a farce.

Republicans used to stand for so many things that made sense, reducing the national debt, smaller government, conservative fiscal policies, individual freedoms . . . but where has that all gone?  The best you get today is lip service from dinosaurs who are so indebted to special interests that they forget they are supposed to be representing their constituents.  Disagree?  I welcome it, unlike others.

Here's a few examples:

• The political power of the oil and gas companies and the nearly incessant denial of climate change, contrary to all of the evidence. 
• The power of the NRA to block any legislation that might stand a prayer of dealing with the issue of gun violence. You might educate yourself on the Dickey Amendment, not just the language, but the impact over the last 20 years.
• How many Republicans are pandering for the votes of the Christian Right?  It's not because they share the same beliefs, but because voicing narrow views shared by religious conservatives is a way to get them to vote for you.  Sure, tell me Donald has actually read the Bible?  Anyone believe that?
• The amount of money shelled out by pharmaceutical companies for ownership of more than a small block of politicians, emphasizes most recently by the cost of EpiPens!.  
• How about which politicians helped to tobacco and lead-additive companies get away with poisoning us for decades!

Now for more recent events, look at the collection of losers that ran for the Republican Nomination for President in 2015/16, look at them!  Religious panderers, failed business people, bombastic politicians who have never had an honest job.  You wouldn't let any of them babysit your kids and people want to give someone like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or Donald Trump the nuclear codes?

No, it's time for the modern day Republican Party to dissolve.  It's over.  The party of Jefferson and Lincoln no longer exists!  The party I have supported for so long and continued to want to support has disappeared!  It's time for a new party, one that represents and respects individual rights!

The Ark Park and the Kentucky Governor

Someone questioned a comment I made in a recent post and I wanted to clear that up. I said:

"Little kennie ham, with the help of a newly elected Republican Kentucky Governor, have once again made fools of the people of Kentucky and is opening an exhibit to showcase his narrow theological views and potentially leaving the people of Kentucky to pay for it . . . especially if his highly suspect attendance projections come in more like the reality of his other abortion, the Creation 'Museum'. " (This blog: Kennie's Ark Park about to Open, Sorry Kentucky! I feel your pain!)

The question was the involvement of the Kentucky Governor. Well just this morning I was thinking about how to address it when I read a perfect response from the Sensuous Curmudgeon. He was quoting little kennie is his whine over the reporting by Cincinnati.com. I mentioned his whine in my own post, but I didn't pull any quotes from it. Well SC's post (Ken Ham Rants About “Biased” Ark News) pulled this quote from kennie:

"Yes, the Ark Encounter has the opportunity through Kentucky’s tourism incentive program to receive a future rebate of sales taxes that it generates at our theme park up to $18.25 million over a 10-year period after it opens. (And as the writer did correctly state, the right of the Ark Encounter to participate in this program was upheld in federal court.)"

When I originally read this from kennie, I knew he was overstating the case.  SC wrote the perfect response and I just have to quote it here:

"Ah yes — the legendary court victory. But as we keep reminding you, it didn’t happen that way. Early in the case, long before the trial began, the judge issued a temporary injunction preventing the state from denying the tax goodies. That is sometimes done to preserve the status quo in order to prevent damage being done until the case can be decided. At that point, the Governor stepped in and caused the state to withdraw from the case. It wasn’t a court victory on the merits of Hambo’s case; it was an embarrassing incident of lexus interruptus. "

Little kennie's case never went to trial  Other than political posturing, and kennie lying about upholding anti-discrimination laws, there was actually little done other than the temporary injunction, which it pretty typical in these type of cases.  The judge doesn't want any changes made until they go through all the legal hoops.  But after the election of a new Republican Governor, the State pulled out.  Little kennie did not win his case, nothing was upheld.  The Governor simply rolled over, in what I think was nothing but typical political pandering.  Just like he did when he kowtowed to Kim Davis on her refusal to do her job and issue legal marriage licenses.

John Hagee says not voting for Trump will piss off God!

"Evangelical preacher John Hagee warns his followers that God "will not hold them harmless" if they do not vote for Donald Trump." is the headline of a post from over on The Immoral Minority blog.  It links to a video posted on YouTube where one of the televangelistas, John Hagee, is pretty much instructing his followers not just to vote . . . which wouldn't actually bother me at all . . . and he's not just telling them who to vote for . . . which I do find a bit disturbing . . . be he is also telling them that God will be holding them responsible if they do not vote for Trump . . . that I find absolutely reprehensible.  Here, check it out yourself:

I am sure if the government attempted to tell Hagee's mega-church who should they 'elect' as the leader of that church, Hagee would be the first person screaming about the separation of church and state.  Conveniently he forgets it when it comes to his own political statements, and that he is actually threatening his followers with God if they don't toe his particular line.

This isn't the first time Hagee stepped into the pool of politics, but I do think it's the first time he has basically threatened his followers in this way, at least about politics.  I would find it hard to believe he hasn't threatened them with God's wrath many times before.  After all, it's the only weapon he has to control other people and have them donate to support his lifestyle, after all he's the 11th wealthiest televangelista in the US.  That didn't happen though a vow of poverty now did it?

It does make a certain amount of sense.  After all Hagee is one of those 'prosperity preachers', you know the ones John Oliver lampooned so perfectly not too long ago.  I am more than a bit surprised that he seems to think Trump is doing anything ther than vote pandering.  Seriously, look at Trump's past, where was his deep religious beliefs then?  Did anyone see any signed during his failed business deals, during his divorces, or during his infidelity?  Nope, but when he decided to run for office, he suddenly started waving a Bible. 

In reality, I don't really care what politico Hagee wants to support, it's using his religious beliefs to not just influence, but threaten his followers.  That's a new low, even for a televangelista.  And no, that's not a misspelling, I prefer to term televangelista.  It's not in the dictionary, but I think it makes a point more than calling him a preacher or evangelist.

Well, I would feel sorry for the members of his mega-church, but they seem to be good little sheep and will more than likely do what he says.  More's the pity!  And people wonder why I tend to laugh a great deal at organized religion, particularly the televangelista variety.  Hagee bought his followers' souls years ago, now he wants to own their votes.

Politics, Politicians, WTF!

I try and avoid getting into the world of politics, but for some reason this election season seems to be one of the worst I can remember . . . and I lived in Louisiana for part of the political disaster named Edwin Edwards and also in DC during part of the Marion Barry debacle.  I mean re-elected a man after he served time for drug abuse while he was in office?  Granted he needs help, but re-electing him Mayor is well beyond the usual 12 step program!  As you can tell episodes like that give me a very particular view of politics and politicians.

For many years now I have considered the quadrennial election of our President not as selecting the best person for the job, but selecting the lesser of two evils.  It's a shame that we always seem to nominate people we would not trust to babysit our children.  Give that some thought, if Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton showed up to babysit, would you dare leave your house?  Does this election year seem worse than usual to you?

As a registered Republican, I look over the field on potential candidates and can only shake my head.  I really hadn't planned on saying even this much, but then I was watching one of my favorite shows and thoroughly enjoyed it.

If you haven't seen "Last Week on Tonight with John Oliver", you should really give it a try.  He's taken on some surprising issues, some you would expect, like Abortion and Hollywood Whitewashing, but then others surprised me like FIFA, Televangelists, and also how professional sport stadiums are financed.  This past week he took on Donald Trump . . . and when he was done he tore the donald into minuscule shreds.  Here is a link to the video:

I understand people's anger at professional politicians and this deadlock our elected officials seems to think is how it should be.  But looking over our choices for President . . . are any of them worth electing?  Not just Trump, but the whole field?

In my opinion, this part of Last Week on Tonight one of the very few examples of must-see TV in existence, regardless of what NBC likes to claim in their marketing.  I think the last time I felt this way about anything on TV was the opening scene from The Newsroom:

If you have seen that scene, and liked it.  You might be slightly interested in the one scene that made The Newsroom must-see TV for me.  It was sort of a follow-up on opener:

Should you understand something before you criticize it?

Caught this from Larry Moran's 'Sandwalk' and had to follow it up:  "You should know the basics of a theory before you attack it".  He warns you to turn off your irony meters before following the link to the original article.  It's from Dembski's blog, 'Uncommon Descent' and it's a dozy!

Here is the line that gets me:

"But what have I accomplished if I spout off some nonsense that Darwinism does not actually posit, refute it, and then say, “thus I have proven Darwinism wrong”?"

How many times has a Creationist of one sort or another, like a Biblical Literalist or Intelligent Design proponent, built a strawman of some part of evolutionary theory and then destroyed it, claiming victory?  Is it possible to even count the times?  Here on this blog we've discussed many of the various strawmen, like:

• The odds argument, such as "Eureka!  I have calculated the odds of me being here, therefore Evolution isn't possible!"
• What about a Hoyle-ism like "A tornado spinning through a junkyard and building a 747, therefore Evolution is impossible!" 
• The "Law of Biogenesis shows that Evolution is impossible!"
• How about the "But mutations can only be bad for you, therefore Evolution isn't possible!"
• An oldie, but one still bandied about: "Evolution violates Thermodynamics, therefore Evolution isn't possible!"
• My current favorite "Information cannot be increased, therefore Evolution isn't  . . .!"

When you list out the various strawmen created for the express purpose of claiming to refute Evolution, the list gets pretty long.  You certainly get the idea that these Creationists really don't know much about Evolution, yet they continue to build new ones so they can knock them down and claim a Victory for Jesus!

I have to agree, most Creationists don't know much about Evolution, and they don't want to know much more.  You combat them by giving good information and hopefully educating enough folks to minimize the damage they can do to our educational systems.  But I think there are those that may or may not know about Evolution, they simply don't care.

To me, those are the dangerous ones because the validity of Evolution means nothing to them, they are attacking it for purposes of their own.  Not because science is in error, but because they use people's religious beliefs to push some agenda of their own.  They pander to them, often to sell books and videos for financial gain, but they also do it for power.  They prey on people not because they believe Evolution is wrong, but because they know arguing against it is a way to gain power.

Look at how many politicians pander to the Christian Right, not because they agree with their positions, but because they know that right now that's how you win elections.  You stand-up a few srawmen, knock them down and when a large enough group cheers you on, you get elected!  Or in the case of the Discovery Institute, you get more funding so you can keep pushing your agenda of undermining science to push your religion onto others (Discovery Institute Still Undermining Science - Karl Giberson).

If you disagree, keep watching the elections that are coming.  How did the Republican contenders respond to questions about Evolution?  Do you really think a Republican Presidential hopeful will admit that Creationism isn't science publicly?  That would be a quick way off the podium!  Even Democratic candidates tread lightly.

Like I said, those are the folks that worry me more.  The way to combat people who really don't know much about Evolution is through education.  It's not easy, but you do see even the most hard-core Creationists abandoning some of their arguments.  Of course they do their best to build new ones, but those also can be overcome by education.  It may take a while, after all people won't let go of their beliefs easily.  But how do you fight those who don't care about the validity of actual science?   If bashing Evolution doesn't work, they would find something else to pander.   

Look at the Governor-Elect of Kentucky, Matt Blevin, and the comments he's made in support of that bigot Kim Davis who is pushing for a Christian version of Sharia Law.  Think I am overstating it?  Well what else do you call it when one group wants to enact laws in support of their religious beliefs and apply them to everyone?  Sure, it's not Islamic Sharia Law, but it's the same thing!  Is this what we want?  They may not know much about Evolution, or they may know a great deal, but that's irrelevant to them.  They pander to win, and the ends justify the means, right?  Scary!

Wikipedia deserves an Award! They Annoyed the DI! Yea!

The Discovery Institute does not like Wikipedia, what a shock!  Since when does the Discovery Institute like anything, or anyone, who doesn't grant them every concession they seem to feel is somehow owed to them?  Disagree?  Well think about two cases in point, Intelligent Design (ID) and the Dover Trial.

When it comes to Intelligent Design who wants it to be taught alongside real scientific theories as if it had any actual science behind it?  Exactly!  They keep demanding to be allowed at the science lectern through tactics that never seem to include performing any actual science.  Think about their tactics "Teach the Controversy", "Evolution is only a Theory", Strengths and Weaknesses", "Academic Freedom", to name a few.  Any actual science involved?  It's all marketing and politics.  Currently their "official" position is that they don't want it to be taught.  I don't buy that, their own guiding documents doesn't say that -- its just another tactic.  I think they don't want it to be taught yet.  First they want to weaken science and science education, then they can more easily market their theistic-ally friendly ideas without ever having to do actual science.

And how about Dover, more specifically the Federal Judge.  Who was it touting a slam dunk when a Conservative Judge, appointed by a Republican President, was announced.  It must have thrilled them to the core.  As mentioned in several books, their confidence level of winning the Dover Trial went up considerably at that point.  Lauri Lebo quoted one of the contributors over on Wild Bill Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent, describing Judge Jones:

"Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too. "

Once the trial started, they started circling the wagons.  When the verdict was handed out, Judge Jones was vilified, called an Activist Judge, and is regularly whined about by the DI still today, 10 years later.  What changed?  Judge Jones upheld the law and didn't let the DI get away with anything.  What did they try and get away with, you might ask?  Well if you read the transcripts, a lot.  They tried to offer opinion as facts, contested assertions as if they were facts, they tried to squash the testimony of prosecution witnesses because they knew just how devastating their testimony would be, they tried to re-define science and evolution to make their particular kool-aid more palatable.  The list gets pretty long, but Judge Jones held them up to the light of day, and their little heart shriveled right up.  It doesn't seem like they have learned anything in the last 10 years.

Such is a common theme.  When you play nice with the DI, they say nice things about you.  The problem is that their idea of playing nice is you do what they want, you say what they want you to say, and by no means ask or say anything that might be interpreted as critical of the DI or their pet ideas.  If you cross them, they get out one of the pack of toothless Chihuahuas to attack you, most often little casey luskin or davey 'klingy' klinghoffer.  If you think I kid, do you remember little casey's diatribe attacking a quilter who dared win an award with a quilt entitled "Myths of our Time: Intelligent Design.".  Any time someone says critical stuff about ID, the DI has a knee-jerk reaction to defend it!  They do it all the time (Evidence of Evolution and Selection, DI's knee-jerk anti-ID whine, The Discovery Institute responds on Ohio HB 597, are a few examples.) 

Before getting specific with their issues with Wikipedia, let's talk a little about it.  It is one of the most popular websites in the US, with good reason.  I know, I use it all the time.  Now, what I wouldn't use it for is a reference for an academic paper, even though a 2005 study by Nature declared that Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.  Now that being said, I would also not use Encyclopedia Britannica for an academic paper either.

It might sound strange, but we are talking about encyclopedias, which are great for bringing together information, but it's the source of the information in the encyclopedia that is a better reference than using the encyclopedia itself.  I grew up with a set of encyclopedias and in elementary school and high school they were in constant use.  However, in college and for my Master's Degree I used a number of sources, the authoritative source for information, not second or third hand like an encyclopedia.  Encyclopedia's are great for quick reference, but not the authoritative source for anything.

While the study said Wikipedia and Britannica were equal in accuracy, there are differences between the two.  Wikipedia does use an open-source model for editing that does seem to lack some level of author non-repudiation and editorial control.  I think the early assumption was based on people being honest, but too often they re-discovered that isn't always the case.  There have been a number of cases where one particular point-of-view tried to hijack Wikipedia pages, there have even been lawsuits about it when someone tries to remove what they feel is damaging information about themselves or their organizations.  So they have had to implement various processes to help keep folks honest.  But still problems do happen.  It doesn't invalidate Wikipedia as a reference, but it does require some care.

Just for fun I popped over the PubMed to see how many times Wikipedia was used as a reference . . . also Britannica, just to be fair.  I found 295 references of Wikipedia and 3 of Encyclopedia Britannica -- however, looking over the abstracts I didn't see them being used as references, but the papers were about them.  Here are two examples:

• HISTORY OF MATHEMATICS IN THE RECENT EDITION OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA.
• Automatically Expanding the Synonym Set of SNOMED CT using Wikipedia.

While PubMed doesn't list the sources in their abstracts, you can tell by the abstracts that the articles were about Wikipedia and Britannica.  Certainly would make me realize that the scientific community also doesn't use encyclopedias as the authoritative source for information.  Guess any complaints in that department would be foolish, since that's not how encyclopedia's are used.

A recent article in PLOS ONE "Content Volatility of Scientific Topics in Wikipedia: A Cautionary Tale".  The authors looked at three politically controversial subjects:  Acid Rain, Evolution, and Global Warming and four non-politically controversial subjects: heliocentrism, general relativity, continental drift, and the standard model in physics.  What they looked at was the number of edits and even the number of words in the edits.  Luckily Wikipedia keeps track of the edits and makes that available for review.  What they discovered should have surprised no one, politically controversial subjects get edited more often.  Gee really?  Are you surprised?  I wasn't.

Now before we go on, I want to point out they didn't look at scientifically controversial subjects, but politically controversial subjects.  We all know there is no scientific controversy about these subjects, especially evolution.  Much to the annoyance of the DI.

OK, so there is no surprise for us, politically controversial subjects get edited more often.  It's just like people having conversations, politically controversial subjects tend to be talked about more and with more emotion.  Wikipedia edits can become like arguments, where people are trying to talk over each other.  If you happen to hit a topic during one of these edit wars, you might end up with material that is less than . . . shall we say  . . . objective.

Wikipedia does try to remain neutral and provide a place for experts to maintain information.  They don't always succeed, which is why my cardinal rule is always to check my sources!  Wikipedia does a good job of identifying the source of material and listing it at the end of each entry.  But before diving into what casey and the DI say about it, I want to mention one last thing on neutrality.

While Wikipedia does its best to remain neutral, it does not make the same mistake that many journalists make in claiming neutrality.  All too often a journalist, in an effort to be neutral, will provide an equal coverage to two opposing views.  There are times that is appropriate, but there are also many times when it is not appropriate.  For example on civil rights, would you provide equal coverage to a civil rights march and a Ku Klux Klan rally?  I don't think so.  While the two views are opposite, they are not equal by any means.  Journalistic 'neutrality' all to often is taken to mean equality.  Here is Wikipedia's own policy on Neutrality: [I added the underlines]

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views."

We see this frequently in papers, online, and even on-air articles between the political controversy between intelligent design and real science.  Reporters giving people like the DI equal time, even though they have yet to earn it scientifically.  Well Wikipedia does not emulate journalism and does it's best to insure that even controversial topics have some reliable sources, especially when it comes to science.

The PLOS ONE article looked at Evolution, for fun I looked up Intelligent Design in Wikipedia and I bet the very first line pissed off the DI to no end:

"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.' "

Also for fun I looked back in the recent edits and saw that someone was trying to change "the pseudoscientific view" to "a hypothesis of origins, considered by some to be pseudoscientific".  This particular editor claimed that would make the description:

" . . .more neutral, and a more accurate description. (Even evolutionists have been known to express belief in possible design behind evolution)"

Someone came along shortly thereafter and restored the original "the pseudoscientific view".  While it might be fun dissecting the differences between the two, a quick read shows that the attempted edit would not make things more neutral, but water down the issue of pseudoscience and assign what sounds like an unearned 'hypothesis' to ID, important differences when looking at things like intelligent design, astrology, or parapsychology.  So it's easy to see why the edit didn't stand.  Look at pseudoscience on Wikipedia (about 3/4's of the way down the page) it could have been written for ID!  Equal standing is earned, and one of the ways to earn it, especially for science, is what are scientific theories and what are not.  No matter what standard Wikipedia uses, if the DI doesn't get treated like real science, they will be attacking the source instead of correcting the deficiency!

I can also see, by the edit history, that in early July there were a number of rapid edits that caused Wikipedia to declare ID as a 'Disruptive Edit'.  Declaring such changes the editing policy to try and damp down the edit war, which is remarkably similar with a 'flame war', minus the profanity.  I am starting to get a feeling of what probably happened.  The DI got busted violating the various rules that govern Wikipedia.  And having gotten busted, are trying to make Wikipedia the bad guy.  I am starting to see nothing more here than the DI playing the Victim card once again.

Let's see little casey goes on . . . Wikipedia biases, partisan,  . . . obviously casey, and that means his bosses at the DI, doesn't like Wikipedia. Sounds like Wikipedia, and the editors, wouldn't let little casey and his friends . . . OK, here I have to quote the little guy:

 "I say this based upon years and years of people contacting me who tell of having tried to make bland, benign, reasonable edits and who then saw those changes immediately deleted by pro-Darwin editors. "

Bland, benign, and reasonable edits?  To paraphrase a favorite movie, I don't think those words mean what little casey thinks they mean.  I wonder if little casey would claim this is one of those 'bland, benign, and reasonable edits'?  One of the early edits to the Wikipedia page on Evolution changed a line to say this:

"It is worth noting that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable, hence not a scientific theory at all, since it includes the claim that God did not intervene in evolutionary history by creating new forms of life." 

I am sure the author feels his edit was bland, benign, and reasonable, but since the Theory of Evolution makes no such claim, his edit was corrected as short time later.  I bet little casey would have loved reading that one!  Take some time and go look at the edit history of any topic that interests you.  I think you might be surprised, especially in popular or politically controversial subjects.  When you look back at the edit history for items that might be of interest to the DI, I bet you will see lots of stuff the DI doesn't like!  I took a quick peek at the Sternberg Peer Review Controversy  and saw a number of edits that would have subtly, and some not so subtly, changed the page to make it sound more like how the DI tries to sell it, rather than the reality of the controversy.  Little casey claimed not to edit Wikipedia himself, but I would be hard-pressed to believe someone at the DI doesn't try.

So the bottom line seems to be that Wikipedia refuses to let the DI sell their pseudoscience, and in not doing so, earned the ire of little casey.  Is Wikipedia perfect?  No, but as a reference, it's as good as the gold standard of encyclopedias, Britannica.  The fact they are doing things that annoy the DI is just gravy!  Keep it up Wikipedia! 

That's deception, not concern

I have a Google News alert for stuff coming out of the Discovery Institute.  They have quite a bit of stuff coming out, but most of it is geared strictly for the drinkers of their particular Kool-aid and if I wrote something up for each of them, blogging would be a full time job and not a particularly well-paying one at that.  However sometime that news feed drops something worth thinking about.

However, before you get your hopes up, it is not an article by the Discovery Institute, but one about them.  In particular "Controlling Language Controls the Euthanasia Debate" caught my eye.  It's not a usual topic for this blog, but I wanted to highlight the tactic of 'Controlling Language'.  The author of the article goes into the DI's Wesley J. Smith complaining about using the 'v-word'.  The word is vegetative, as in a vegetative state, a medical term describing someone with few cognitive abilities usually due to accident or illness. Apparently they don't like the term ostensibly because of negative connotations about the word 'vegetable'.  They even go as far as associating it with the 'n-word' and all the negatives there.  Does that sound familiar, associating something you don't like with something no one likes and you gain support with little effort.  I know vegetative does have negative connotations, but then don't many medical terms have them?  Telling someone they have a 'dysfunction' makes people feel OK, doesn't it?  How about 'Walleyed'?  I have to ask, is 'Yellow Fever' the next target on the political politeness express?

The real question raised is more along the lines of is the DI the least bit interested in political correctness?  The author of the article doesn't think so. For some reason he thinks that they have a religious agenda when dealing with the concept of ending a life.  Are you kidding me, the Discovery Institute having a religious agenda and trying to use words to change the playing field!  How can he possibly think that?  My guess would be he's had experience with the DI before.

I think you know where I am going with this and how this ties into their position and tactics on science education.  I would like to remind you about a few words:  theory, belief, controversy, Darwinism, Materialism, weaknesses, academic freedom . . . We've talked about many of them before.  The tactic is common from the DI.  They frequently change how words are used in order to control the debate.  My favorite example, of course, is the word Theory.  Science uses the word with one definition that is very different from the colloquial definition.  The phrase 'Evolution is only a Theory!' is designed to try and cast doubt and make people think that as a theory, it's only an idea, a concept and one not with much actual support.  Of course, in science, the word 'theory' is about the highest pinnacle anything can achieve.  It has tremendous levels of support and applicability that a run-of-the-mill 'idea' cannot compete with.  If an idea cannot compete with a theory, then you either have to raise the idea up, or tear the theory down.  How much work has the DI done raising their idea of Intelligent Design up as compared to how much effort they have put into trying to tear evolution down?  Pretty lopsided if you ask me.  In fact how much actual work have thy put into Intelligent Design?  Haven't seen much, have we?

The word 'Darwinism' is another example.  The suffix 'ism' is a derived word used in philosophy, politics, religion or other areas pertaining to an ideology of some sort (definition from from Wikipedia).  The definition goes on to say that it is frequently used derogatorily.  Now, a long time use of 'ism' is 'Creationism'.  It certainly applies as a philosophy and religious concept.  It is also frequently used in a derogatory way because of the connotation of ignoring science, denying evidence, and attempting to push a strictly religious agenda into any aspect of education.

So, when you are fighting an uphill battle with the negative connotations of 'Creationism' why not take a two-fold approach.  First distance yourself from Creationism and constantly deny any connection.  Sound familiar?  It took a Federal Court (Kitzmiller v. Dover) to remind everyone that Intelligent Design is Creationism in the same way 'Creation Science' was nothing more than Creationism dressed up a little bit. 

The other plank in this platform is trying to make the scientific theory of Evolution nothing more than another 'ism'.  I guess 'Evolutionism' would have been to weird to say, so why not attack Charles Darwin and the scientific theory at the same time?  Let's see, how many things have they blamed Charles Darwin for?  Pretty much everything bad in the 19th and 20th century.  Now in reality, what is Darwinism?  It has nothing to do with Evolution because the current state of evolutionary theory would be barely recognizable to Darwin, but facts like that have no room in the DI's version of reality.  Doubt about Darwin could very well cause some to doubt the theory.  Never lose sight that the DI's target audience are not scientists, it's politicians, school board members and the general public who vote for them and who contribute to causes they support.

Without going through every term, briefly consider how they try and equate belief in God with belief in a scientific theory, how they denigrate the naturalistic philosophy of science and try and include the supernatural, and how they treat science's ability to adjust as we learn new things as a weakness in science.  The list is pretty much endless.

I hope you would think about the DI's use of words and realize that while they are prolific when it comes to marketing and send out lots of articles, books, and frequently comment on any subject near and dear to their hearts, their use of terminology is very deliberate and designed [pun intended] to aid in their objectives.  They aren't concerned with political correctness, they are only interested in their own righteousness and any tactic, even trying to redefine the words involved, is fine with them if they think it changes the playing field in their favor. 

Are Perry's opinions really so newsworthy?

As I've mentioned a time or two, I have Google News alerts set up on a number of things. I find it very convenient, especially on some items that tends to have news posted only on rare occasions. For example the David Coppedge lawsuit. Months can go by without a single item of news. It would be so easy to miss it, so I have an alert set up. What an alert means is that you can get a link to stories about the topic in your mailbox. The downside of the alerts is many of the articles might have the keywords you are interested in, but be on entirely different subjects. The other problem is sometimes the same story is reported from a number of links, so you might get many hits on the same subject.

The Associated Press ran a short article on Texas Gov Rick Perry in which he supports a Federal Marriage Amendment -- in other words a Constitutional amendment mandating marriage is between a man and a woman only. "Perry backs a constitutional limit on gay marriage" Funny how this was also the article where he said social issues should be decided state by state. Isn't this a social issue?

OK, he also made a few evolutionary comments:

• "There are clear indications from our people who have amazing intellectual capability that this didn't happen by accident and a creator put this in place," Perry said.
• "Now, what was his time frame and how did he create the earth that we know? I'm not going to tell you that I've got the answers to that," Perry said.
  
• "I believe that we were created by this all-powerful supreme being and how we got to today versus what we look like thousands of years ago, I think there's enough holes in the theory of evolution to, you know, say there are some holes in that theory."

Hmmm, OK, my first point is does any of this come as a surprise? Perry has clearly been well ensconced with the conservative right. It's the constituency who has elected him 3 times to the governorship of Texas. He's the one who has appointed three extremely conservative School Board heads, two of whom failed to get confirmed by the legislature. He's also the one who allowed Chris Comer to be fired for doing her job! So anyone who read this little article should have just shrugged their shoulders and gone on to another section of the paper. In fact you really didn't need to read past the headline.

My second point is interesting, maybe only to me, but early in the article says:

"But Perry told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that a presidential campaign would concentrate on jobs, not evolution or gay marriage."

However when you look at his jobs comments and his anti-evolution comments, where did he spend more time? It wasn't on the jobs! Maybe because he was playing to the audience in South Carolina or maybe because he knows who his core audience is, he can't lay off the social issues. One of my concerns is that he focuses so much on the social issues might be because he has nothing on any other issues! Now that's scary.