Dover's ID(iot) Policy Struck Down

Intelligent design flunks in Pennsylvania

"Woohoo", I'm thinking to myself. "Yay, sanity and reason triumphs!" But it was in the middle of doing the dance of joy in my head that I had a thought. "Hey, I wonder how long until some Right Wing nutjob bandies about their favorite term for a judge who doesn't rule in their favor, 'Judicial Activist'". In case you're wondering, it didn't take long. And it came from an entirely predictable source.

At the Discovery Institute in Seattle (oh how embarrassing for us locals that it's always brought up that DI, pronounced "duhhhh", is based in Seattle) a high-profile research organization dedicated to giving intelligent design some intelligent substance, there was fury at Jones's identification of their mission with that of Dover's religious fundamentalists. John West, associate director of the institute's Center for Science and Culture said the ruling "makes it clear that [Jones] wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."

It seems that nutjobs on the right understand what judges are supposed to do about as well as they understand the definition of a scientific theory.

Public School Program and Salvation Army Don't Mix

School cancels Salvation Army fundraising trip

I think it was the right thing to do. A Christian charity organization shouldn't be trolling public schools for volunteers, promoting state-church entanglements. Niether should a public school be supporting a religious organization via the labor of students who are required to be there. If the children want to volunteer for the Salvation Army, they can certainly do so of their own volition, but it shouldn't be a school-sponsored event.

"What really bothers me is what canceling the field trip does to the kids," he (Salvation Army employee) said. "It says that having a religion is a bad thing, that believing is a bad thing, and that is not the message our country should be sending right now. It should instead be encouraging our kids to volunteer."

Okay, first off…having religion and believing in an imaginary friend in the sky is a bad thing. It promotes nothing but intellectual dwarfism. Second, our "country" should be sending no religious messages at all. And finally, what the hell does a message critical of religion have to do with volunteering for charity work? Not a damn thing. Which gets back to my point that religious belief stunts a persons intellectual capacity.

Chavez principal Howard Fried said there are other ways to instill a charitable spirit in students.

"My feeling is that we can certainly accomplish the same goals by having a service project within an organization that doesn't have a religious affiliation, and I'm hoping that sometime in the future they'll come up with an alternative," Fried said.

Yes, please.

Man Successfully Murdered!

Marshal kills jet passenger after threat

MIAMI -- An agitated passenger who claimed to have a bomb in his backpack was shot and killed by a federal air marshal Wednesday after he bolted frantically from a jetliner that was boarding for takeoff, officials said. No bomb was found.

Why was he shot if he was running away from the plane?

According to a witness, the passenger ran down the aisle of the Boeing 757, flailing his arms, while his wife tried to explain that he was mentally ill and had not taken his medication.

The shooting death was cited by some congressional leaders and air security experts as the first successful -- if deadly -- example of the government's ramped-up commercial airline security efforts.

Ah, the sweet taste of success! It's "Mission Accomplished"™ for an air marshal who was apparently not trained in any other technique than "shoot first, figure out what the hell is going on later".

But others said that opening fire on passengers who threaten airline travel could lead to even worse consequences for bystanders.

Gee, ya think? But not to worry...we'll just pin complete responsibility for a cop's wild-ass shots into a crowd on the person being shot at, rather than forcing the cop to be responsible. Kind of like in this case where a high-speed chasee (who didn't even know he was being chased) got 30 years for manslaughter after the cop violated department policy and gave chase, only to lose control of his car and run into a tree, killing himself. It'll just be one more part of Bush's "ownership society" wherein the poor are owned by the rich and suspects will own the responsibility for misdeeds on the part of law enforcement.

The passenger, identified as Rigoberto Alpizar...

That's one o' them furrin' names, innit? Based on his funny soundin' name and the darkened-by-the-devil-hisself color of his skin, I'd speckle-ate he prolly was a terra-ist, wouldn't you agree, Cleetus? Beauford? Do we have a con--... a consens--... ya'll agree here?

He (Bauer) said there was no reason to believe there was any connection to terrorists.

That's because your guy just shot a mentally ill person and found no bombs on the plane and it's so obvious that your team fucked up big time (i.e. "no connection to terrorists") that the subject of terrorism should never have even been brought up!! But, it's a handy little tactic, isn't it? Even just a whisper of the word "terrorist" and suddenly people are spooked into line and will forgive any flagrant action in the name anti-terrorism and national security. Consider the following anecdote.

During the 1964 presidential election race, Lyndon B. Johnson suggested that his campaign team air an ad alleging that an opponent had once had sexual relations with a donkey. An advisor pointed out the claim was untrue. "I know it's not true," Johnson replied, "but I want to hear him deny it!"

Plant the seed and the damage is done. Or, in the case of terrorism, mention the word and whether or not the incident has anything whatsoever to do with terrorism your actions are justified. But let me get back to the story at hand.

Federal officials declined to say how many times Alpizar was shot.

That would be "a lot".

Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House transportation subcommittee on aviation, said the shooting proves the expanded marshal program is successful.

"This shows that the program has worked beyond our expectations," Mica said. "This should send a message to a terrorist or anyone else (minorities? the mentally ill?) who is considering disrupting an aircraft with a threat."

And Australia's all, "WTF, mate?"!!!! The murder of an innocent man by armed Feds is evidence of successful security policy?? Only if one's expectations of the program involve the murder of innocents! In which case, two thumbs way up (your ass, Rep. Mica, R-obviously)!

Some security experts questioned whether killing the passenger was justified.

Aviation security consultant Douglas Laird of Laird & Associates said shooting a suspect who claims to be carrying an explosive device could cause a greater threat to passengers if that suspect detonates the bomb after being shot. "It's a terrible call," the former Northwest Airlines security director said.

Good to hear a voice of reason.

But Mica said the marshal acted appropriately. Federal air marshals are not trained to negotiate with suspected terrorists, he said...

Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said in a statement that the marshals "took appropriate action" and that their decision to shoot was "consistent with their (air marshal) training."

And there you have it. They're trained to shoot first, figure out what the hell is going on...well, never, I guess.