If we could undo just one part of the legacy of The Heritage Foundation's Contract on America, and Newt Gingrich's  "Republican Revolution"...this would be the one I would root for:

Because the other things that would need to be changed would follow soon after.  Evidence-based policy is good policy.  And no, I'm not saying we should have a technocracy.  I'm just saying that if you are making a decision based on ideology in the face of scientific evidence, then THAT should be clear.

(Hat Tip:  Denialism.com)

(Hat Tip:  Denialism.com)

[Update: also from Denialism:  Yet another case of those who don't have the science resorting to judicial shenanigans to try to advance their cause.]

"Darwin defended slavery"

(I took the following quote from this site)

On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil. I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have staid in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horsewhip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master’s eye. These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European nations. I have seen at Rio de Janeiro a powerful negro afraid to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was present when a kind-hearted man was on the point of separating for ever the men, women and little children of a large number of families who had long lived together. I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of; - nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the negro, as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited the houses of the upper classes, where the domestic slaves are usually well treated; and they have not, like myself, lived amongst the lower classes. Such enquirers will ask slaves about their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull, who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching his master’s ears.

It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty; as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested against with noble feelings, and strikingly exemplified, by the ever illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of the thumbscrew be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffer from some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave-owner and with cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; - what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! Picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children - those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own - being torn from you and sold like beast to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbors as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty: but it is consolation to reflect, that we at least have made a greater sacrifice, than ever made by any nation, to expiate our sin.

                                                                                                         --Charles Darwin

                                                                                                             The Voyage of the Beagle     

(Hat Tip: Pharyngula)                                                          

Those Gosh-darned pesky educated predictions backed up by research and facts.

How can Intelligent Design hope to compete?

Oh yeah.  They have Ben Stein.  Never mind.  His powers of snidely droning on and on about liberal fascism will prevail.  No one can withstand the power of his droll and slighly pouty drone.  The only people who listen to facts are effete snobs with alphabet soup after their names, and they will be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes.

Just a quickie, as I have a lot to do today!

I just read on another website about how environmentalism kills 2 million people per year because environmental hysteria caused the banning of DDT.  I'd give you link, but it bothers the guy when I link to him.

Just in case you have been exposed to this myth, or know someone who has, here's some facts.

The DDT Ban Myth  (quote from this site follows):

Several anti-environmentalists have claimed that public concern over the effects of DDT after the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring led to a ban on the pesticide in some third world countries in the 1960s.  This ban, it is claimed, led to a resurgence in malaria, resulting in thousands of deaths.  But in accounts of the war on malaria, such as in Laurie Garrett's The Coming Plague,  it is clear that the suspension of spraying programs was unrelated to any environmental concerns.  In fact, DDT continued to be the insecticide of choice in the battle against malaria as recently as 1994, some 30 years after the alleged ban, in areas where it was still effective (Curtis). Before considering what actually happened, let's see how some anti-environmentalists described the alleged ban.

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia entry:

The World Health Organization estimates there are between 300 million and 500 million cases of malaria every year, resulting in more than 1 million deaths,^[63] with about 90% of these deaths occuring in Africa, mostly to children under the age of 5.

Most prior use of DDT was in agriculture, but the controlled use of DDT continues to this day for the purposes of public health. Current use for disease control requires only a small fraction of the amounts previously used in agriculture, and at these levels the pesticide is much less likely to cause environmental problems. Residual house spraying involves the treatment of all interior walls and ceilings with insecticide, and is particularly effective against mosquitoes, which favour indoor resting before or after feeding. Advocated as the mainstay of malaria eradication programmes in the late 1950s and 1960s, DDT remains a major component of control programmes in southern African states, though many countries have abandoned or curtailed their spraying activities. South Africa, Swaziland, Mozambique and Ecuador are examples of countries that have very successfully reduced malaria infestations with DDT.

Indeed, the problems facing health officials in their fight against malaria neither begin nor end with DDT. Experts tie the spread of malaria to numerous factors, including the resistance of the malaria parasite itself to the drugs traditionally used to treat the illness^[64] and a chronic lack of funds in the countries worst hit by malaria.

The growth of resistance to DDT and the fear that DDT may be harmful both to humans and the environment led the U.N., donor countries, and various national governments to restrict or curtail the use of DDT in vector control. At the same time, use of DDT as an agricultural insecticide was often unrestricted, and restrictions were often evaded, especially in developing countries where malaria is rife, so that resistance continued to grow.^[14]

^{[UPDATE:  the same blog entry that discusses how "harmless" DDT is has now spawned derisive comments about how evivormentalists are forcing poor people to eat Twinkies because they made apples expensive by banning Alar...another chemical that they claim is completely harmless.]}

^{Here are some real facts about Alar.}

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alar_and_apples

^{http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/docs/alarscarenegin.html}

^{But if your one of the people that think that Alar and DDT are prefectly safe, and that people don't have any choice because fresh fruit costs more than Twinkies...and it's the evil liberals fault...don't worry.  The brave Libertarians over at Center For Consumer Freedom are protecting you.}

^{They mock the "Alar Scare" all the time, referencing it to deride every concern about nearly every food danger that comes down the pike.  They are also defending you from "fat nazis" who want to take away your freedom to eat guilt free:}

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/oped_detail.cfm/oped/523

No kidding...here's the title of the article:

Preserve right to eat without guilt: Don't post calories of fast-food dishes

ERV points out that "framing" is inadequate with some audiences and in some situations, such as dealing with the Discovery Institute on
"their" turf.  This is because they cheat.

If Framing is a screw driver, you can't be sucessful with it in situations that call for a hammer.

You don't engage in a "framing" debate at a Discovery Institute event where the only purpose of having a counter argument is to bring in big names to add legitamacy to the event.  No matter how well you "frame" your argument, it's not going to have much effect when you have fifteen  minutes and the Discovery Institute has a couple of days.  As ERV pointed out, a Q&A that only allows students to ask screened questions is also not helpful.

In a closed system, this would be a disaster.  However, getting those facts out to any media coverage on the event would be a good start.

That's framing.

The Discovery Institute "frames" this event as a debate.  We need to get the word out that it is a sham.  Use analogies to sporting events.  The Discovery Institute is holding a track meet, invites world class atheletes, and then only allows them to run if they agree to run while wearing fat suits.  This is so their people can "win" and say they beat world-class athletes.

When the world-class athletes turn down the invitation, the Discovery Institute can say "they're afraid" when it is the Discovery Institute that is afraid of fair competition.

John Q public is going to say "Huh.  I don't blame them.  I wouldn't go to a track meet and run in a fat suit either."

Right now, if you get into an evolution debate with a rank-and-file creationist, they spew every single Discovery Institute talking point down to the punctuation.  But when you say "Oh, the Discovery Institute" they say "who's that?"

Now, when they hear something from the Discovery Institute, they are going to say "Oh.  Those are the guys who can't handle fair competition with their ideas. " and go in search of other information.

They still might be creationists, but at least their sense of fairness won't let them use DI talking points whereas before they were unaware of even where that information was coming from.

Skeptico takes an analogy from a believer in "psychic powers" and makes it do it's little turn on the catwalk.

Awesome.

(Hat Tip:  Bad Astronomy)