It reads like an Onion piece or maybe something John Oliver would ‘report on’, but this story’s no joke… Lawmakers in the Lone Star State may have taken their efforts to prohibit same-sex marriages too far–for everyone.
Texas’ gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages
By Dave Montgomery
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
AUSTIN — Texans: Are you really married?
Maybe not.
Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.
The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:
“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
No, we’re not likely to see the dismantling of marriages across Texas, but according to Radnofsky, the clear language of Subsection B brings up legal questions about spousal rights, insurance claims, inheritance, and more. Go read the full article here.
Sheril posted yesterday about the outrageous (and breathtakingly arrogant) attack on the legacy of Darwin that is Ray Comfort’s psuedo-Origin of Species. Almost simultaneously, a copy of the Comfort book–for it is not Darwin–showed up in the office of the Knight Science Journalism Program here at MIT. Clearly, these books are being deftly circulated.
The National Center for Science Education is refuting Comfort’s staggeringly long and misleading introduction, so I needn’t say more about it. But flipping through the book, there was one highly dishonest aspect that struck me–font size.
Comfort’s introduction is in big font and nicely spaced. You can breeze through those fifty pages, almost like reading Harry Potter. By contrast, Darwin’s text at the back is in tiny, cramped font, a real trial to get through. Gee, what part of the book do you think students are intended to read?
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, even though I am. It appears creationists like Comfort will even stoop to manipulating font sizes in their arrogant and ignorant quest to undermine knowledge.
By now you’ve surely heard about evangelist Ray Comfort’s plan to distribute thousands of free copies of Darwin’s Origin of Species–with his own 54-page nonsense ’special’ introduction–to students at the ‘100 top U.S. universities.’ Yesterday they were given out at Duke (pictured), but unfortunately I missed it since I’m on the road.
In response, the National Center for Science Education has launched a campaign to counter the stunt: www.dontdisdarwin.com features resources, a detailed analysis of the Comfort introduction, the NCSE Safety Bookmark (for use with Comfort’s edition of Origin), and this terrific flier–which I’m glad to report was all over the Duke campus today. Help spread the truth by sharing the url and reposting the flier on your own site.
Thanks to Steve Newton, Robert Luhn, Eugenie, Josh, and all the great folks with NCSE.
Last week I noted how much Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell is selling and wondered whether I should start refuting it. This almost instantly triggered a comment from Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute, saying, please, please, do precisely that.
Oh well, so much for that idea. If this is what DI wants, this is not what DI is going to get.
There is not much to say about Meyer’s “God of the Gaps” argument anyway, now applied to the origins of life just as it has previously been applied to the bacterial flagellum, the Cambrian explosion, and so on. Research is going on into the origins of life, but we have not yet solved the mystery. It just isn’t scientifically fruitful to invoke “intelligent design” in this context, as if it solves a problem, rather than just raising another one (who designed the super-complex designer, and so on).
However, I do want to comment on one aspect of Meyer’s book that’s really jaw-dropping–albeit not in a strictly scientific area. Read the rest of this entry »
Our traffic has been building lately, so for new visitors, we’d like to give a reminder: If you’d like to get our posts through other feeds, there are options, and not just RSS. We also syndicate most or all of our posts on Facebook (Sheril here, Chris here) and Twitter (@Intersection_), (@Sheril_). So follow there as well!
One of my favorite down home Louisiana songs is one by singer-songwriter Mike West, entitled “Corps of Engineers.” The lyrics are here. I’ll just give you the chorus:
folks round here got the fear of god
everybody say lawdy lawd
there’s only one thing we fear more
that’s the corps of engineers
The words seem particularly appropriate today as we learn that a federal judge has ruled that the Corps is (big surprise) responsible for the levee failures in Katrina–indeed, that the agency is guilty of “gross negligence,” “insouciance, myopia and shortsightedness”, and so forth. The Corps’ poorly maintained Mississippi River Gulf Outlet made the damage from Katrina’s storm surge worse, and the Corps knew it. It’s a sad fact, but can’t be ignored: Katrina was not simply an “act of God.” Neither was it simply an act of global warming. It was a disaster caused as much by human failures as by the workings of nature.
The Knight Program at MIT has a magnificent twice-weekly seminar series, and last week we had our biggest star yet: MIT linguist Noam Chomsky. It was great to hear from the great man in such an intimate setting–particularly about his pioneering work on understanding the origins and nature of language.
But at the same time, we also heard from Chomsky on politics–and this forced me to reflect (as I haven’t in some time) on just how far I am from being able to accept his radical, anti-corporate, anti-establishment positions. I do see a modicum of truth to all of them. But again and again, they’re taken so far that Chomsky loses me along the way.
At the outset, let me explain my basic politics. I’ve always been a liberal, but never a radical. I’ve written at various times for The New Republic, The American Prospect, and The Nation, spanning the spectrum of the mainline political left magazines–and I’ve also occasionally crossed over and written for Reason. Throughout, I’ve felt that I can have a valuable dialogue with readers of all of these magazines, and that all of them have serious things to say.
Especially with the New Republic crowd, but also in liberalism generally, there has been a distaste for the Chomskyite view, which runs something like this: wealthy, powerful interests systematically conspire to keep us down and themselves up. They trick us through the brainwashing of public relations and advertising into wanting their products. They financially enslave us through college loans and credit cards and an inequitable healthcare system and unfair tax structures. And they sell us unethical wars–again through what are fundamentally marketing campaigns–that only serve to preserve existing power structures.
In this view, as I understand it, there is really no major difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are similarly licking the feet of the real folks in power, the rich and the corporate. In our seminar, Chomsky even criticized Obama’s historic election, writing it off as the greatest of marketing campaigns, and so likening it to corporate brainwashing triumphs like getting us to smoke cigarettes or want Macs. Read the rest of this entry »
If you haven’t already heard, Sarah Palin is the current cover girl of Newsweek. Fair enough–she has a new book out. But the magazine chose to use a photo originally taken for an August 2009 article in Runners World about health and fitness. Runner’s World claims the picture was provided to Newsweek without Runners World’s “knowledge or permission” by the photographer’s stock agency. There has already been a good deal of commentary, some glee, and even speculation it was intended to rally conservative support for 2012. But for once, I agree with the former governor. Her statement on mirrors my reaction:
The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this “news” magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner’s World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness — a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention — even if out of context.
I am extremely disappointed in Newsweek for pulling a fraternity-prank-like stunt. Yes, I strongly disagree with Palin’s political views about almost everything, but that does not make their decision acceptable. Choosing an out-of-context image is not only dubious, but a manipulative move, unworthy of the magazine. Misrepresentation may indeed sell well, but it comes at the cost of integrity.
In the broader context, I am sick of this sexist nonsense. How are we to encourage more women to consider a career in politics when the media casts every female as a ‘pin-up’ or ‘bitch’ with no middle ground? As I’ve written in the past, while candidates should never be chosen based on a number of X chromosomes, it would benefit everyone if women became more involved in the decision-making process given we represent about 50% of the population. The way Clinton and Palin were treated in 2008 made Washington seem like a boys club. I often wondered how many girls might be completely turned off to politics by watching the unrelenting onslaught of ogling, sexy photo-shopping, and worse that ensued from across the aisle. And so, with many miles to go toward achieving an equal voice in America and around the world, Newsweek’s latest faux pas sets us back.
I just learned his book Signature in the Cell made the top ten list for Amazon science books of 2009. This reinforces a fact that I have long emphasized–conservatives support their authors, promote them on radio (as Michael Medved did yesterday), buy their books in droves, turn them into stars. Liberals and academic scholar and scientists, in general, don’t have the same drive to win the war of ideas. This is why Bjorn Lomborg is always such a big success, for instance, while authors of pro-science climate books regularly struggle to get noticed (unless they are Al Gore with preexisting celebrity).
Now, in the evolution arena, Meyer’s book is clearly drawing a lot of attention and is scarcely being refuted so far as I can see, despite containing some pretty obvious travesties (e.g., in Meyer’s own field, the history of science). So perhaps I had better dive in, as I did on the air yesterday, and describe some problems with Meyer’s arguments and approach. Alas, it is pretty hard to directly refute someone who looks at the currently unsolved question of the origins of life, throws up his hands, and says, it’s so improbable, God must have done it. That’s just not in the scientific spirit. Still, perhaps it is time to take on Meyer’s misinformation, as it is obviously starting to have significant influence…..
Miriam Goldstein recently brought up a very important question in comments:
I would love to see you or Chris tackle this question – is media coverage where the science is inaccurate better than no media coverage? I fear that inflated claims like the ones in the NYT article may cause the public to discount the whole issue, once they find out that some of the facts are exaggerated or false.
The short answer is, of course, it depends. More science coverage is critically necessary if we’re to foster broader public understanding, acceptance, and appreciation of science, BUT hyperbole and inaccurate stories frequently undermine good intentions.
Before diving in, I’d like to hear from readers… Is inaccurate media coverage of science better than no coverage at all?
