This is a bit of a departure from the science-themed nature of this blog, but it's still a highly important issue for anyone using the Internet, much less writing on it:
Congress is currently considering CISPA (the Cyber Intelligence Sharing & Protection Act) – a bill that purports to protect the United States from “cyber threats” but would in fact create a gaping loophole in all existing privacy laws. If CISPA passes, companies could vacuum up huge swaths of data on all Internet users and share it with the government without requiring a court order. CISPA is an exceedingly bad piece of legislation that should be opposed on constitutional grounds, and Congress would be wise to reject it and any other legislation that:
* Uses dangerously vague language to define the breadth of data that can be shared with the government.
* Hands the reins of America’s cybersecurity defenses to the NSA, an agency with no transparency and little accountability.
* Allows data shared with the government to be used for purposes unrelated to cybersecurity.
Please join me in opposing this bill by posting this statement on your own page and using the online form available at the link below to send a letter to Congress against CISPA:
(Form available here)
Monday, April 16, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Tennessee: things get worse - far worse
Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam did the gutless (but entirely predictable) thing concerning the "monkey bill" (translation: Tennessee Senate Bill 893 and House Bill 368) and decided to let the bills become law without actually bothering to sign it in the face of a potential legislative override. Feel free to read Haslam's statement and decide for yourself whether he's waffling about supporting the bill without actually "supporting" it:
“I have reviewed the final language of HB 368/SB 893 and assessed the legislation's impact. I have also evaluated the concerns that have been raised by the bill. I do not believe that this legislation changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers. However, I also don't believe that it accomplishes anything that isn't already acceptable in our schools. The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and Senate by a three-to-one margin, but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion. My concern is that this bill has not met this objective. For that reason, I will not sign the bill but will allow it to become law without my signature.”
Ah, political doublespeak.
What that statement reads like to me is something along the lines of this: "I'm going to say that I agree with these bills even though they do change scientific standards in state education, and on a very obvious ideological basis; however, I deny that they do. I also deem that 'acceptable' even though I just said that these bills change nothing. However, I need to not take a stand while seeming to do so, which I why I now bring up 'strong bipartisan support' despite the fact that such bipartisan support doesn't seem to have cleared up the 'confusion' the bills cause. So, in other words, I won't veto them - that might actually call for a level of courage on this issue that I'm unwilling to show even though my veto could be easily overidden in both houses of the legislature - but I won't sign them either."
Anyone who feels like whining about how courts have usurped the power of legislatures to make law should feel free to keep their traps shut. With legislation like this, passed in a state that should know better since it was the site of the Scopes trial in 1925, this entire issue was practically tailor-made to end up in Federal court - which might be the dirty little secret of promoters of this sort of legislation in the first place. It's not really about "states' rights" in choosing educational curricula or any other similar claptrap - it's about overturning rulings like Kitzmiller v. Dover and ultimately Edwards v. Aguillard by finding a sympathetic ear in Federal court - and it always has been.
(Also on WTTFTG)
“I have reviewed the final language of HB 368/SB 893 and assessed the legislation's impact. I have also evaluated the concerns that have been raised by the bill. I do not believe that this legislation changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers. However, I also don't believe that it accomplishes anything that isn't already acceptable in our schools. The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and Senate by a three-to-one margin, but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion. My concern is that this bill has not met this objective. For that reason, I will not sign the bill but will allow it to become law without my signature.”
Ah, political doublespeak.
What that statement reads like to me is something along the lines of this: "I'm going to say that I agree with these bills even though they do change scientific standards in state education, and on a very obvious ideological basis; however, I deny that they do. I also deem that 'acceptable' even though I just said that these bills change nothing. However, I need to not take a stand while seeming to do so, which I why I now bring up 'strong bipartisan support' despite the fact that such bipartisan support doesn't seem to have cleared up the 'confusion' the bills cause. So, in other words, I won't veto them - that might actually call for a level of courage on this issue that I'm unwilling to show even though my veto could be easily overidden in both houses of the legislature - but I won't sign them either."
Anyone who feels like whining about how courts have usurped the power of legislatures to make law should feel free to keep their traps shut. With legislation like this, passed in a state that should know better since it was the site of the Scopes trial in 1925, this entire issue was practically tailor-made to end up in Federal court - which might be the dirty little secret of promoters of this sort of legislation in the first place. It's not really about "states' rights" in choosing educational curricula or any other similar claptrap - it's about overturning rulings like Kitzmiller v. Dover and ultimately Edwards v. Aguillard by finding a sympathetic ear in Federal court - and it always has been.
(Also on WTTFTG)
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Recycling drivel doesn't make it wisdom
Here's no real surprise: in Oklahoma, yet another attempt at introducing previously recycled evolution and global warming denial language in an education bill is being undertaken by a state legislator (Steve Russell [R-45th] is the crackpot panderer you should blame), and this time the method was genuinely underhanded:
As introduced, House Bill 2341 would, if enacted, have extended by two years a deadline by which local school districts are required to meet certain standards for media, equipment, and textbooks. The bill passed the House on a 81-8 vote on March 7, 2012, and proceeded to the Senate Education Committee, where it passed on March 26, 2012.
But on March 28, 2012, Steve Russell (R-District 45) proposed to amend HB 2341 with the addition of a new section containing the language of HB 1551, encouraging teachers to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of "controversial" topics such as "biological evolution" and "global warming." The proposal will be considered when the bill comes to a floor vote in the Senate; it is currently on the Senate calendar, but not on the Senate agenda, for April 3, 2012.
No one should really surprised that this continues to go on in Oklahoma ad nauseum. State rep Sally Kern has pretty much made a career out of flogging this dead horse; she did it in 2006 and 2011 (and doesn't that bill look familiar?), although she's also making a career for herself as an all-around champion wingnut on a whole truckload of other "issues" as well (evidence for which can be found here and here). Still, the language of this attempted amendment of HB 2341 belongs to her even if she didn't introduce it, meaning that she still can claim her dunce cap right after Russell picks up his.
(Also on WTTFTG)
As introduced, House Bill 2341 would, if enacted, have extended by two years a deadline by which local school districts are required to meet certain standards for media, equipment, and textbooks. The bill passed the House on a 81-8 vote on March 7, 2012, and proceeded to the Senate Education Committee, where it passed on March 26, 2012.
But on March 28, 2012, Steve Russell (R-District 45) proposed to amend HB 2341 with the addition of a new section containing the language of HB 1551, encouraging teachers to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of "controversial" topics such as "biological evolution" and "global warming." The proposal will be considered when the bill comes to a floor vote in the Senate; it is currently on the Senate calendar, but not on the Senate agenda, for April 3, 2012.
No one should really surprised that this continues to go on in Oklahoma ad nauseum. State rep Sally Kern has pretty much made a career out of flogging this dead horse; she did it in 2006 and 2011 (and doesn't that bill look familiar?), although she's also making a career for herself as an all-around champion wingnut on a whole truckload of other "issues" as well (evidence for which can be found here and here). Still, the language of this attempted amendment of HB 2341 belongs to her even if she didn't introduce it, meaning that she still can claim her dunce cap right after Russell picks up his.
(Also on WTTFTG)
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Cretin(s) of the moment
The 72 members of the Tennessee House of Representatives who were dumb enough to vote for House Bill 368. On the other hand, this happened before in the state Senate, so why shouldn't the other chamber drive their car over the cliff despite being warned of the possible consequences by scientists who work and reside there?
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Cretin(s) of the moment
The 24 intellectual lightweights in the Tennessee Senate who passed Senate Bill 893, known as one of the "monkey bills" (the other being House Bill 368) for entirely good reasons. As you could guess, informed opinion hasn't quite been on their side on the issue if the opinions of either the National Association of Biology Teachers or the Nashville Tennessean are anything to go by.
(Also on WTTFTG)
(Also on WTTFTG)
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Tennessee: sometimes, The Stupid makes an unexpected early return
In the latest news concerning state legislatures and attempts to attack scientific theories via political fiat, Bo Watson's (R-11th Senate) "monkey bill" (aka Senate Bill 893) has returned from the dead and continues to smell just as bad as before. The state House has already gotten on the "teach the controversy where there isn't one" bandwagon by passing House Bill 368, which the Knoxville News Sentinel discussed in less than glowing terms:
There is evidence the bill in reality is a vehicle for sneaking intelligent design into science classes.State Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville and the bill's House sponsor, insists there's no religious intent, and the bill contains a disclaimer that it isn't promoting religion.
However, a report in Knoxville's Metro Pulse outlines how the bill originated at the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that promotes intelligent design. Biology, like all sciences, attempts to discover how the natural world works. It does not look for supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.
There is no controversy in the scientific community about evolution, which is the only purely scientific theory supported by evidence found in the natural world that explains how species adapt and change over time.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, is a concept better suited for a philosophy or religion class than a biology lab. It is predicated on the existence of an intelligent designer - most, if not all, proponents would say the God of Christianity. Because it introduces a supernatural element into the discussion, intelligent design can't be considered science. It's doubtful even its supporters would claim God can be seen through a microscope.
The House has approved the bill. The Senate Education Committee takes it up this week. The origin of the bill with the Discovery Institute should give senators pause, and not only because other states have rejected similar bills from the think tank.
(Also on WTTFTG)
There is evidence the bill in reality is a vehicle for sneaking intelligent design into science classes.State Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville and the bill's House sponsor, insists there's no religious intent, and the bill contains a disclaimer that it isn't promoting religion.
However, a report in Knoxville's Metro Pulse outlines how the bill originated at the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that promotes intelligent design. Biology, like all sciences, attempts to discover how the natural world works. It does not look for supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.
There is no controversy in the scientific community about evolution, which is the only purely scientific theory supported by evidence found in the natural world that explains how species adapt and change over time.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, is a concept better suited for a philosophy or religion class than a biology lab. It is predicated on the existence of an intelligent designer - most, if not all, proponents would say the God of Christianity. Because it introduces a supernatural element into the discussion, intelligent design can't be considered science. It's doubtful even its supporters would claim God can be seen through a microscope.
The House has approved the bill. The Senate Education Committee takes it up this week. The origin of the bill with the Discovery Institute should give senators pause, and not only because other states have rejected similar bills from the think tank.
(Also on WTTFTG)
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
New repeal effort under way in Louisiana
Senate Bill 374 (a bill designed to repeal the abysmal "Louisiana Science Education Act", an Orwellian name if there ever was one) has been introduced by Karen Carter Peterson (D-5th) in the state Senate. It's about time.
(Also on WTTFTG)
(Also on WTTFTG)
Thursday, March 1, 2012
My open letter to WTTW
I've had a considering bug up my ass (lovely image, that) about some of the pseudoscience and medical woo that makes the rounds on PBS programming in general (and WTTW in particular) during pledge drives, so I decided to give them a piece of my mind, such as it is.
Without any further ado, my cranky little letter to the station follows. And it wasn't written in even written in crayon, either. Imagine that.
Good evening:
I recently received a letter soliciting funds from you and would like to give you a reason as to why I would not be willing to become a subscriber at the current time.
Although currently unemployed, I would have been completely willing to contribute if it were not for your poor choice of pledge drive programming. In the past - and in this upcoming pledge drive as well - you have given exceedingly large chunks of your programming time to promoters of pseudoscience and medical quackery such as Deepak Chopra, Gary Null, Mark Hyman, Daniel Amen and others. Considering that you also air quality programming such as _Nova_ and _Nature_, I have to seriously wonder if you ever look into the supposed qualifications of these hucksters.
It seems contradictory that a station supposedly devoted to educational and news programming would somehow allow people to broadcast glorified informercials promoting one form of quackery or another merely becuause your station feels the need to attract attention to your fundraising efforts regardless of the method used. Such a strategy seems rather defeatist considering what your stated purpose is as a public television station.
If you think I'm alone in this sentiment, feel free to read the following article by Dr. Robert Burton, (link provided below) which you may or may not be familiar with. I would also like to point out that I would _gladly_ contribute to WTTW if you changed your policies concerning this segment of your programming, but as for now I cannot do so.
Thank you for your time.
Chris Krolczyk
(The Burton article in question can be found here)
(Also on WTTFTG)
Without any further ado, my cranky little letter to the station follows. And it wasn't written in even written in crayon, either. Imagine that.
Good evening:
I recently received a letter soliciting funds from you and would like to give you a reason as to why I would not be willing to become a subscriber at the current time.
Although currently unemployed, I would have been completely willing to contribute if it were not for your poor choice of pledge drive programming. In the past - and in this upcoming pledge drive as well - you have given exceedingly large chunks of your programming time to promoters of pseudoscience and medical quackery such as Deepak Chopra, Gary Null, Mark Hyman, Daniel Amen and others. Considering that you also air quality programming such as _Nova_ and _Nature_, I have to seriously wonder if you ever look into the supposed qualifications of these hucksters.
It seems contradictory that a station supposedly devoted to educational and news programming would somehow allow people to broadcast glorified informercials promoting one form of quackery or another merely becuause your station feels the need to attract attention to your fundraising efforts regardless of the method used. Such a strategy seems rather defeatist considering what your stated purpose is as a public television station.
If you think I'm alone in this sentiment, feel free to read the following article by Dr. Robert Burton, (link provided below) which you may or may not be familiar with. I would also like to point out that I would _gladly_ contribute to WTTW if you changed your policies concerning this segment of your programming, but as for now I cannot do so.
Thank you for your time.
Chris Krolczyk
(The Burton article in question can be found here)
(Also on WTTFTG)
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Nothing shocking
It's Oklahoma and it's the beginning of a new legislative session. So what happens? Why, an old "education" bill simultaneously attacking the Theory of Evolution and AGW is resurrected from the dead.
Predictably, my guess is that the Cubs won't win the World Series this year, either.
(Also on WTTFTG)
Predictably, my guess is that the Cubs won't win the World Series this year, either.
(Also on WTTFTG)
Monday, February 20, 2012
Two steps forward, one step back (update)
First, the good news: creationist-friendly "education" bills have been tabled in both Indiana and New Hampshire, at least as far as the current legislative sessions are concerned.
The bad news: a bill proposed by Blaine Galliher (R-30th House District) in Alabama seems intended to sneak "religious instruction" (read: exactly what you think it is) into the curriculum statewide by means of awarding elective academic credit to "released time" extracurricular activities. Galliher himself admits what he's trying to accomplish with this bill and is hardly shy about it.
(Update: although NH House Bills 1148 and 1457 were dismissed by the House Education Committee, both still face a vote by the full House. The Concord Monitor has weighed in on the subject in an editorial attacking both bills [direct link here] prior to that vote.)
(Also in WTTFTG)
The bad news: a bill proposed by Blaine Galliher (R-30th House District) in Alabama seems intended to sneak "religious instruction" (read: exactly what you think it is) into the curriculum statewide by means of awarding elective academic credit to "released time" extracurricular activities. Galliher himself admits what he's trying to accomplish with this bill and is hardly shy about it.
(Update: although NH House Bills 1148 and 1457 were dismissed by the House Education Committee, both still face a vote by the full House. The Concord Monitor has weighed in on the subject in an editorial attacking both bills [direct link here] prior to that vote.)
(Also in WTTFTG)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)