Dover over-and-out, Kansas down-and-out

The folks who voted to change the curriculum to include ID were swept out of office yesterday. Meanwhile, in the flattest state, evolution is just a theory.


[hat tip: PZ Myers]

what a difference a day makes

Congrats to Jeff Kingsbury, who resoundingly defeated Ira Knight for a spot on the Olympia city council. All the races were landslides:

Karen Messmer 4,881 69.73%
Michael Normoyle 2,117 30.24%

Position 5
Jeff Kingsbury 4,648 62.87%
Ira Knight 2,745 37.13%

Position 6
Doug Mah 4,939 65.92%
Phyllis Booth 2,550 34.04%

Position 7
Joe Hyer 5,366 81.64%
John Griogair Bell 1,205 18.33%

In other news, I-912, which would have repealed gas tax increases, appears to have failed, as the No's have increased to 53%. Both medical malpractice initiatives are failing by widening margins. Performance audits are in, smoking is out. The monorail is a vanishing dream. David Goldstein is gloating over Ron Sims' solid victory. Sound Politics' Matt Rosenberg sees the silver lining.

Huzzah for the initiative process. Even in an off year, elections are fun.

Update: Follow the statewide vote counts here.

election night in Washington state

Alas, my blogging couldn't stem the tide. I-901 passed by a huge margin (as predicted).

Supporters of the initiative raised more than $1.5 million — much of it from the American Cancer Society, with contributions from individuals and groups like the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids and the American Lung Association of Washington. The small, but vocal, opposition raised less than $27,000.

More to follow.

Update:

Sure bets
Initiative 336, 58% No
Initiative 901, 64% No

Too close to call
Initiative 912, 51% No
Initiative 330, 51% No

the soul, object of their concern

Geez, people. Lighten up.

this site is very very RUBISH!
when i wanted the names of Jesus's
12 disciples you gave me names like cuck there was not one of them with the real disciples names like Paul or Jon.i mey never come on your web page again!


hell is going to be a very painful place........you should think twice before mocking the disciples.


Jesus died on the cross for your sins and that is how you repaid him, by mocking the disciples. The real names of the 12 disciples are Peter, James son of Zebedee, John, Simon the Zealot, Andrew, Philip, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Bartholomew, and, of course, Judas Iscariot.

surreality TV

Weird, weird, weird.

In some ways, though, the biggest winner was the viewer, particularly those who have seen real presidential debates where rules are negotiated and statements are carefully crafted to stay on point, get out the message and drive home emotions through words that have been carefully tested in focus groups. This episode, though scripted, seemed more real than the actual debates. It showed what a real debate might be if candidates ever decided to risk being themselves and confronting the issues and each other. Odd as it may seem, it gives viewers a basis for comparing actual presidential debates and what is possible.

"And they load them up into one or two apartments and they take a family of five and pay them $1,000 a week..."

I don't shop at Wal-Mart. Many reasons.

One more.

neurofibromatosis: a recent advance

From NewScientist:

Neurofibromatosis type I (NF1) is a condition caused by a single gene defect that affects more than 1 in 3000 people. The defect is either inherited or caused by a spontaneous mutation, which can then be inherited.

NF1 causes developmental cognitive disabilities in up to half of those with the defective gene, including deficits in memory, motor coordination and spatial learning. It can also cause attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Previous mouse studies show the cognitive deficits result from the mutant gene causing over-production of a molecule called p21Ras. This leads to an imbalance between the signals that activate brain cells and those that inhibit them, creating problems in the cell-to-cell communication needed for learning.

Neurobiologist Alcino Silva and colleagues at the University of California, Los Angeles, US, tried a commonly prescribed cholesterol-lowering statin drug – called lovastatin – on adult mice with the NF1 mutation. In a series of experiments to test their cognitive functions, the team showed that the drug reversed the learning disabilities and brought the cognitive functions of the mice up to normal levels.

Three clinical trials are already FDA-approved.

sparring partners

I'm not blogging here because I'm busy over there, talkin' 'bout ideology in the Air Force and the real reason movies move us.

rockslide closes I-90

Our speech and debate team didn't go to the Whitman Tournament in Walla Walla this year. Oh, the fun we missed.

Dover over. ID down, but not out.

It was the beginning of the end. But who could have foreseen the sheer inanity that would follow? The lies? The bloviating?

Now that the arguments have wrapped up, as PZ Myers points out,

There are two things on trial here: the intent and behavior of the Dover school board, and the appropriateness of including Intelligent Design creationism in the schools. The former has been so outrageously, obviously bad that the judge could rule exclusively on that, disregarding the larger issue of Designism, and produce a narrowly limited decision that isn't much use in keeping the IDists in check elsewhere.

Just like after Edwards v. Aguillard, IDers will bounce back with a freshly-minted strategy, new buzzwords, and a gaggle of new voices and faces to try and undo the damage caused by the Thomas More Law Center.

little-known Samuel Alito

a decorabilia exclusive

I've been reading through Alito's 4000 cases, the work of a fifteen-year term on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Out of that vast output, I've come up with the three that truly define his character as a human and his philosophy as a jurist.


Frederick v. Tappan (2001)

Tappan had created genetically-modified banana trees, which Frederick claimed were transferring virulent DNA to his neighboring orchard. The orchards happened to lie across state lines, so the relevant FDA regulations, which had been written a century previous, were challenged on constitutional grounds. In a footnote to the majority opinion, Alito wrote, "I don't like your peaches. They are full of stones. I like bananas because they have no bones. Don't give me tomatoes. Can't stand ice cream cones. I like bananas because they have no bones."


Bowie v. Ice (1990)

In Alito's first case in his 3rd Circuit career, the landmark copyright dispute in which David Bowie accused then-megastar Vanilla Ice of stealing the music to "Under Pressure" for the hit "Ice Ice Baby," Alito dissented. Siding with Ice, Alito thundered, "This lyrical mastery represents a new paradigm in musical expression. Though the musical accompaniment is markedly similar, the freshest words, the zigging and zagging bass line, the hippity-hop beat put this song in a class by itself."


Pineville v. Hanbury Baptist (1996)

The church in question put up a nativity scene that encroached on city property. Alito's decision, which stood when the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, was written entirely in the following limerick.

The warrants for taking down Jesus
Were entirely torn into slices.
Since the plaintiffs are wrong
And the precedent's strong,
This court will rule stare decisis.

rain and misery

We battled back, but it just wasn't enough. Down 31-0 in the third quarter, Capital rang up three touchdowns in a loser-out playoff contest versus the Everett Seagulls--but that was it, as a late interception sealed the Gulls' first state berth in over two decades.

Kudos to a Capital team that never quit in a season where a raft of injuries would have made for easy excuses.

tossed in space

David Warmflash and Benjamin Weiss have a great summary of some recent advances in astrobiology--what's known, what's speculative, what's wildly speculative.

the thoughtful traditionalist conservative

Hey, Oregon, listen up as Dale Carpenter finishes his week-long rebuttal to Maggie Gallagher in convincing fashion.

In the end it comes down to this: Given that gay families exist, and are not going to be eliminated or converted by any means acceptable to the American people, what is to be done with them? Is it better for society that they be shunted aside, marginalized, ostracized, made to feel alien to traditional values and institutions? Or is it better that they be included in the fabric of American life, including the most important social institution we have for encouraging, recognizing, and reinforcing loving families? I can see why a sexual liberationist, or a radical of any stripe, might say, “Keep them out.” I have never been able to understand how a conservative could say that....

Recently I came across this passage, written in 1994, that I had saved. I quote it here because I think it expresses something pretty universal about human commitment. It was written by someone, deeply in love, who looked forward to a future life of marriage:

I want a silver dipping bowl with our names engraved on it. I want to send out invitations and have a joyous occasion on which to see old friends I haven't seen in years. I want someone to throw bachelor parties for me and showers to mark the end of my celibate life. I want to spend time choosing the place for the ceremony, and the colors for the tuxes. I want people to come up to me and tell me how happy they are for me, and give me best wishes for my bright future. I want to cry as I proclaim my love for you in front of all whom I hold dear and I want you to cry as you do the same. I want my mother to cry. I want my father and brothers to cry. I want to ride away in a chauffeur-driven limousine to a place where I can kiss you to the clanking of forks against champagne glasses. I want to have cake smashed in my face and I want to dance the dance of succession with my husband, and then my in-laws. I want the rights, the responsibilities, the privileges, the good times and the bad times and the love that goes with the institution of marriage. I want to publicly commit to the person with whom I have fallen in love and want to spend the rest of my days with.

I want to savor growing together. I want to feel the support of your love when I am blue. I want to be the shoulder you cry on when things go badly. I want to laugh at your jokes and smile with pride at your accomplishments. I want to snuggle up next to you at night and feel the security of your presence. I want to feel the day brighten when you return from work and greet me with a kiss. I want a history with you. I want my life with you.

It was written by one of those traditionalists, you know the type. One of those people who, foolishly and romantically and against all the evidence to the contrary and all the derision heaped on marriage by our culture and its cynics, still thinks marriage is worthwhile, still a beautiful and noble thing.

It was written by my partner to me.

society crumbles; news at 11

Yesterday Washington's Supreme Court recognized the right of de facto parents in a landmark ruling.

The decision, which significantly impacts parenting laws in the state, may also signal the direction the high court will take in deciding a gay-marriage lawsuit pending before it — a prospect that delights same-sex marriage advocates and horrifies opponents.

In the 7-2 decision hailed by gays as an acknowledgement of the complexity of families, the court recognized what it called a "de-facto or psychological parent" under the state's common law as one who "in all respect functions as the child's actual parent."

Woe, woe, woe! Or not.

Opponents pointed out a possible consequence of the law:

But Brian Krikorian, attorney for Britain, said the ruling undermines parents, particularly single parents, by taking away their authority to decide what's in the best interest of their own children.

"This decision puts every single parent on notice: Anytime you allow another adult to assist in raising your child, you could potentially be giving that person 50-percent authority over your child."

A tad overblown. The criteria for parentage of the appeal case in question:

(1) the natural or legal parent consented to and fostered the parent-like relationship; (2) the petitioner and the child lived together in the same household; (3) the petitioner assumed obligations of parenthood without expectation of financial compensation; and (4) the petitioner has been in a parental role for a length of time sufficient to have established with the child a bonded, dependent relationship parental in nature.

The ruling upheld this basic construct:

Critical to our constitutional analysis here, a threshold requirement for the status of the de facto parent is a showing that the legal parent 'consented to and fostered' the parent-child relationship. See supra p. 34. The State is not interfering on behalf of a third party in an insular family unit but is enforcing the rights and obligations of parenthood that attach to de facto parents; a status that can be achieved only through the active encouragement of the biological or adoptive parent by affirmatively establishing a family unit with the de facto parent and child or children that accompany the family.

You can't just waltz in on a family and declare yourself a de facto parent, or assume you have parental responsibility because you run a day care.

The opposition wasn't exactly rationally responding:

The Rev. Joseph Fuiten, pastor of Cedar Park Assembly of God Church in Bothell, decried Thursday's decision.

"There's no such thing as de-facto parent; you're either a parent or you aren't.... They've changed the definition of parents today; they'll change the definition of marriage tomorrow. Who do these people think they are?"

They're judges. They interpret the law. If he'd read the law, he'd know why they ruled this way. "You're either a parent or you aren't" has never been a matter of simple biology. (Ironically, this is the sort of reductionism traditionalists usually denounce.) It's about something much, much greater: love. Which, incidentally, is a verb.


[read the dissent here]

money talk

Ryan Wilson disses overpaid NFL "stars." Priceless:

In 2004, the Texans had the third-highest total payroll in the NFL ($97.5 million), and 19 percent of it was devoted to one of the worst offensive lines in football. Carr might have had more success stacking the $12 million between him and the defense and praying that the sight of free money would at least allow him to complete a five-step drop.

ye cannot serve God and mammon

Unless you're Jay Sekulow.


[hat tip: Ed Brayton]

a class act

Got this in email from Netflix.

You are receiving this notice because you were a paid Netflix member before January 15, 2005. Under a proposed class action settlement, you may be eligible to receive a free benefit from Netflix.

A class action lawsuit entitled Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. was filed in San Francisco Superior Court (case number CGC-04-434884) on September 23, 2004. The lawsuit alleges that Netflix failed to provide "unlimited" DVD rentals and "one day delivery" as promised in its marketing materials. Netflix has denied any wrongdoing or liability. The parties have reached a settlement that they believe is in the best interests of the company and its subscribers.

Netflix will provide eligible subscribers with the benefit described below, if the settlement is approved by the Court.

* Current Netflix Members: If you enrolled in a paid membership before January 15, 2005 and were a member on October 19, 2005, you are eligible to receive a free one-month upgrade in service level. For example, if you are on the 3 DVDs at-a-time program, you will be upgraded to the 4 DVDs at-a-time program for one month. There will be no price increase during the upgraded month. (If you cancel your membership after October 19, 2005 and before you receive the upgrade, you will have to rejoin to get the upgrade.)


* Former Netflix Members: If you enrolled in a paid membership before January 15, 2005 but were not a member on October 19, 2005, you are eligible to receive a free one-month Netflix membership on your choice of the 1, 2 or 3 DVDs at-a-time unlimited program. (If you rejoin after October 19, 2005 but before you receive the free one-month membership, you will receive a credit for the free month when it becomes available.)

These benefits will be provided after the Effective Date as defined in the Settlement Agreement. Your eligibility for the benefits is based on your membership status as of October 19, 2005. The full Settlement Agreement is available for review at www.netflixsettlement.com.

You have four options to respond to the proposed settlement. You have until December 28, 2005 to make your decision:

Option 1. Sign Up For The Benefit As Part Of The Settlement
To receive the benefit, you must complete the online registration process no later than February 17, 2006, at www.netflixsettlement.com. By signing up for the benefit, you waive your right to bring a separate lawsuit against Netflix concerning the Released Claims (as defined in the Settlement Agreement found at www.netflixsettlement.com).

Option 2. Do Nothing
If you do not wish to receive the benefit, do nothing. You will not receive the benefit but will remain a Class Member. You therefore waive your right to bring a separate lawsuit against Netflix concerning the Released Claims.

Option 3. Exclude Yourself From the Class
To exclude yourself from the class, you must mail a letter by December 28, 2005. By excluding yourself, you preserve your right to bring a lawsuit against Netflix concerning the Released Claims. However, you will not get the benefit described above.

Option 4. Make An Objection To The Settlement In Court
To object to the settlement, you must file legal papers in the San Francisco Superior Court by January 5, 2006.

To receive your benefit, you must register by February 17, 2006 as described above in Option 1. You will not receive any other reminders to register for the benefit. If you have registered for the benefit and your eligibility is confirmed, then you will be provided additional information by email following the Effective Date as defined in the Settlement Agreement.

After the benefit period ends, the new or upgraded level of service will continue automatically (following an email reminder) and you will be billed accordingly, unless you cancel or modify your subscription. You can cancel or modify your subscription at any time.

In addition, if the settlement is approved by the Court, Netflix will modify portions of its Terms of Use. Netflix also will refer to its Terms of Use in certain advertisements.

To get more information about the settlement and procedures, and to take options 1, 3 or 4, visit www.netflixsettlement.com.

You know what I'm gonna do? Nothing. Because it's frivolous litigation, a waste of time and money for all concerned.

So Netflix promises "unlimited" rentals. That doesn't mean "infinite" rentals--just that the only limitations are circumstantial. So they promise delivery in a day. Since they're run through the US Postal Service, you'd think people could cut a little slack.

I'm a cheap bastard, and I qualify for the settlement, but I refuse to accept compensation. I love Netflix, and I'm not about to take advantage of some ill-conceived, insultingly stupid lawsuit.

before I go

Last night, older Mercedes hardtop convertible, vanity plate.

WDFWDIR

Any clue what it means?

off to see a wizard

Tomorrow I'm heading down to the Vancouver Hilton, chaperoning a gaggle of high school students through a presentation by JL Titchener on the long-term developmental effects of early trauma. I'll have a recap the evening after.

Update: Okay, so I totally misheard the last name. It's actually Martin Teicher. Off I go.