The Neat-o Criterion. I see that Gregg Easterbrook is giving people another reason to be all cheesed off at him Not for a one-off blunder, but for one more explication of long-held views. I read Easterbrook only once in a blue moon, so I wasn't familiar with these views until I came across Andrew Northrup staring in speechless wonder, or perhaps slack-jawed horror at an Easterbrook passage.

Being Northrup, of course, his silence is funnier than other people's commentary. But Carl Zimmer* was able to maintain his powers of speech:

I predict more such mangling in the future. For some years now, I've read Easterbrook's occasional pronouncements on evolution and have shaken my head. He likes to call evolutionary biologists fundamentalists, and claims that Intelligent Design is a "sophisticated theory now being argued out in the nation's top universities." (I've visited a fair number of the top biology departments, and I can vouch that Easterbrook's wrong.) It's a "rich, absorbing hypothesis," he crows, "the sort of thing that is fascinating to debate, and might get students excited about biology class to boot."[...]

In both physics and biology, Easterbrook seems to use his own personal neat-o-meter to decide what is a legitimate scientific question. Wouldn't it be neat if there was a hidden spiritual plane just like the planes of string theory? Wouldn't it be neat if you could prove that life was designed? When anyone brings up the flakiness of his musings, Easterbrook claims that mainstream science is just as flaky. Billions of dimensions? Hah! "Yet which idea sounds more implausible--one unseen dimension or billions of them?" (Actually, Gregg, it's more like 10 dimensions.) Rigorous experiments on possible precursors to DNA and cells? Hey, no one was there, so any theory that's fascinating to debate is worth teaching in the classroom. Besides, the kids get sooo bored when you bring out those real papers from peer-reviewed journals.

*Let me put in a plug here for Zimmer's chewy new - begun in September - blog. You may recognize the name of the science writer and former editor of Discover. He's even got a good post on the Schiavo case. ("There are several separate debates here, but people have been jumping back and forth between them as if they were all one." Yup.)

Some further ruminations on the Schiavo case. First, a complaint about the concrete-head ideologues who inevitably infest the debate over any fraught and complex issue, regarding it as a call to brandish the Little Red Book of their particular ideological persuasion and start loudly reciting its contents. I felt compelled to go all spleenville on a commenter on a previous post; you can find that sort of blinkered "kitchen-sinking" all over the blogs, on both sides of the issue. It's poor argumentation, and it annoys me personally because it's an interruption in the flow of debate among people who have a point. (And heaven knows we should all be concerned about making the world more pleasing to moi. I don't like having my tortoise-like mental plodding disturbed. I have to stare dully at a stone for a long while, turning it over and over, waiting for the old neurons to make a connection.)

If you're at all interested in the issue, I recommend again Abstract Appeal for its author's patient and disinterested posting of information on the case.

I have a few notes on the irritations to be encountered elsewhere -

For certain folks who support the court decisions: that people are still arguing about this is not an indication that they are unfamiliar with the history of and reasoning behind the court decision. For the most part, they geddit. Somebody's being dense here, and it's not the other guy. You don't have to repost the basic legal facts several times over on the same coment thread and on as many blogs. Really, you don't.

For certain of the other guys: it's sometimes hard to see what the real foundation of your position is. There seem to be a lot of extraneous arguments flying around, that often undercut positions that, for want of a better word, I'll call pro-life. Is Ms. Schiavo's chance of recovery really relevant to your position? (To the best of my understanding, I'd say both the chance and the relevance are zippo.) Furthermore, are Mr. Schiavo's character or motivation, at bottom, really relevant to your beliefs about how these cases should be handled?

Which brings me to another point - while I admit that some of Mr. Schiavo's actions certainly make him look like a complete jerk, I've been very put off by the occasional descent into rank gossip that goes well beyond casting a cold eye on the known facts of his personal life. We, the public, cannot really know what's going on and what went on in this family. It is very, very easy to make a villain out of someone in the newspapers. (I can think of a couple of people whose opinions could do the job nicely on my own character, if I should ever be caught up in such extraordinary circumstances.) Even if he really did make that comment about the bitch not being dead yet, is that an indication of intent, or a fair sample of the rough things likely to be spoken by sorely beset human beings? I've thought worse things in much less trying circumstances. Yet I like to think I'm not a particularly vicious person, and that my often quite ugly thoughts and words do not reflect a will to ugly action.

Lex Communis has a worthwhile post that lights on some of the above concerns, and also articulates my main question about these cases:

The Court does discuss a presumption in favor of life and a clear and convincing evidence standard, but its actual decision reverses these presumptions. The "clear and convincing" evidence is not the testimony of witnesses, which is oral and appears to be all over the map. The clear and convincing evidence is simply the trial court's inference that any person in a persistent vegetative state for ten years would probably wish to permit a "natural death process to take its course." Not only is this evidence fictitious, it has to be fictional because the Court is determining what Terry's intent today would be based upon her current condition.[...]

Of course, an inference that a person in a ten year persistent vegetative state would desire death means that there is no presumption in favor of life. The fact of a ten year persistent vegetative state is used to infer a desire to die. Under this logical regime, the court would certainly require affirmative evidence - evidence other than the obvious fact that the person was a long term vegetable - to overcome the inference, evidence like statements to the contrary or a living will. What this inference means is that the presumption is in favor of death because the other facts - long term vegetative state, continuous nursing care, idignities suffered by the patient - are inherent in the condition of the patient without any regard to any evidence of actual intent or desire.

Emphasis in original. The post covers a lot of ground, all interesting.

Lost empires. Angie Schultz and Natalie Solent have been waxing nostalgic over beloved childhood book series. The content discussed sounds eerily familiar (Pigeon's blood rubies! Volcanos! Canyon de Chelly!), but I don't recognize the book covers. Perhaps there was a similar series, or perhaps all producers of childrens' "cool history and science facts" series know what kids want. I do have fond memories of a book titled The Planet We Live On, which I checked out of the county library branch at every opportunity and kept for as long as possible. There were very cool things in that book, illustrated in a style that worked irresistible enchantment on a young brain.

I do specifically remember having (or borrowing) a wonderful Time-Life series, in particular the volumes on mathematics, human evolution, explorers, the human body, and mountains. Ah, the mountains. I used to look up from that book, as I sat about 7 feet about sea level, and gaze across the endless Karst landscape of my native state, dreaming of climbing the Andes and the Himalayas. (I discovered in adulthood, alas, that even the Rockies would try my wimpy oxygen-exchanging capacities.) I was delighted to discover that the spouse had the same sorts of memories. "Yeah," I said, "there was one picture in that human body book that used to scare the hell out of me everytime I looked at it." (So I was always looking at it, natch.) He knew exactly what I was referring to. "Oh yeah, that one - the black background with the nerves and the staring eyeballs." That one indeed. It was some lady's carefully dissected and displayed nervous system. I wonder if modern children would be too blasé to find that as freaky-deaky as we did.

Angie has a wonderful passage on the questions and confused theories that a child's mind is compelled to spin when adrift with incomplete information. Hers concerned the structure of the earth; I had a similar experience with chromosomes and DNA. We tend to forget that there must be great lacunae in a young child's store of basic physical facts. In my case, I had somehow managed to acquire knowledge of the existence of chromosomes before I had the barest notion of cells. I saw the microphotographs, I knew how many chomosomes I had, I read about the genes. I knew all us living creatures had the stuff - but I didn't know where it was. I remember puzzling to myself, "Well, where are they? Stored somewhere near my heart? In my gut? Under my brain? Like, what exactly do you cut into to find the chromosomes?"

To the best of my knowledge, I have managed to sort out that particular mystery. I'd like to say I heed its lesson when trying to explain things to children. (I try, but have to admit that otherwise I'm simply a terrible teacher. Fortunately the keed's father is a natural pedagogue; much more patient.)

See also Angie's next post down on the Dolorous Circus. It resonates because I always found the circuses and fairs of childhood disturbing and depressing, in exactly the way she describes. (I remember my brother and I running into the yard and scrambling up our "hiding tree" at the threat of a trip to the circus.)

The Modern Housewife - "[T]he domestic goddess living a life of affluent leisure filled with lattes at Starbucks, Pilates classes, meetings with the feng shui consultant and romantic evenings with her rich, handsome and devoted husband."

Yeah, I'd say that pretty much covers it. 'Cept they forgot the blog. A blog is a must-have for the modern pampered housewife.

Fright Night at McDonald's. I usually head over to Bruce Rolston's in a serious mood, for the sharp and thoughtful commentary, and also to keep reminding myself of how little history I know, both via the main blog and the Flitters bulletin board. But I did laugh out loud this morning at his description of his encounter with David Suzuki. (Not at his social discomfort, of course. The other stuff.)

Rules, Ghouls, Tools. "The way down to hell is easy. The gates of black Dis stand open night and day. But to retrace one's steps and escape to the upper air - that is toil, that is labour." (Aeneid VI,126)

Here are a some law blogs offering interesting commentary on the Schiavo case: LawMuse, Abstract Appeal, and Lex Communis.

What strikes (and disturbs) me in looking over the the legal points discussed is how free-and-easy the determination of intent seems to be, in an area where it ought to be quite strict. The default is on the wrong side. Without having to impugn Michael Schiavo's motives or character at all,* I would have thought that the objective circumstances of the case would result in an automatic "Sorry dude, no can do. We may be making the wrong decision here, but this is a very difficult and fraught area where we cannot be too vigilant in preventing abuse." Instead I see "Oh yeah, I know what she wanted. S'alright? S'alright!"

I'm bemused by the suggestion (which you can glean, for example, from the commentary here) that interference in the enactment of any "advance directive" is a slippery slope far more dangerous than the slippery slope related to more expansive and aggressive interpretations of "right-to-die". It's particularly bemusing in this case where there is no advance directive, and where the inference of intent is so highly questionable.

Has anyone else noticed that the phrase "culture of death" seems to have slipped out of the bounds of commentary from religious people and into secular usage? (And no, that Virgil quote is not a reference to Ms. Schiavo's condition.)

*I note that Abstract Appeal indicates that there is no insurance and little remaining settlement money in play, contrary to speculation.

The first step is acknowledging you have a problem. Is it a sign of an unhealthy obsession with a topic that one feels compelled to add a comment to a post that has rolled off the main page?

Cluck. My that's sad. Only thirteen and already so jaded and worn out they need performance enhancing drugs.

...but they're not as bad off as these guys. (Latter via Noah Millman.)

Not 'nuf said. I can't decide who's being more irritating here: the letter writer with his peculiar scrupulosity about visual, er, "indulgence", and his rhetorical ineptitude - larding a discussion-worthy point with the extraneous and the pompous; or Instantman who, in classic Usenet dork style, ignores the interesting point and gloms peevishly onto the extraneous. (Or me, for producing that preceding clunker of a sentence.)

I guess I could cut both sides some slack. That letter is iiiiiritating. On the other hand, I grant that it's very hard to reference the G, the B, and the T without sounding like a pompous ass. But he could have just shut up after "is this (the woman in the red bikini) all that the United States of America has to offer the world? Is this picture what America is all about?" On the other other hand, should one in any way be encouraging the revival of crazed blogospheric bikini wars?

Ectoplasmosis. You expect to hear certain grr-inducing things on NPR, but I wasn't expecting the Learning Channel Moment provided this morning on my run to the store. 'Twas the tail end of an interview with the author Anne Rice, who was explaining how that slimy ho John "Dead Man Talking" Edwards was able to contact her late spouse. You see, John knew about things he couldn't possibly have known about otherwise! Jaysus, lady. Maybe she should have a chat with this lady.

Fear and Panic. Particularly nice astronomy picture of the day today, which also led me to the host of beautiful images at Johannes Schedler's Panther Observatory. Click around and enjoy.

Canoe-dling. Montreal canoes, that is. Captain Heinrichs kindly sent along a report on the boat that made Canada great. Well, the boat that made fur-trading what it was, anyway, and which has been lovingly and accurately recreated. I also enjoyed the glimpse into certain aspects of Canuck popular culture - I must confess ignorance of the principals mentioned therein, though:

Stompin' Tom Connors sang that "Big Joe Mufferaw paddled into Mattawa all the way from Ottawa in just one day."

Alas, the writer, of dubious surname, opines immediately that "[t]his is doubtful".

Still. I wonder if bear fat stinks. Does the spruce gum take the edge off?

UPDATE: Speaking of canoes, Annoying Old Guy provided a link in the comments about racing concrete canoes. (Note the contestants from Montreal!) I put it up here since I've turned off html in the comments until I get around to messing with the anti-spam plugins. Sorry about that.

UPDATE II: And get yer Stompin' Tom right here.

The real olde sod. If you're unfamiliar with the old Out-of-Africa vs. Multiregional debate on modern human origins, you might enjoy this treatment in the current edition of American Scientist. It contains fascinating info on the recent discovery of the oldest yet known Homo sapiens fossils (between 154k and 160k years old), in addition to a discussion of the derivation of mtDNA lineages.

Odd coincidence? Or karmic retribution? I have noticed that the 100% fall-off in telemarketing harrassment (somebody must be respecting the do-not-call list) segued neatly into the beginning of harrassment by blog-comment spammers.

Lipoprotein envy. A couple of weeks or so ago, I came across a blog entry wherein the author introduced and defined a German word that meant "sorrow felt at another's good fortune"; in other words, the lexical mirror-image of schadenfreude. To my discredit, I cannot remember the blog or even the word. A shame, because the opportunity to use it arose today. From an article describing research on the relation between longevity and the possession of the mongo version of a certain cholesterol-carrying molecule:

The gene may be one reason why some centenarians in Dr. Barzilai's study have lived to 100, even though they were overweight or ate badly.

"I hate to say it," he said. "but I think it's true. If you have this gene, you can smoke and you can be fat and you can not exercise. This sounds to me terrible."

Human garbage update. So the scum are attacking blogs far and wide. (See preceding post.) Lots of useful info, tips, and links here. (See previous day's posts here, also.) But salvation, or at least hope and comfort, is at hand. (Thanks to Andrea Harris for the latter link and some good MT advice. And to El Fleck, of course, who's been on the job all day helping me out with the blog.)

Time to take out the garbage. Anybody else being harrassed in their comment sections by a piece of filth signing itself "Lolita"? It's been attempting to post obscene images, but is none too competent with the html. This incompetence will also muck up your comment and archive code. (Easy to clean up by removing the offending comments, however, and banning the small range of IPs the jackass is using.)

Considering the alleged nature of the images it's trying to post (under-age pr0n), I'm wondering if any action can be taken. At least, I'm assuming that's the nature of the images, judging by the website url the idiot left, and the image-descriptions. I'm certainly not going to take a look. I also assume no one would be stupid enough to attempt to advertise real u-a pr0n like this, so there is probably no legal basis for a complaint. Any suggestions?

Listen up! The audio file of the latest hearing on Kennewick Man is now available.

(More Kennewick links here.)

Mystery of Kennewick Man Solved! I was attempting (ha ha) to read a German magazine's article on Kennewick Man. As you can see if you follow the link, it is illustrated with an image of the well-publicized skull reconstruction. One of the magazine's readers finally made the connection that solves the mystery of K-man's anomalous skull features:

aber es ist wohl so, dass Jean-Luc von "Q" in die Vergangenheit geschickt wurde und da das Kontinuum anschließend von den Borg assimiliert wurde, konnte Jean-Luc nicht mehr zurückkehren. Zu sehen wird dies in StarTrek 11 sein... Gruß an alle Treckies

The dictionary-in-hand translation, graciously corrected by Thomas Nephew (though I am responsible for the remaining clunkiness):

But what clearly must have happened was that Jean-Luc was sent into the past by "Q", and since the Continuum was subsequently assimiliated by the Borg, Jean-Luc could no longer return. You'll see all of this in Star Trek 11... Greetings to all Treckies

On a more serious note, Friends of America's Past has kindly alerted that they hope to have an audio version of the 9th Circuit hearings up today or tomorrow. I'll keep you updated.

(More Kennewick links here.)

The undead. So Carey Gage is sassing me for his being asterisk'd as a memorial link. Well now, what was I supposed to think? That 16 May post of his was there as the latest post for ever so long - and I ain't satisfied that that that 9 June post was posted anywhere near 9 June. I could swear I looked at that blog long after 9 June and "Friday, May 16, 2003" was still shimmering at the top of the page. I say I'm dubious, very dubious. But he has been duly un-memorialized.

Perhaps I need more than just the categories of living blogs and dead blogs. (As perhaps I should give Alex del Castillo's memorial link a special star; his was my very first blogroll link, so I'll always remember him fondly, whatever he's up to now.) There are those blogs that got born and remained among the living, there are blogs where posting is regular for a time but which are then are put into stasis for relatively long periods, only to wander out of the morgue unexpectedly. Zombie blogs, maybe. (Like you, Gage.) Then there are jokers like Goldstein who periodically update their "under construction" pages and then no doubt giggle satanically about the bozos who keep hopefully checking back. Somebody ought to sue the bastard. Finally, perhaps as a subcategory of the Zombie we have the Schrödinger's Cat blog - blogger simultaneously blogging and not blogging; can't describe the status of the blog 'til you click on your bookmark. (I sometimes thought that of Diane E., por ejemplo.)

I've occassionally toyed with the idea of a completely perverse blog roll, consisting entirely of bloggers I consider to be ultramaroons, half-wits, over-rated hacks or mentally ill. (Not necessarily exclusive categories.) Wouldn't that be fun? An annual blogosphere-wide perverse blogroll day? What's that you say, you with my blog on your roll? It's already being done?...

Golly, I never thought of that. I love the smell of obtuseness in the morning. (Or perhaps it's just the habit of throwing in links to posts that one hasn't actually read.)

But one more time, just for the merry hell of it:

There is a distinction between people's personal reasons for marrying and society's reasons for instituting and regulating marriage. This is not a subtle distinction.

It does not logically follow that a person capable of recognizing this distinction is necessarily anti-SSM.

The children! The children! Now, I'll agree that having students team up, research, and then debate a current legal issue is an excellent pedagogical approach. Unfortunately, the kids in this classroom, though they may be learning debating skills, have apparently been misled about what the gravamen of the case actually is. If this article is accurate, they've been given only the distorted, PC version. (Yeah, I know. They're only eighth-graders. But it's never too early for the rigorous approach. Or the truth.)

(More Kennewick links here.)