Observed at 0-dark-30, 20 October, at the following suspect URL: http://www.nytimes.com/services/xml/rss/nyt/HomePage.xml
Dawkins on the 'God Hypothesis': "At best superfluous, at worst, unparsimonious."
Colbert: "Do both of those mean you surrender?"
Okay, it makes all the legal sense in the world. If you die after an unfavorable verdict at trial and don't have the opportunity to appeal your conviction, the legal system should expunge the whole thing, undo the indictment as if it never happened, and make you innocent until proven guilty again. And by gosh, that's just the kind of absolution the dear departed Kenny Boy got from a Texas judge today. See the whole story in the Washington Post.
Fortunately, now that Bush has signed the Torture Bill into law, once the Democrats take control, we can just declare any future Ken Lays enemies of the state and beat the
crap truth out of them.
A-and what does this mean for poor, fucked-over Lee Harvey Oswald? He never even got a chance to go to trial, but Geralds Ford and Posner found him guilty. Will no Texas judge stand up for him?
Now let me get this straight. The centerpiece of No Child Left Behind is standardized testing, but it is okay to relax testing standards when you can't drum up enough recruits for an unpopular war. According to the notoriously liberal rag USA Today, over 2,000 of this year's recruits performed below the levels that would have been previously required on basic aptitude tests.
The Army said all the recruits with low scores had received high school diplomas. In a written statement, the Army said good test scores do not necessarily equate to quality soldiers. – USA Today
In an unrelated story, the Army changed their tag line from "An Army of One," to "Army Strong" (Thanks, McCann, who get $200 million a year for the campaign!)
Perhaps the old tag line seemed a bit, well, premonitory.
And it's not just lower test standards. Drug users, criminals, gang members, and skinheads area all welcome. See also the SF Chronicle story, "U.S. Recruiting Misfits"
As usual, the liberal media has it all wrong. The new online world is a very different place, and congresscritters have adapted with startling speed, developing a lexicon of shorthand to make communications more secure. What could be better than a code that looks like instant-message sex?
Those inspired truth-seekers at WhiteHouse.org dug up a compendium of these congressional text-message translations -- you'll see just how hard our representatives were working when you thought they were just jacking off.
Message: "How often do U work out?"
Translation: If there is a last minute vote, please contact me via my pager as I may be out of cell phone range.
From the really,
Also, if you are into merch, check out their new Foley gear. (Thanks, Ka!)
An unsolicited newsletter from the Southcoast Hospital group showed up yesterday, with the startling headling: "The Dangers of Sharing a Bed with Your Baby." Co-sponsored by the Bristol county DA´s office (and yes, he's running for re-election...) Southcoast sees its mission to prevent tragedy and "educate people about the dangers of bed sharing."
Now I've followed the literature on this, and while there are clearly risks associated with co-present factors and SIDS (adult bedding materials, siblings in bed, overheating, etc.), I'd like to hear Southcoast and the DA explain the nature of the specific risk associated with the practice
Even the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (which Southcoast links to) merely makes safety suggestions in their NICH bed-sharing FAQ.
So where's the fear coming from? The Consumer Product Safety Commission (which presumably wants to forestall any action against bedding manufacturers) and Southcoast (which clearly wants to be on the record as warning people.) Why the hell the Bristol DA is sticking his nose into a medical, family issue is beyond me.
None of want kids to get hurt. But SIDS kills 2,000 babies a year; let's attack the root cause (is there anyone who doesn't practice Back To Sleep yet?) and not some peripheral factor which would end up putting more kids farther from their parents.
(Thanks, Julie, for catching my typos!)
Nice reporting on the widening troubles at the Department of Ed, where their "Reading First" program looks more and more like "campaign donors first," in a billion-dollar boondoggle contravening the stated aim of the program to base itself on scientific research.
Via the Washington Post
"In fact, the vast majority of the 4,800 Reading First schools have now adopted one of the five or six top-selling commercial textbooks, even though none of them has been evaluated in a peer-reviewed study against a control group. Most of the schools also use the same assessment program, the same instructional model, and one of three training programs developed by Reading First insiders -- with little research backing."
The (now resigned) program director, Chris Doherty, crows about strong-arming states into using his pet materials. "This program bashing is best done off or under the major radar screens."
Yeah, now that's just the kind of openness and concern for children that the Bush administration brought to Washington.
Jack and I were playing that I was his household robot, and like most media sf scenarios, I went into "tickle" mode and couldn't be stopped. "I pressed your off switch," he yelled.
"Negative," I replied in my robot voice. "I cannot be shut off. I am using my secret power supply, an energy crystal that fell to earth, presumably in a meteorite."
"Dad," Jack said scornfully, "We got rid of that energy crystal in the middle of season three."
Spent this morning reading through them, and the accompanying profiles and crime details, all on the Texas Department of Criminal Justice site. It is both gutwrenchingly sad and utterly chilling. There is clearly no doubt about guilt in some of these cases, and the crimes are hideous. But to be the State, to stand there and execute a human being?
And one point which the Guardian story makes minor mention of – the level of education. I didn't check all 376, but a random sample would put the average offender at probably a mid-to-late high school education. The one standout who had two years of community college cooked up a murder-for-hire scheme that would only have worked on some '50s crime drama.
But it certainly is simpler to execute folks than teach them. At least for Texas.