Archives for February 2005

February 26, 2005

science ≠ democracy

Panda Thumber Jason Rosenhouse tackles a challenge by Southwest Daily Times writer George Deipenbrock, who was seeking a "good argument" on why "teaching only the evolution theory does not violate the [Kansas] education science mission statement to make all students lifelong learners who can use science to make reasoned decisions. Presenting only one life science theory in classes without alternatives breeds ignorance and violates the mission statement."

Rosenhouse deconstructs the 'balance' assumption/paradigm that Deipenbrock seeks well enough, but later in the response hits the nail cleaner than I've ever seen it hit when he says:

The fact is that every scientific theory presented as orthodoxy in science classes began in exactly the place ID finds itself now: A heresy believed by a handul of people dissatisfied with the orthodox view. In no case, however, did the adherents of the heresy earn their place in the curriculum by appealing directly to schools boards and state legislatures. In every case the heresy won out by producing evidence adequate to convince a large majority of scientists.

As I related in the comments on his site - Here we have a dubious majority (in some cases) who have deemed themselves privileged to contravene a process (scientific method) that has historically acted as the ruling principle for the procedure by which theories are accepted. The selection process is ingrained in the nature of scientific method itself. If we do away with that procedure, we do away with scientific method. The ID propenents invite a "scientific acceptance by majority" proposition that is truly dangerous.

posted by scott pilutik at February 26, 2005 11:50 AM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

February 24, 2005

Hunter S. Thompson followup coverage

First, thanks for the link Roxanne (who has lots of linky goodness there):

Tom Wolfe has a great eulogy in the WSJ, including a great story where Hunter sees fit to utlilize a marine distress signaling device (audible for 20 miles) inside a midtown NY restaurant.

Ralph Steadman channels what he supposes would be Hunter's admonishments from beyond the grave:

Like he is saying, 'Don't fuck up on this one, Ralph! Tell it like you knew it, but don't bad mouth me!! You always knew I was going to do it, so it wasn't 'if' but 'when'. It was my call, Ralph and now you will have to deal with the flood. Apres moi, Ralph- the deluge!! Did you think it was going to be an easy ride? You knew what you were doing when you bought a ticket. You were there most of the time, but towards the end you couldn't handle the heat, but you made the Role of Honor by the skin of your teeth. So long Ralph, and thanks for the laughs. And remember- The Crazy Never Die! Look after Anita'

and, prophetically:

He told me 25 years ago that he would feel real trapped if he didn't know that he could commit suicide at any moment.

AP - statements from family, including revelations that include Hunter's ashes being shot out of a cannon. Son Juan has been quoted as saying that he was both not surprised (since Hunter had spoken of the manner in which he'd take his life at least 10 years ago) and surprised (at the timing).

Some deep metaphors from Jarret McNeill.

John Nichols on Hunter's influence of political journalism

Jackson Kuhl writes one of the more thoughtful eulogies, and shares my concern over what part of his legacy might be left in the dust:

Hunter S. Thompson will be remembered for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. He will be remembered as the sire of "gonzo:" for the bucket hat and the cigarette holder. I wish it wasn't that way. I wish instead he would be remembered for Hell's Angels, a piece of anthropology more insightful than anything Margaret Mead produced. I wish he were remembered not for the guns but for the peacocks he bred and sold to Alaskan golf courses. Over everything, I wish he were remembered for the cracks in the gonzo, for the cloud breaks of lucidity in all the craziness. Because that's the real reason I admired him and why I read practically everything he wrote while sitting in some airport somewhere: Hunter S. Thompson was brilliant. It was his well-read brain and not the intoxicants with which he spliced together the wonderful analogies that he did -- it was why he was able to fashion destinations for his trains of thought.

Hunter's impact on the Aspen area as well as the journalists who wrote for the papers. Aspen Daily News reporter Troy Hooper, who broke the story of Hunter's death, was a close personal friend.

SF Examiner: Sales of all HST books have understandably soared in recent days. "..Las Vegas" is #15 on Amazon and Vintage books has ordered a reprinting.

posted by scott pilutik at February 24, 2005 08:28 PM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

February 21, 2005

RIP HST

The news hit me pretty hard, harder than I'd have expected. And while it's a futile exercise to write about a writer as self-possessed as Hunter S. Thompson, I'll say a few things, because he had a big impact on me.

One can't help but draw a parallel to Hemmingway, who also left on his own terms. In Hunter's own words:

"Perhaps he found what he came for, but the odds are huge that he didn't. He was an old, sick, and very troubled man, and the illusion of peace and contentment was not enough for him - not even when his friends came up from Cuba and played bullfight with him in the Tram. So finally, and for what he must have thought the best of reasons, he ended it with a shotgun."

Hunter's older works seem as fresh today as then. He reinvented journalism, no small feat. But it was his Cassandra-like understanding of American culture that is most relevant today. He made bold predictions, and it's hard to look around today and argue that he was wrong.

Hunter also had a huge sense of generosity that was surprising, and then wasn't when you thought about it. His 'letters' books show him to be a prolific and thoughtful letter writer, both to friends or enemies, and he put as much thought into his letters as his books.

He was also a great writer in a strictly formal sense. And it pained him to not be taken as seriously as he took his own craft.

I'm reminded of a piece in the Great Shark Hunt (and also might have been in ...Campaign Trail, I forget), but it comes back to me now. I'll type it out - perhaps I'll learn something. Hunter used to type out pages of the Great Gatsby to get a feel for Fitzgerald's rhythm.

In the context of journalism, here, we are dealing with a new kind of "lead" - the Symbiotic Trapazoid Quote. The Columbia Journalism Review will never sanction it; at least not until the current editor dies of brain syphillis, and probably not even then.

What?

Do we have a libel suit on our hands?

Probably not, I think, because of nobody in his right mind would take a thing like that seriously - and especially not that gang of senile hags who run the Columbia Journalism Review, who have gone to great lengths in every issue during the past year or so to stress, very heavily, that nothing I say should be taken seriously.

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." George Bernard Shaw sais that, for good or ill, and I only mention it here because I'm pretty goddamn tired of being screeched at by waterheads. Professors are a sour lot, in general, but professors of journalism are especially rancid in their outlook because they have to wake up every morning and be reminded once again of a world they'll never know.

THUMP! Against the door. Another goddamn newspaper, another cruel accusation. THUMP! Day after day, it never ends. ... Hiss at the alarm clock, suck up the headlines along with a beaker of warm Drano then off to the morning class. ... To teach Journalism: Circulation, Distribution, Headline Counting and the classical Pyramid Lead.

Jesus, let's not forget that last one. Mastery of the Pyramid Lead has sustained more lame yoyos than either Congress or the Peacetime Army. Five generations of American journalists have clung to that petrified tit and when the deal went down in 1972 their ranks were so solid that 71% of the newspapers in this country endorsed Richard Nixon for a second term in the white house.

It's hard not to smile at his prescient recognition of the dangers of hackery. The stench from the Armstrong Williams / JimmyJeff Gannon / Etc. cloud must've been unbearable to him. Yesterday's waterheads are now on the government payroll.

Hunter mused on mortality often, so there will be no lack of prophetic quotes will surface in the coming days. And many colorful eulogies.

In his own eulogy of Lionel Olay, whom he christened "The Ultimate Freelancer," Hunter (a title which might more accurately describe himself) wrote:

"I don't even know where he's buried, but what the hell? The important thing was where he lived."

Hunter lived in America and we're all much better for it.

Selah.

posted by scott pilutik at February 21, 2005 11:20 AM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

February 17, 2005

Dover motions to be argued on Feb 28

That would be both the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (which doesn't stand a chance), and the 3rd Party Motion to Intervene (which shouldn't stand a chance, but we'll see).

posted by scott pilutik at February 17, 2005 11:06 AM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

February 10, 2005

The Recent Dover Motions

Just took a peek at the latest Dover motions and I'll try to detangle for those sensible enough to not wade through all this crap. In short, on January 17th, a group of Dover parents filed a motion to intervene [pdf] as defendants (in addition to the already represented defendants, the Dover Area School District ("DASD")).

There are practical non-legal reasons for intervention here - a second set of defendants comes with a second set of lawyers that Plaintiffs must contend with. And all that entails, so I'll refrain from imaginging on your behalf.

In order to successfully intervene in federal court, an intervenor, according to Rule 24, must claim a sufficient legal interest that 1) may be impeded by an adverse outcome, and 2) is not already adequately represented by existing parties.

The intervening parents are arguing that their childrens' First Amendment rights are impacted by their being prevented from learning about Intelligent Design. They rely on two SCOTUS cases for support of this notion - Island Trees v. Pico, 457 US 853 (1982) (not to be confused with the band Pico vs. Island Trees - I'm not even kidding) and Stanley v. Georgia, 394 US 557 (1969) (I'll let Plaintiffs explain why they don't apply below).

Intervenors must also show that their interests are not adequately represented by the current party they seek to side with. Usually, intervenors are plaintiffs, for reasons that are probably plain to see - If my former partner sues a debtor who owed both of us money as a result of a single gone-bad transaction, I need to intervene to protect my interests, because former partner's account of events may not be the same as mine. And Intervenors argue that their interests are significantly different than the DASD, without ever saying why. Their entire argument on this front is one conclusory paragraph. Their only substantive argument, actually, is relegated to a footnote - that Plaintiffs have suggested on television that DASD should capitulate to avoid paying Plaintiff's legal fees, and thus the case might not be settled on its merits. That they'd put their only real argument in a footnote is testimony to their chances of success on this prong.

Before I get to Plaintiff's opposition to the newly proposed defendants, I'll mention that the Thomas More Center (lawyer's for DASD) welcomes this intervention, and filed a short response in support. Their entire argument is less than a page and merely reiterates the Intervenor's main point, that being Pico.

So what does Pico say? Pico held that public schools cannot remove school books simply because they dislike the ideas in them. But Pico only pertains to removal of material from school libraries and has nothing to do with school curricula. The other case the intervenors rely on, Stanley, recognized a right to read obscene material in the privacy of one's own home.

The Plaintiffs opposition response [pdf] (reported lightly here by the York Daily Record), demolishes the weak intervenor arguments. After pointing out the inapplicability of Pico and Stanley, and that there is no recognized First Amendment right to require that their children be taught X instead of Y, it lands the hardest blows on the inadequacy of of representation prong. Key paragraph comes at the end:

Adequacy of representation depends on whether the named party represents the interests of the would-be intervenor, not on whether Mondaymorning quarter-backing might suggest a different litigation strategy. [...] Applicants have not even made a minimal showing of inadequate representation here.

And then the memo gets the real reason this crap is being foisted on the court:

Applicants’ participation as parties would add nothing to this litigation but more lawyers, more schedules to consider, more discovery requests, depositions, and briefs on the same subjects, more time at trial and, as a result, more costs for both the plaintiffs and defendants.

Yep.

posted by scott pilutik at February 10, 2005 06:04 PM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink