So Nancy Pearcey, who will be lecturing on intelligent design at OWC this week, believes that we should teach intelligent design alongside evolution because “religious based perspectives are disenfranchised in the public school system … We have to give a voice to all of the major groups … to treat them as if what they bring to the table could possibly be true.”

In the first place, “religious based perspectives” are supposed to be disenfranchised when it comes to presenting religious beliefs in class as truth (which is the primary goal of ID). That’s called the First Amendment.

In the second place, creationism and ID CAN’T possibly be true: They’ve been disproven over and over, there is no evidence in their favor. So no, we don’t “have to” treat them as if they’re possibly true, any more than we have to treat flat-earth theory or people who think the moon landing was faked as if they might have a point.

Now, here’s a thought exercise: There are several serious historians who believe Jesus was merely a first-century Jewish prophet who ran around predicting an imminent apocalypse would happen that some of his listeners would be alive to witness (hence his push on giving away possessions, turning the other cheek–with an imminent End Time, becoming godly mattered more than anything else). And, obviously, he was wrong (this is not a view I share, but that’s irrelevant to my point).

Does anyone think that Pearcey or anyone else in the creationist movement, for all their supposed support for multiple viewpoints and hearing all sides, would support teaching that in Bible history classes? Or would they scream like a gored ox about how this was some hideous form of persecution?

How much does John McCain pay for his haircuts?
What is his bowling score?

Since the national press keeps insisting these are relevant to how we pick our presidents, why aren’t they giving us full disclosure? What does the senator have to hide?

A few years ago, I bought a Klutz Book of Knots to teach myself basic knot-tying. I’m now familiar with square knots, bowlines, the clove hitch, the half hitch and a couple of others.

I have yet to use any knot in daily life other than on my shoes. Which I already knew.

So my question for today is: Are knots no longer necessary for the average person? Have Velcro, duct tape and assorted forms of clips and grips replaced them in our lives? If you don’t sail, ride a horse or camp in a tent, is there any need for a knowledge of knots in your life?

For the record, I don’t regret learning them–it’s far from the first useless skill I’ve taught myself–and I’m fascinated by them physically, the way a simple twist in a bit of string can suddenly render it immovable. I’m just wondering whether they’re still practical.

One of the rationales I’ve heard for the guns-in-the-workplace bill is so that workers will have a gun handy if they need it.

Do the people who buy into this know CPR? Do they have a first-aid kit in their car? Do they pack one of those little kits you can use to treat people having allergic reactions to bee stings?

Why is it that being prepared for trouble translates not into “being ready for emergencies” but “being ready to shoot people”?

For my column this week, I chose to rip into Bush’s speech on how brilliantly he’s leading us to victory, and McCain’s enthusiasm for keeping the war going. So my backup column idea—things we’ve learned from the war—is going here. Which is good, actually, because I have more space, though I’ll still be breaking it up into parts.

The first thing we’ve learned: Boots on the ground matter.

To occupy and pacify a foreign country takes manpower—unfortunately, a lot more than we were willing to commit at the start of this venture (though I’ve heard it argued that given Iraq’s underlying instabilities, we still might not have been able to pull it off). So one question our military planners need to consider is where we’re going to find the men for the future.

The last time this subject came up, one conservative informed me that he didn’t see much chance of another occupation any time soon (this was well before Bush had put Iran on his hit list, or I imagine I’d have gotten a different response). The trouble is, that’s not something we can predict: Did anyone foresee America’s first war of the 21st century would be with Afghanistan?

Much as I oppose the Iraq war, I do believe taking out the Taliban was justified (though Bush’s decision to pull out and attack Saddam has allowed the Taliban to resurrect since). It may not be the last time we need to occupy a foreign country, and while I’d prefer that be a last resort, it’s an option that should be on the table. So how do we maintain an army big enough to occupy a country without breaking under the burden as we seem to be doing in Iraq?

Recruit more people? Extremely expensive, not just in what it takes to convince people to sign up, but in the potential costs of benefits if they stay in.

Use mercenaries—er, private contractors? Also expensive, though I’ve been told the higher rate of pay for Blackwater agents is balanced out in the long-term by our government not having to shell out for benefits, and we simply don’t have enough control over them. If we’re fighting a war, the people in the field need to be directly answerable to their superiors, not sheltered by the legal maze that seems to surround the security contractors and protect them from liability.

Can we increase the size of the reserves, so we have the manpower ready when we need it? Military veteran/writer Phillip Carter (of the excellent site Intel Dump has argued that while it seems logical, it won’t work: It would require massive changes in the way the military equips its reserves, and probably higher pay, enlistment bonuses, etc.—and those run into the problem that the full-time Army is supposed to receive a better deal than one-weekend-a-month reservists (note: I have no first-hand experience, so if I’m misreading Carter’s depiction of the reserves—in the pro-draft article mentioned below—feel free to point it out).

Revive the draft? I’m strongly opposed to this myself, but Carter, in a Washington Monthly article makes a good case. I’m still opposed, but I have enough respect for his analysis that it deserves mentioning.

The current approach—prolonging deployments, the use of stop/loss—isn’t sustainable, and I think it’s also immoral and unfair to the troops, the equivalent of a draft but falling on people who’ve voluntarily committed themselves to the service.

So what’s the best solution? Any suggestions?

I love the stuff, but who the heck came up with the idea? How on earth did someone tink to say “Hmm, I need to put stuff in this dip … I know, some spinach and—and—artichoke!” I mean, it’s not exactly peanut butter and jelly in terms of a familiar combination, is it?

This thought being prompted by the spinach/artichoke dip I just had in a panini from Not Just Bagels off Danny Wuerffel Way (the Publix shopping center side).

So I googled myself recently (oh, come on, like I’m the only one who does that to themselves!) and noticed, along with all the hits about me (mostly linked to my writing of course), the usual array of mixed names such as “and that included Colin Fraser, Sherman said.” In 10 pages of google, I found four references of that sort.

Is that a lot? Fairly typical? Does anyone know the statistics? I suppose it in part depends on having, as I’ve often been told, two last names—I doubt it would happen so often if my first name was Reggie or Walter.

If the right-to-life movement believes abortion is murder, why don’t they consider women who get abortions to be murderers?
This past weekend, for instance, Mike Huckabee asserted that a doctor who “knowing took the life of an unborn child for money” should be punished but “I think you don’t punish the woman, first of all … I consider her a victim, not a criminal.”
Funny, haven’t we been told by pro-choicers that abortion is the moral equivalent of infanticide? If a woman paid a doctor to poison her three-year-old, would Huckabee be running around saying the mother had been a victim too and shouldn’t be punished? If not, why would he be softer on a woman who “murders” her child-to-be?
It’s not just Huckabee: Many pro-choicers make the same argument, that abortion is murder but women who decide to have an abortion are somehow innocent victims.
There are several ways to interpret this:
•Right-to-lifers really believe all women are stupid sheep who have been conned into their abortion.
•Right-to-lifers don’t believe abortion is murder, but it makes a good battle cry.
•Right-to-lifers believe abortion is murder but figure letting the women off scott-free while demonizing the doctors is the only way the public will accept an abortion ban.
•Right-to-lifers believe abortion is murder and have every intention of prosecuting women, but they’re going to keep quiet about that for now.
Any other alternatives anyone can think of?

While browsing the Web, I came across a column by conservative pundit Glenn Reynolds applauding Greenleaf, Idaho, for passing a law in 2006 requiring every house to have a gun. To Reynolds, this is “a statement about preparedness in the event of an emergency, and an effort to promote a culture of self-reliance.”

Libertarian novelist L. Neil Smith makes a similar argument in one of his books, that widespread gun ownership is a public-spirited way to help out in an emergency.

But if emergencies are the issue, why focus on gun ownership? Why not require everyone in Greenleaf to learn CPR, say? Or to have a first-aid kit on hand? Or a kit for treating people with allergic reactions? There’s a higher probability any emergency will involve a need for medical skills than a gun.

Is where your friends are engaged in making SEAN OF THE DEAD gingerbread zombies.

That may not be everyone’s assessment, of course.