Very interesting article in Wired magazine about the emerging battle between evolution and “intelligent design“ in the classrooms and textbooks around the country.

Basically, intelligent design (ID) argues that there are some biological forms (i.e., the bacterial flagellum) that are so complex and do not appear to have any basis in natural selection that they cannot be explained by conventional evolution and therefore, are the creation of some form of “intelligent designer” or supernatural force.

Critics of ID dismiss it as the latest attempt to cloak creationism in a palatable and quasi-religious way. What I found particularly interesting is the quandry many conventional scientists and evolutionists find themselves in:

The buzz phrase most often heard in the institute’s offices is academic freedom. “My hackles go up on the academic freedom issue,” Chapman [one of the main proponents of ID] says. “You should be allowed in the sciences to ask questions and posit alternative theories.”

None of this impresses the majority of the science world. “They have not been able to convince even a tiny amount of the scientific community,” says Ken Miller [a conventional evolutionist]. “They have not been able to win the marketplace of ideas.”

And yet, the Discovery Institute’s [leading thinktank on ID] appeals to academic freedom create a kind of catch-22. If scientists ignore the ID movement, their silence is offered as further evidence of a conspiracy. If they join in, they risk reinforcing the perception of a battle between equal sides.

Should be interesting to watch how this debate progresses.

Salon.com has an article which describes how people who live in sprawling suburban areas are more likely to have health problems such as high blood pressure, arthritis, headaches, and breathing difficulties, even after controlling for many other factors. It appears that the direct cause is people in sprawling suburbs drive more while those in more compact cities walk more.

That sounds plausible enough but I would like to know, among all people who live in more compact cities such as NYC, SF, Boston, Seattle, and Portland (as cited in the report), do people who live where the population size is smaller or less dense (i.e., Portland & Seattle) report fewer health problems than those in cities with large populations and densities (i.e., NYC, SF, or Boston)?

I just read a rather interesting article written by Allan J. Litchman of the liberal magazine The American Prospect, reprinted on CBSNews.com, in which he prescribes four ways in which Kerry can turn around and reenergize his uninspiring campaign. You can read the article for specifics, but his basic points are:

1. Appoint a “shadow” government of people he would nominate to lead the departments of Justice, State, Defense, the EPA, etc. who would show the voters how they would do things differently and presumably, more effectively.
2. Foreshadow the first days of his presidency by releasing his first three executive orders, his first three drafts of legislation, first three treaties that he would negotiate abroad, and by issuing a real alternative budget and put it head-to-head with Bush’s.
3. Emulate Ross Perot and instead of mass-market 30 second commercials, buy air time and speak directly to the voters about real issues.
4. Stop listening to the hired pollsters, ad men and women, and the professional consultants and just speak from heart about why we need a change at the White House. This was what killed Al Gore in 2000 and something that George W. Bush excels at -- talking straight and from the heart.

Interesting ideas at the least. What do you think Kerry should do?

Head on over to Build a Better Bush to make your own Bushhead. Here’s what I came up with.

You can also see the Many Faces of John Kerry as well. Enjoy!

John Kerry appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman last night. Although I still support Kerry and really hope that he can pull it off and win the election, I still have a hard time listening to him talk for more than a few seconds. I thought Al Gore was monotonous, dull, and boring! Kerry makes Gore seem like Jesse Jackson.

At any rate, Kerry did do a good job at reading the “Kerry’s Top 10 Bush Tax Proposals“:

10. No estate tax for families with at least two U.S. presidents.
9. W-2 Form is now Dubya-2 Form.
8. Under the simplified tax code, your refund check goes directly to Halliburton.
7. The reduced earned income tax credit is so unfair, it just makes me want to tear out my lustrous, finely groomed hair.
6. Attorney General (John) Ashcroft gets to write off the entire U.S. Constitution.
5. Texas Rangers can take a business loss for trading Sammy Sosa.
4. Eliminate all income taxes; just ask Teresa (Heinz Kerry) to cover the whole damn thing.
3. Cheney can claim Bush as a dependent.
2. Hundred-dollar penalty if you pronounce it “nuclear” instead of “nucular.”
1. George W. Bush gets a deduction for mortgaging our entire future.

The CIA recently presented President Bush with several scenarios on how the Iraq War might proceed. Lo and behold, almost all of them were pretty discouraging and pessimistic, including the likelihood of a protracted and bloody civil war. An excerpt:

[T] the council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined that — at best — stability in Iraq would be tenuous . . . At worst, the official said, were “trend lines that would point to a civil war.” The official said it “would be fair” to call the document “pessimistic.” The estimate appears to differ from the public comments of Mr. Bush and his senior aides who speak more optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq. “We’re making progress on the ground,” Mr. Bush said at his Texas ranch late last month.

I, and other libeals have said it before but it bears repeating -- Bush’s invasion on Iraq has made the world more dangerous, not safer. In the face of all the mounting evidence that the Iraq invasion has been a disaster for the U.S. and for the world, I am still absolutely dumbfounded how so many Americans still support Bush and want him to continue doing what he’s been doing in Iraq.

Absolutely incredible!

A new report from Amnesty International describes that how racial profiling has become a big problem for many people here in the U.S.:

The report by Amnesty International USA also said at least 87 million people -- one in three -- in the United States are at high risk of being victimized because they belong to a racial, ethnic or religious group whose members are commonly targeted by police for unlawful stops and searches. Racial profiling is a growing problem as the government has expanded its war on terror, the report said. Police, immigration and airport security procedures are the areas where the problem has gotten worse since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, it said.

My observation: racial profiling does not seem to register with most Whites as a big problem because they’re not the ones who are being targeted for prejudice and discrimination. In other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Today is the third anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I will quietly say a prayer for the 3,000+ souls who died on that day, as well as for their friends and families who have had to find a way to cope in the aftermath.

At the same time, I cannot help but feel completely outraged that politicians like Bush and Cheney continue to use fear and intimidation based on the events surrounding 9/11 to help them win the election. In my mind, that is the most despicable and lowest form of human behavior possible.

Trying to scare Americans into voting for them is not American -- it’s completely shameful and about as unpatriotic as you can get.