So Expelled has been causing a little bit furor over its unremitting and unending stupidity.  And, I want to be quick to point out, that stupidity does NOT have to do with the content of its underlying "science," creationism (which, for the record, is pretty stupid).  The stupidity comes from its false dichotomy and its insistence that there's some sort of Great Atheist Conspiracy to suppress creationism.

But I have a slightly different question, since I'm not by any means a science blogger - I'm at best a law blogger who sometimes forays into religion or politics.  Anyway, my question is this:

How are we supposed to ensure that only science is science?

Non-lawyers are welcome to not read any further than this (hell, lawyers too).  But if you're interested in pastordan's fire, and want something to do to actually make some changes, this project may give you something to do (unless you're writing a dissertation, in which case you aren't allowed to help until you finish the dissertation).

I've been fired up by a decision issued last week by the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board, the court that decides disputes between workers acting collectively and employers).  Basically, the Board issued a decision on the last day of the Chairman's term, after this Senate made it clear that he was no longer acceptable as Chairman, and I think in his hurry to give one last "Fuck you" to unions, workers, and Democrats, that the opinion misunderstands Constitutional law.

Much, much more after the jump.  But only jump if you're interested in fighting back for workers.

So I just finished reading the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood.  In that decision, in case you're living under a rock while you surf SP, the Court upheld a Congressional Act banning "intact dilation and evacuation," an abortion procedure that is, quite frankly, too gruesome for me to describe.  Now, don't get me wrong - it's a disaster of a decision for those who think that reproductive rights are important.  And today, for you and me, it's a terrible result.

But I think in the long run, it'll all be all right.  Let me explain why.

So tomorrow my Con Law class discusses the Court's abortion jurisprudence.  I figured I'd share with you my thoughts for two reasons: 1) to figure out what exactly those thoughts are, and 2) to refine my thought with your thoughts.

But first, a few preliminary thoughts.  In Jewish law, abortion is easily permitted for the first thirty days of a pregnancy (it is regarded as "mere water," the Rabbis tell us).  After that first thirty days, abortion is only permitted to protect the health of the mother.  It is required to protect her life.  The rabbis justify that requirement by weighing the potential life against the known life, and coming down on the side of that which is known versus the mere potential.  The rabbi, in determining whether an abortion is halakhically forbidden, permitted, or required, is expected to consult heavily with the woman's medical professionals.  N.B.: In all cases, the rabbi makes a halakhic determination based on HIS understanding of the Law.  The woman is free to disregard his determination, if her understanding of the Law is different.  

So that's where I'm coming from.

That said, Jewish law does not control American courts.  Thank G-d.  So, let us examine the Court's decisions in Roe and Casey.

March 26, 2007

Judith Clark, Pharmacy Services Director
Division of Medicaid, State of Mississippi

Dear Ms. Clark:

I am writing on behalf of the thousands of lawyers, law students, and activists of the Student Hurricane Network, an organization working to rebuild and repair the lives of Hurricane Katrina survivors in Mississippi and Louisiana, to sing the praises of one of your employees, Joyce Hunter.  Ms. Hunter today gave assistance vastly beyond the call of duty.  I am stunned as I write this to recall the difference she made in one person’s life today in ten minutes on the phone.

Matt Stoller has a phenomenal piece on what it means to be a part of the progressive movement in America today.  Seriously.  Go read it.

Stoller makes the point that the goal of the progressive movement has to be not just a short-term victory in stopping Bush or ending the war in Iraq, but completely rearranging the fundamental assumptions of the American system.  In other words, destroying the "authoritarian national security state."

The roots of this state are traceable directly to an authoritarian South, a one-party unique region in America that has held the balance of power since the 1930s and that was and is dedicated above all to a race-based hierarchical society.  Through shaping even progressive legislation, like the Wagner Act, Dixiecrats ensured that broad-based class movements failed.

I'm not quite sure what the implications of this are:

Judge Senter sends State Farm and Mississippi back to the table.

Basically, what this says is that Judge Senter doesn't believe the negotiated settlement to establish a fair process for assigning claims for payment.

More analysis on the flip:

In a word: Electability.

I'll pause while you all laugh your heads off.

But there are a few things I want to actually talk about with this hit piece against Mrs. Clinton.

First, there's the explicit acknowledgment that there's a double standard:

While Hillary Rodham Clinton tops every national poll of likely 2008 Democratic presidential contenders, the New York senator is dogged by questions of "electability" -- political code for whether she can win enough swing states to prevail in a general election.  It's a gauge typically applied to Democrats, as few question the crossover appeal of the GOP front-runner, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. (italics mine)

Can people please get past this?  Thank you, we know the press likes John McCain because he gives them the illusion of straightforwardness - but that's just because the press mistakes a lack of manners for "straight talk."  There's so many circumlocutions involved in being polite, that if you're willing to just jettison the idea of being a nice person, then hey! you can speak much more forthrightly.

Some time ago (I can't find the frickin' diary, but I know it's out there somewhere), I wrote a story in which I promised that, if my current state representative ran for a vacant State Senate seat and won, that I would run for his House seat.

Well, it happened.  And so now we have a conundrum.

Certainly I can't be forced to keep my word in this circumstance - and everyone would understand if I said, "no, I need to concentrate on other things."  But here's the thing.

Cross-posted at Street Prophets

Hi.  Let's talk a little bit about religion, and politics.  There's been some people here, and elsewhere, lately, who thought that they needed to talk about the evils of religion.

Fair enough.  Religion certainly has its share of evil ascribed to it, both fairly and unfairly.  We should never hesitate to call out the evil we see.  The place where some of these people went wrong, is in their semantics.  

Epistemology in the extended section.

Whether you go out in the madness that is Black Friday, or whether you choose to sit in your home and hide, or do performance art (that’s MY favorite), the day after Thanksgiving is really about one thing, and one thing only.

Mammon.  I mean, G-d.  Right?  It’s all about G-d, isn’t it?  

No matter how you choose to spend your first day of the last excuse for a consumer spending orgy before the next one, you deserve a drink.  

Today’s substitute C&J starts with your favorite drink recipes in the Extended Section, just as soon as you click on it.  Go on, do it.

Yeah, so I'm shamelessly stealing PD's title for liberal-destroying memes.  Get over it.  I'm pissy today, because of some shenanigans the Alabama Bar pulled, and I'm taking it out on you.

Yes, YOU.  We've got some zombie lies trying to come at us, and it's time to get out the shotgun.

You know that I'm hardly an apologist in the Middle East.  I'm looking for a way out of the current mess.  I was a big proponent of the Beilin negotiations (there's a Palestinian name associated with them, but I don't remember it), because at least they were people talking, which the two governments weren't doing.

I'm not doing any research, just typing this off the top of my head, but if I remember correctly, there are four states with elections in 2007: Virginia elects the House of Delegates and the Senate, Mississippi and Kentucky elect all state offices, and I'm pretty sure there's one other state I can't remember (maybe Louisiana, don't quote me on that).

I don't know much about anyplace except my home state of Mississippi, so that's what I'll talk about.  Feel free to provide analysis on other states in the comments, if you're so inclined.

So I just got an e-mail from the Interfaith Alliance, talking about how the Dick Devos campaign wrote on their blog today about Devos' visit to a church, saying, "I was excited to meet so many of the church members and to receive Pastor's endorsement."  At least, that's what it says NOW.  The Alliance says that in the original blog post  the sentence ended with "from the podium."  

Obviously, if that's the case, the church and the pastor committed a big no-no that could potentially cost them their tax-exempt status.  It is important to note that the Alliance acknowledges that there's no proof that the post was changed (and that their spokesman feels kinda dumb that he forgot to grab a screenshot before they fired off their letter admonished the Devos campaign for letting the pastor endorse him "from the podium").

The conference started with a dinner (technically, the conference started with my travel from Tuscaloosa to Washington, but that's an entirely different story that really frustrated me), and then a short movie and discussion.

Go below the fold for the explanation of the title.

It's a scathing indictment, and I encourage you to go read it, if for no other reason than to see what a real press critic sounds like - it can be hard to remember, when we're so used to having stenographers.

Six Degrees of Desperation

My own thoughts after the jump.

"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

 - David Brewer, Justice, Holy Trinity Church v. United States.

Sounds pretty impressive, don't you think?  I mean, here's the Supreme Court, saying, "This is a Christian nation."

I know it's stupid.  It's more than stupid; it's reckless, and it's bad jurisprudence.