In an article by Robert King for the Indy Star entitled Evolution debate may play out in schools, we see an excellent common sense approach to the hot-button evolution issue:

When some residents in Columbus petitioned the School Board three years ago to give the Bible’s creation account equal time with evolution, school officials came up with a novel response.

They created a new class — under the heading of social studies — that examines all the theories on human origins. Not only did the class cover evolution and creationism, it also surveyed Navajo beliefs, the Hindu creation story and a host of other perspectives.

. . .

Such a quiet resolution is unusual in this red-hot front in the culture war. The debate has been re-energized by President Bush’s recent remark that public schools — now almost exclusively the turf of Charles Darwin and evolutionary theory — should also teach “intelligent design.”

I don’t believe the objection has ever been that the theory of evolution, as presently constituted, is infallible; or that kids should never hear other ideas about human origins. The problem is that the theory of evolution is based on scientific observation. The others are not. It is therefore appropriate to teach evolution as the best scientific explanation we have to date. With respect to religious explanations, the problem is with giving the Genesis story, creationism, or Intelligent Design pride of place. To my knowledge, there is no reason for giving these explanations any preference over the story that has the earth riding on the backs of turtles or whatnot.

The article goes on to tell us that things may not have such a smooth resolution at Hamilton Southeastern in Fishers. A man motivated by his faith who thinks evolution is evidence of “the influence of atheism and immorality” in public schools wants a “balanced and nonpartisan” approach to human origins. A balanced and nonpartisan approach to science? Ridiculous. If those motivated by faith had a driving belief that gravity didn’t exist, we were merely held to the ground by God’s will, would schools have an obligation to present a “balanced and nonpartisan” case against the theory of gravity in science classes? Nope.

So, I prefer the Columbus approach. Hopefully, if necessary, Hamilton Southeastern can implement a similar solution.

Just saw the Walken 2008 – Official Website wherein Christopher Walken, one of the coolest individuals on the planet, appears to be running for President. This may well be a hoax — or maybe a grassroots campaign subtly flirting with being a hoax, the better to promote interest. But, the website doesn’t have any tells. The content looks serious.

Campaign Finance Reform:
“I believe that campaign finance is a very tough issue, with good points on both sides; but I feel, as a wealthy American, that I should have no more say than even the least fortunate American citizen. Free speech in politics is about the voices of all those who support you, not who supports you with the biggest voice.”

Military Funding:
“I am a huge supporter of the military. I have always thought of them as our guardians, and when our guardians are making less than the poverty line, and children are suffering because their parents decided to join the military, well, I get very upset. I feel that instead of sending billions to the Pentagon’s pet projects, it should go to the troops.”

Stem Cell Research:
“I’d met Chris Reeve several times before he died, and after having met him it is tough to be against [stem cell research]. I am for human knowledge and expansion of human life. If stem cells are one way to do that, I cannot support legislation to restrict this potentially life-saving research.”

On the other hand, the best thing I read attributed to Walken was a bit by Jay Mohr recounting an exchange between the two of them on the set of a movie:

Walken: “Jay, I noticed your dog – eh, your dog was in here a moment ago – that dog had no tail. What happened?”

Mohr: “You know, they cut it off when they’re puppies. It’s called docking the tail.”

Walken: “That’s too bad, you know. Think about it; it would be so great to have a tail. People could tell when you were angry. They’d go, ‘Get back! Look out! Don’t fuck with Chris today; look at his tail.'”

Mohr: “I think you mean happy, Chris. Dogs wag their tails when they’re happy.”

Walken: “Oh well, maybe you. But if I had a tail, you have to be expressive with that tail, otherwise, what’s the point, right. They’d know, they’d know. They’d go, ‘Get back, don’t bother Chris today. He’s having a bad day.’ ‘How do you know?’ “Well, did you look at his tail?'”

(Hours later, it comes up again. Mohr asks Walken a question.)

Mohr: “What would you rather do: have a tail or the gift of flight?”

Walken responds immediately. “Oh, have a tail! Come on, that’s the dumbest thing I ever heard. You can always get on an airplane, but a tail . . .”

My semi-regular review of what Rep. Hostettler is up to via Plogress (can’t recommend that site enough.) revealed this slightly creepy child tax credit:

A child born within 9 months after the close of the taxable year shall be treated as a qualifying child for such taxable year.

A child who is stillborn or dies in utero, whose death was not the result of a medical procedure, the ingestion of a drug, or other action intended by the child’s mother to result in the abortion of the child, shall be treated as a qualifying child for the taxable year in which the child dies.

So, you’d get a tax credit for a clump of cells that spontaneously terminates. (This is about 10% of all pregnancies — I suspect with this tax incentive, that percentage would spike.)

Those who think humans are no better than the blastocysts we came from are certainly persistent. Now, if they could only be bothered to care about life during the period after birth and before brain death.

I found this tibit amusing.

Ohio First, Inc., the nonprofit organization quietly created last month to fight proposed constitutional reforms of Ohio’s election system, was incorporated in the state of Delaware.

“That tells us Republican politicians are so entrenched and arrogant that they don’t get the fact that, if they’re going to call themselves Ohio First, they should at least pretend that they are,” House Minority Leader Chris Redfern (D., Catawba Island) said.

“Ohio First” is an organization created to fight a coalition called “Reform Ohio Now” in its effort to take redistricting power out of the hands of politicians, strip the Secretary of State of authority to oversee elections, allow voters to cast absentee ballots just as a matter of course, and roll back increases in campaign contributions.

I don’t pretend to know the politics of the situation, but the Christian Science Monitor has an article entitled Mauritania’s ‘pro-US’ president overthrown. Apparently, it potentially involves oil, a pro-US leader alleged to be a dictator, the fight against al Qaeda, and an overthrow by a military junta promising “an open and transparent democratic system” and an end to “the totalitarian practices of the deposed regime.” So, probably something I should know more about.

The Wikipedia entry on Mauritania.

The CIA World Factbook entry.

(And for those of you, like me, who are a little fuzzy on where Mauritania is — it’s in northwestern Africa.)

I am unfamiliar with the specifics of the legislation, but the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has a blistering editorial against the so-called “Streamlined Procedures Act” which was passed by Republicans in the U.S. Senate. The editorial points out that “since 1973, 119 death-row inmates have been exonerated because of new evidence. Some came within weeks and even days of dying.” The legislation limits or eliminates federal review of death penalty cases, creates new procedural hurdles, and set arbitrary time limits on appeals.

The editorial states:

But apparently the fear of killing an innocent person isn’t enough to keep politicians from proposing outlandish tough-on-crime legislation. The so-called “Streamlined Procedures Act” sounds like a euphemism from a satirical novel or something covering trade disputes. It is neither. It is, rather, legislation that would allow faster executions in a country that has at least 119 reasons to fear efficiency in matters of death.

Killing the innocent is, in my mind, the real reason to oppose the death penalty — or at least make sure death penalty cases are as close to fool-proof as possible. I don’t have any moral qualms with the State killing an individual who has taken the life of a fellow citizen. The problem is making sure the judicial system has a zero error rate in determining whether the prosecution’s allegations are accurate. The Journal Gazette points out that there are at least 119 documented cases where the judicial system got it wrong. More “efficiency” is going to lead to a greater error rate. Allowing the State to murder the innocent in the name of efficiency is a horrible idea.

More from the wacky world of Rep. Hostettler. On Friday, he introduced a bill (co-sponsored by Reps. Burton and Pence, among others) to repeal the provisions by which employers deduct income and social security taxes owed by the employees on their wages.

Specifically, he calls for the repeal of sections 3102 (deduction of social security tax from wages), 3202 (concerning railroad retirement taxes), and Chapter 24 (collection of income tax at source on wages) from the Internal Revenue Code. He also calls to amend section 6654(f) by adding the social security tax (and railroad pension tax) as taxes that must be paid quarterly by the individual. The bill would also have the effect of requiring income tax on wages to be paid quarterly.

This is a spectacularly bad idea. This shifts the burden of administration from business to the individual wage earner. It increases the likelihood that individuals will have to pay more in taxes because of penalties. And, it encourages the wage earner to get into financial trouble by failing to set aside the required tax.

Idiot.

The Indy Star has an editorial entitled O, say can’t Senate see those red flags?

Amending the Constitution is a grave step that never should be taken unless it fills a broad practical need, clearly defines itself and avoids conflict with the document’s existing amendments and basic guarantees.

The proposed amendment to prohibit “desecration” of the American flag, noble as its intent may be, fails all three tests.

I definitely agree with this sentiment, except for the assumption that the intent of the flag-burning amendment is noble. Most of the time, seems to me, the intent of politicians proposing such amendments is to have an opportunity for grandstanding with their patriotism on their sleeve.

One of the cool things about symbols is that they can be destroyed without damaging that which they represent. In the case of the proposed flag amendment, ironically, by protecting the symbol, we would diminish that which the symbol represents.

Giblets wants another Presidential election for his personal amusement:

For a whole half a year Giblets has gone without debates and primaries and match-up polls, and the world is weaker for it! Giblets wants to see clashes of titans, epic slinging of slime, shameless heaps of corn subsidies and nubian slaves piled around random Iowa farmers, wives made entirely of husked corn and oatmeal cookies tearing each other to ribbons on the set of This Week With George Stephanopoulos! Giblets wants the McCain-Satan unity ticket!

There is an entire universe of art and culture Giblets can only experience in campaign season: the prayerful mantra of the repeated talking point, the lyrical dance of the quasi-retracted half-promise, the sombre poetry of the reluctant character assassination, the classical drama of an entire press corps united in a modern-day Greek chorus wailing at the inevitable downfall of a dozen would-be kings!

Bush Nominates John G. Roberts, Jr. to replace Sandra Day O’Connor.

He is 50 years old and has just over 2 years of judicial experience, having been appointed to the D.C. Ct. of Appeals in June 2003. He’s worked for Rehnquist, and the Reagan and Bush I Departments of Justice. Lots of experience practicing before the US Supreme Court.

A good choice politically, I guess. Lots of decent credentials but not a lot of published opinions. He can blow off the positions taken in his briefs as being written for the client and not being reflective, necessarily, of his own personal opinions.

Wikipedia write up.

Free Congress Foundation write up.

Solid Republican loyalty credentials. Ambiguous social conservative credentials. Should be interesting.