When I was first trying out Flickr, I uploaded a test photo of our golden retriever Xena, and tagged it with ‘Xena‘.
Today, I happened across my Flickr photos and clicked on the link to see all photos tagged with ‘Xena‘. To my surprise, almost all of them were of pets, and only a few were of the television character. In particular, the user Kevin Steele really likes to photograph his cat Xena:

I was searching the Texas sex offender database (out of morbid curiosity) when I ran across this ‘offender’:

(Click on image for larger version)

I saw this bumper sticker this morning on a passing car:

If guns are outlawed…Only outlaws will be able to shoot their children accidentally

I grew up in a family that had a lot of guns. I learned to shoot at a young age, had a BB gun, hunted as a teenager. And my dad was big on gun safety: I learned gun safety first thing.
Despite that, I can recall two accidental gun firings in my family: my dad once shot a hole through the garage wall while handling a loaded rifle. And my sister’s first husband kept a loaded shotgun leaning agaist the corner in the closet (OK, that was not so safe). One day, it went off while he was taking something out of the closet. He came pretty close accidentally blowing his own brains out.
So, my point is, I guess, that the bumper sticker is closer to the truth than most people might realize.

I just listened to the audio edition of Jewel by Bret Lott. Written in the first person, a southern woman tells her life story throughout the twentieth century. I enjoyed the story and the way the narrator found connections between different parts of her life, but at times, these reflections got a little heavy for me. Also, I listened to an abridged audio edition. Large periods of the narrator’s life were summarized in a few sentences. I found that a little unnerving, and I wonder what details I missed.

The Theory of Evolution: Just a Theory?, by William D. Rubinstein, has been making the blog rounds the last few days. PZ Myers has already posted a thorough critcism of how Dr. Rubenstein misrepresents the scientific method and the science behind evolution.
At the beginning of the essay, Dr. Rubinstein claims that his questions are not motivated by religious belief, but then he goes on to employ several common creationist attacks on evolution. After I read his essay, I immediately concluded that his claim about motivations must surely be disingenuous.
While I totally disagree with Dr. Rubinstein’s arguments and conclusions, I have a certain appreciation for his rhetorical methodology. He has been effective at getting people to take his essay sersiously.
Let’s take a look at his rhetorical framing, starting from the beginning of the essay:

Historian Prof. William D. Rubinstein shares his doubts about the theory of evolution. He raises questions about evolution to which he seeks answers.
Like most people with enquiring minds, I have at least a desultory interest in many fields beyond my own narrow specialty, including the mysteries of science. I am not a scientist, needles to say, although I think I have as much common sense as the next man and probably more in the way of an independent viewpoint than most.

Dr. Rubinstein starts off by establishing his intellectual credibility and by distancing himself from ‘scientists.’ By mentioning his ‘independent viewpoint,’ he plants the idea that scientists who support evolution may not be motivated purely by academic objectivity.
Furthermore, he appeals to common sense, implying that anyone who sees the scientific data without an agenda should find the same questions as he himself.

I have thus long been fascinated by the great dogma of the Theory of Evolution, which of course was formulated by Charles Darwin in his seminal work On the Origin of Species in 1859, probably the most important book published during the nineteenth century. The Theory of Evolution in its commonly-voiced form has long struck me as having so many dubious features that it is genuinely surprising that it has not attracted many more challenges than it actually has – although (I gather) a growing number of scientifically-trained commentators are also having their doubts.

In the next paragraph, Dr. Rubinstein continues his themes from the introduction. His ‘genuinely surprising’ statement again appeals to common sense and implies that anyone who does not question the ‘dubious features’ is working on some other, presumably prejudiced, basis. Furthermore, his use of the word ‘dogma’ in relation to evolutionary theory supports his implication that evolution’s supporters are prejudiced.

One reason for the failure of scientists to challenge Evolution is that the whole subject is tainted and pervaded by the religion vs. science question, such that anyone who questions Evolution is automatically dismissed as a “Creationist” who believes in the literal truth of the Bible and who is seen as having an agenda of religious fundamentalism behind his doubts. Let me make clear, then, that I am not a religious fundamentalist…

The next statement is Dr. Rubinstein’s pièce de résistance. The most common criticism of creationists is that they are motivated by religious dogma. Dr. Rubinstein draws together threads of the previous paragraphs and turns this argument against the scientists themselves, claiming that they are the ones who stick to dogma in the face of (presumably valid) criticism. Having established that, he claims that his questions are indeed not subject to any prejudice.
After having masterfully framed his argument, Dr. Rubinstein devotes most of the rest of the essay to the time-worn arguments of most creationists. The fact that so many people seem to be taking him seriously attests to the success of his rhetorical framing.

So, this guy won a contest with American Airlines. The prize: twelve flights for two people from any American city to any worldwide destination that American Airlines services. Cool!
He understood that he would have to claim the prize value as income on his tax return. But when he looked at the fine print of the offer, he realized that AA has assigned such a high ‘full retail value’ on the prize, that for all but the most distant and expensive destinations, he would owe much more in income tax for each ticket used than a comparable ticket would actually cost him retail. Crazy!
(Via This is Broken)

Richard Dawkins’ excellent article in the Times of London accurately and succinctly summarizes creationists’ strategies:

Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.
Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory” (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed.

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”
Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty.

(Via Rafe Colburn)

In response to yesterday’s post, a reader named Virginia wrote me to say that if I like Alas, Babylon, then I might also be interested in On the Beach by Nevil Shute. Thanks to Virginia, too!

I just finished listening to the audio edition of The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros, read by the author. It is a set of vignettes of semi-autobiographical childhood memories. Ms. Cisneros’ lyrical prose is beautiful, but this was not my type of book.

In my previous entry, I made reference to a book that I’d read in high school, but I have no idea of the title or author. Well, I’m pleased to say that I have at least one reader of this blog. A reader named Kristie emailed me to suggest that the book might be Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank. After a little research, I’m pleased to find that this is indeed the book. I intend to get it from the library or buy a copy at the earliest opportunity and re-read it. It should be interesting to compare a fresh read to what I remember of it. Thanks, Kristie!