Obviously My family is not familiar with the phrase “There’s no place like home.” This year we are taking a month-long vacation around most of the US. We are using a 2004 Damon 353, 36′  class A  R.V. We are starting at our house (on July 2nd) and gong up to Hyner PA were we are going to spend July 4th weekend. From there we are heading to Chicago for a few days. Then we are off to Boulder, and after staying there a little bit we head off to some more places and eventualy San Fransisco with one week to get back home. But we haven’t gotten that far yet. today is filled with packing the R.V. and preparing for our trip. My dad put a home entertainment center, new speakers, and a nice big T.V. inside it. We’ve got almost everything packed and will start our trip tomorow. We will be stopping periodicaly at places with Wi-Fi so we will be able to upload pictures and post more posts.

Yesterday I pointed to a few articles by John Carney (certainly no conservative) on how the “Community Reinvestment Act” was a significant contributor to the current financial situation. Today there are several followup posts with even more information. Take a look at:

“How The Government Used The CRA To Push Crappy Lending Standards”

“Government Pamphlet Taught Banks How To Finance A $70,000 Home With A $500 Downpayment”

“Three Ways The CRA Pushed Countrywide To Lower Lending Standards”

Another prevalent theme among conservatives, and related to the CRA issue, has been the extent to which Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were responsible for the crisis. The amazing thing to me is that they still have their jobs - another thing we can chalk up to how uninformed the American public is about what’s really going on. Clusterstock has this gem about Barney Frank.

“Barney Frank Says Fannie And Freddie’s Lending Standards Are Too High (FNM, FRE)”

It’s astonishing how many intelligent people can ignore historical facts when they conflict with their politics. From the beginning of this economic and financial system crisis conservatives have pointed to the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) as one of the causes. There have been no end to the denials that such a program could be saddled with such blame. But take a look at this recent blog entry on Clusterstock (a site I have a mixed impression of). Even if you normally don’t read comments on blogs, take a look there on that post, as the main writers on Clusterstock take on the commenters - which they almost never do to the depth they did there.

Apparently they received so much attention they thought it required another follow up post. Which you can find here: Why I Changed My Mind On The Community Reinvestment Act. The following statement from the article is as bold a statement as I’ve ever read on the issue, and Carney is not exactly a Conservative:

The broader subprime market was basically a creation of the CRA.

In 2005 I wrote that GM should go bankrupt. Well, it certainly took long enough. Back then I commented how the corporate welfare minded Republicans would bail them out. Now that the Democrats have finished the job and taken control of the company, take a look at what we have to look forward to:

Thanks for the reference Andrew

If you’re following the “financial crisis” closely you’ll realize a new evil scapegoat has arisen. People who “short” securities. The government just banned the shorting of 800 stocks (and climbing); a move that was probably the main reason for the surge in the stock market yesterday (Friday, September 19th). In other words, it was completely artificial and created by the actions of our government. Given that I’ve needed to explain what “shorting” was to several people this week, I’m sure that the fact that they don’t even know what it is wont prevent them from following the herd and pointing the finger.

So apparently speculators in oil were last weeks problem for driving the price up. Now those who “short” securities are this weeks problem for driving the price down. What about me? I was SHORT OIL for a while (driving the price of oil down - I guess). Do two evils make a good?

Bloomberg is reporting that the SEC is investigating Chicago-based Wextrust Capital LLC and actually going after the executives personally, claiming they are operating a “Ponzi Scheme.” I had always wondered if Ponzi Schemes were illegal or not. I had been told that they were but this is the first time I’ve seen one prosecuted. The article defines a Ponzi Scheme as:

Operators of so-called Ponzi schemes use money from new investors to pay off old ones.

Funny, I thought that was basically the definition of Social Security. I hope the SEC moves against the Federal Government next. Not only is Social Security the biggest Ponzi Scheme on the planet, it employs forced participation.

Another great weekend at Hyner. Here are a few videos that were shot.

This one shows Lukas’ first tandem flight.


Hyner 4th of July, 2008 from Jim Carroll on Vimeo.

Here are a few more put together by others:


Hang Gliding at Hyner View, July 4th Weekend from DanTuck on Vimeo.

And one from our Russian visitors staying in camp “Moscow.”

Sitting here sipping wine and watching the movie “Underdog” (my kid’s pick) seems like a fitting end to the day that I first saw “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” The juxtaposition is a fitting analogy. When I first left the movie I was elated, thinking “someone finally got it right.” Upon a bit more reflection I now think I have more criticism than praise. For this post I’d like to deal with some of the other criticisms I’ve read.

Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” has already made an impression on a large number of people. Having just been released the criticisms are legion (pun intended). Even though I think the movie is flawed for reasons I will deal with later, the criticisms are often more flawed than the movie, that is, where they’re not outright false.

One of the points the movie tries to make is that ID is not Creationism. More importantly the movie makes the point that the “tried and true” tactic of critics of ID is to confound it with Creationism. Right on queue enter, The Orlando Sentinel editorial:

How do you re-package that tried and untrue, untested and untestable faith-without-facts warhorse, “Creationism” after its nearly-annual beat-down by an increasingly exasperated scientific community?

After you’ve tried renaming it “Intelligent Design,” I mean.

One wonders if the writer saw the movie. The article goes on to answer the question it posed:

With comedy. Mock your “Darwinist” foes the way comics, thinkers, scientists and educated people everywhere have been mocking creationism since Scopes took that monkey off our back.

One now wonders if the author read their own first two paragraphs - or a history book that contained an assessment of the Scopes trial which was won by the Creationists - it took a longer protracted fight to finally get that “monkey off our back.”

For a more reasonable critique (other than my forthcoming review, which is coming from an ID sympathizer) see “No intelligence allowed in ‘Expelled’.”

Another mischaracterization of what ID is includes the following from beliefnet.com:

Intelligent Design is based the fact that (1) there are questions that natural selection does not answer — which Darwinian scientists admit, and (2) therefore, some intelligent force must be behind creation — which cannot be proven by scientific means and therefore is more appropriately considered within the fields of philosophy or religion.

As the movie states (though perhaps all to briefly and unclearly), ID is, at its core, based on the idea that “design” or “intentionality,” (i.e. intelligent purpose) has certain attributes that allow it to be distinguished from undirected randomness. Several of these attributes that have been popular include: Michael Behe’s “Irreducible Complexity” (a good overview and recent defense can be found here) as well as A.E. Wilder Smith (and somewhat William Dembski’s) application of information theory to the genetic code and biological systems. The idea behind the later is that information theory can be used to distinguish randomness from non-randomness. This idea has wide use in the Electrical Engineering discipline of Signal Processing, Cryptography and Cryptanalysis, and even in SETI (Carl Sagan’s pet project, “The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence”).

Another oft-repeated criticism is that the movie doesn’t deal with the facts of the case for ID or evolution. However, from both the title and the extended trailer I’m surprised anyone thought that the movie would. That the movie never intended to was clear from both. From both I expected exactly what I got, an expose on the political correctness embedded in the scientific establishment that punishes dissent.

Finally, in several places I found the simply false statement that the movie doesn’t provide a definition of “Evolution.” In fact it does so carefully in order to to explain exactly what the disenfranchised scientists are questioning. I found this criticism puzzling because it was so patently false that I can only assume that some of the pre-screenings didn’t have this particular scene.

I will follow this up with my own review of the movie.

Next Page »