I swear this is true. CNN just said that the streets of the French Quarter were still too wet and flooded to get their trucks into but through the new technology of FTP their correspondent was able to record video and send it back to them via computer.

Who knows what these internets will come up with next. Maybe a way to "link" information together in some sort of hyperweb.

NY Times article on Intelligent Design. Here's the problem with ID. It's a cop-out. REAL scientists look at a thorny problem like the 20 proteins involved in blood clotting and say, "Wow! A really tough problem. If I can solve this, I can advance science!" An ID-proponent looks at the same problem and says, "I give up! This is tough. There must be God!"

That's not science. That's surrender.

This post from Eugene Volokh is a classic example of the equivocation fallacy. He takes the terribly loaded phrase "Gays and Lesbians Trying to Convert Others to Homosexual Behavior" and tries to make it equivalent to "forming a tolerant society."

It's disturbing that a law professor would use a tactic so transparently flawed.

Phyllis Schlafley was just on Bill Maher's show, giving the conservative line that "the definition of marriage" should be taken away from judges.

Would that have applied to the Loving decision?