Honors for Don
Don Young is, sadly, Alaska's only congressman. He has been a self inflicted embarrassment on the state for over thirty years. I've never been one to miss an opportunity to insult old Don, so I'm pleased to see that some national media have noticed Don this week and decided to recognize his accomplishments in the House.

The latest issue of Rolling Stone has Don down as the third worst member of congress, following Hastert and Sensenbrenner, but ahead of such luminaries as Tom Tancredo, Richard Pombo, and Curt Weldon. The Rolling Stone profile focuses on Don's recent notoriety as a shameless pork-barrel politician and crude buffoon, particularly his packing last year's transportation bill with earmarks like the "bridge to nowhere" and telling reporters who suggested that the money might be reassigned to Katrina reconstruction that they could "kiss my ear!" The problem with the profile is that, by focusing on his porking prowess, they neglected evidence that he might really be as stupid as he looks and sounds.

The profile in Radar Magazine didn't neglect that evidence. In fact, it was the entire reason Don was number two on their list of the ten dumbest members of congress. For over thirty years I've said Don was the stupidest person in congress, so I was a little surprised to see him only managing second place. Don's offensive stupidity is a matter of pride for some Alaskans. Then I saw who took first place: Katherine Harris. If for no other reason, Harris' current run for the Senate earns her a place of honor in the idiot congressperson's hall of fame. Harris' campaign has lost more than 25 senior staff and consultants this year and is currently being run by two fichus plants and an autographed picture of Mamie van Doren.

Don doesn't need to worry. Harris' is the type of stupidity that burns itself out in one horrifying conflagration. Don's is the sort that endures. Next Year, Harris will be gone and Don will be secure in his title as the stupidest once again. There can only be one.

I write letters
Just before I went bed on Sunday the eighth, I checked the news for one last time and saw that North Korea was claiming to have successfully detonated a test nuclear weapon. I was angry and disgusted that our idiot leaders had followed their policy of tough-guy brinkmanship and allowed this to happen. I did what generations of citizens do when annoyed with their leaders. I wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper.

Editor, The Times:

North Korea just announced that it has successfully tested an atomic bomb ["North Korea claims successful nuclear test," Times, page one, Oct. 9].

I can't wait to hear Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the White House press office explain why this is Bill Clinton's fault and how it proves that we need to re-elect the same Republicans who allowed this to happen to two more years in power.

I sure am glad those unserious Democrats haven't been in charge of our national security; they might have allowed us to become less safe.

Right now, the only thing that's keeping us on the West Coast even a little safe is the fact that North Korean missiles aren't any more dependable than our anti-missile shield is.

Isn't it about time we elected a Congress that actually believes national security involves making the country safe and not just in steering contracts to campaign contributors?

The Republicans have failed us in every possible way. It's time for them to go.

— John McKay, Seattle

Over the next few days nothing happened and I assumed I was not going to be printed. I said many of the same things here in my blog. For those of us who use blogs to give voice to our opinions on events of the day, our blog is like a newspaper that always accepts our letters. The downside to their generous publication policy is that most our blogs have a very low readership. Besides, there's nothing like your words on actual paper to impress your older relatives.

And speaking of older relatives, we went to visit Mom on Friday. She's fine, thank you. When we got back on Sunday, I checked my e-mail and found a letter from the Seattle Times. We want to print your letter in the Sunday Times, but need to confirm that you're really John McKay and not someone trying to inflate their ego by pretending to be John McKay.

I rushed to the paper and checked out the letters. Nothing. I had missed my chance by letting the e-mail go unchecked over the weekend. I answered the letter from the Times, thanking them for thinking of me and saying I'd keep trying. Yesterday, I got another letter from the Time saying they did run my letter and would be happy to send me a tear sheet if wanted one.

I ran to the recycling bin and checked out the Sunday letters again. And there, at the top of the page, surrounded by a tasteful white margin, in bigger print that rest of the letters, was my first published letter to the editor. I hadn't thought to look at the big letter at the top of the page.

Today, I am no longer just an angry left-wing blogger; I'm a genuine letter-writing local crank. It's taken me fifty years to achieve this status. I hope I'm up to the new responsibilities.

Alaskan snowflake featured on stamp
As part of the secular war on Christmas, our minions at the US Postal Service will issue 100% Jesus, Mary, and Joseph* free stamps for the holiday season. The stamps will feature photographs of four completely secular snowflakes including this beauty from Fairbanks.


The photographs are the work of Kenneth Libbrecht, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. Libbrecht is the author three gorgeous books about snowflakes.


* As usual, they will aso be issuing a set of Christian-themed stamps as well. Also as usual, the stamps will feature Mary and baby Jesus, but Joseph will be left out in the cold, with the snowflakes. And, just to make the baby Bill O'Reilly cry, they will water down the Christianness of this most Christian time of the year by offering Kwanza, Eid, and Hanukkah stamps.

A new talking point
Brit Hume on the October 15 edition of Fox News Sunday:

Let's talk about this possibility -- it seems likely now, in almost all cards that the Democrats will get control of the House, which will bring us two years of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally. Her behavior will be more visible than ever, more conspicuous than ever.

Fred Barnes writing for the October 23 edition of The Weekly Standard:

If politics were fair, Democrats would be in as much trouble as Republicans. And they'd be just as vulnerable. They've been obstructionist, anti-tax-cut, soft on terrorism, and generally obnoxious. On top of that, Pelosi is the most unpopular national politician in America.

The Conservative information machine has been regularly attacking Rep. Nancy Pelosi for weeks. What marks this as an official talking point is the fact that both of these hacks are using the same image--unpopularity. What's interesting to me, is that this line of argument was first trotted out by Chris Matthews on the September 5 broadcast of NBC's Today Show:

I think it's interesting, Matt, that both sides agree on the stakes. ... It is whether we want Nancy Pelosi to be the first woman speaker of the House or not. My own view is that iconic fact of that woman sitting behind the president during a State of the Union address is an enormous change in our culture. ... A lot of the more conservative people will say, "Wait a minute, this woman's from San Francisco, she's a liberal."

As much as I think Matthews is often a loud-mouthed idiot and unwitting tool of the Conservative information machine, I don't think he is a conscious and voluntary right-wing hack (except where Hillary Clinton is involved). Matthews was probably speaking for himself and not testing out a line for the Republican Party and its supporters. It is they who are stealing his material.

It's a silly line, too. I would be very surprised to find out that very many voters have any idea who Nancy Pelosi is outside the Washington pundit corps, political bloggers and other junkies, and parts of California. And the number outside of those three groups who are willing to base their Congressional votes on keeping Pelosi from becoming the Speaker must be vanishingly small. Still, if the Republican Party wants to spend its time and resources propagating a message that is meaningless to most voters, I will not stop them.

On Darwinism
I mentioned this in the comments over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars but it's worth repeating here. On the subject of yet another silly diatribe against teaching evolution in the schools, Ed and a couple of commentors had words to say about the frequent use of the word "Darwinism" by ID supporters and other Creationists.

Their use of the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinist" aren't the result sheer ignorance; it's a carefully thought out propaganda strategy. An "-ism" implies an ideology or a dogma. It moves evolution out of science and into the land of politics or religion: though which is based on faith or blind adherence and not reason. Americans are trained to be suspicious of ideology and like to believe that their beliefs are practical and nonideological (whether they really are or not is another question). Just getting the word "Darwinism" before the audience gains them a few points in any argument. This is the same reason that some Creationists use the terms "evolutionism" and "evolutionist" to describe our side.

There is also a certain amount of misdirection and even projection involved in this choice of words. ID and other forms of Creationism are faith-based dogmas and not reason-based scientific theories. ID itself is really nothing more than a marketing campaign for Creationism. It's significant to notice that, following the first legal setbacks by Creationists trying to force their religious view onto school curricula back in the seventies, they changed the name of their belief from Creationism to Creation Science. While this name change may have been a useful propaganda move, they failed to convince the courts that their dogma wasn't a religion and the far more sophisticated marketing campaign of Intelligent Design was born.

By abandoning their own "-ism" name and applying and "-ism" to evolutionary science, the Creationists are using the age-old grade-school debating tactic of claiming "I'm not the poopy head; you're the poopy head." No amount of shouting will change the fact that they, and not we, are the dogmatic poopy heads.

Good History
History Carnival #41 is up at ClioWeb. This is the carnival that features (mostly) good history. The one that features bad history will be right here in less than a week.

Call for bad submissions
I'll be hosting the Carnival of Bad History again on October 22. Here is your chance to take apart a bad movie, demolish someone's invalid historical analogy or metaphor, or pick on a goofy conspiracy theory. Any bad use of history is fair game. Except Nazi penguins. I have dibs on the Nazi penguins.

Do they still make minute steaks?
When I was a kid, we used to occasionally eat something called "minute steak." This was a thin piece of otherwise inedible beef, that had been run through a tenderizing machine a couple times, and usually breaded. Sometimes, it was served with mushroom gravy as a form of Salisbury steak by our school cafeteria.

Bad science writing and an old favorite
Last week those clever folks at the Seed Science Blogs were talking about science journalism (why isn't it better, what can we do about it). I don't have any answers, but I do have a great example of bad science writing. This was picked up today by Science Daily, a news site for science related news. It's their top headline at the moment and tagged as a geology story.


As you can see, the headlines are an automated feed from the United Press International (UPI). I believe the story is short enough that I can quote the whole thing without violating copyright laws.

ROME, Oct. 13 (UPI) -- Italian scholars in Rome are debating the controversial theory that Sardinia is the lost island of Atlantis, and whether the theory merits further research.

The theory, offered by Italian journalist Sergio Frau, has drawn both international acclaim and criticism, the Italian news agency ANSA said Friday. About 250 academics have dismissed the claim, saying it sensationalizes Sardinia's history.

The thesis received a boost in 2005 during a United Nations-sponsored symposium on the issue, suggesting it merited serious consideration, ANSA said.

The gathering of academics, archaeologists, geologists and historians coincides with the opening of an exhibition on Frau's ideas, outlined in his book "The Pillars of Hercules."

The location of Atlantis -- or whether the fabled sunken continent ever existed -- has never been confirmed, ANSA said.

The story itself is a very close paraphrasing of the first few paragraphs of the ANSA story that the UPI refers to as its source. For comparison purposes, here is the beginning of the ANSA story.

(ANSA) - Rome, October 13 - Top scholars have gathered in Rome this week to discuss the exciting and controversial idea that Sardinia is the lost island of Atlantis.

The theory, developed in a book by the Italian journalist Sergio Frau, has drawn international acclaim but also fuelled heated criticism.

Despite selling 30,000 copies in Italy, a detailed 20-point appeal by 250 academics has dismissed the book, claiming it sensationalizes Sardinian history.

But the theory received a major boost last year, when the United Nations cultural heritage body UNESCO organized a symposium on the issue in Paris, suggesting the idea was worth serious consideration. Academics, archaeologists, geologists and historians from across Italy are now meeting in Rome's Accademia dei Lincei to look at the theory in closer depth and discuss possible paths of future research.

The meeting has also been timed to coincide with the opening of an exhibition on Frau's ideas, originally shown in Paris last year. "Atlantika" uses Frau's book, "The Pillars of Hercules", as a springboard for exploring theories and ideas on the legendary island and its whereabouts. Neither the location nor the existence of Atlantis have ever been confirmed.

As you can see, the same points are made in the same order, often using the same, or similar, words.

My point here isn't to accuse an anonymous UPI writer of plagiarizing an anonymous ANSA writer, but rather to point out the laziness that is endemic in much of modern journalism and the source of may complaints about political, medical, and scientific journalism. All three of those areas of journalism have many first rate writers capable of performing detailed analysis and synthesis of information and reporting it in an interesting and informative style. Unfortunately, most of the bulk of reporting is done overworked low-level writers who can do little more than repeat what they have been told and attach a mildly sensational hook to get the readers' attention.

While the UPI story is little more than a paraphrasing of the first few paragraphs of the longer ANSA story, it's very likely that the ANSA story was nothing more than a paraphrasing of a press release issued by the Accademia dei Lincei for the museum exhibition. There is nothing newsworthy about another amateur suggesting another location for Atlantis. Frau's theory isn't even new; almost every inch of land bordering the Mediterranean has been suggested as a location for Atlantis at one time or another. But Frau needs to sell books, the museum needs to sell tickets, ANSA and UPI need to sell news and the result is headlines on a science news site letting us know that scientists have discovered Atlantis.

As to Frau's theory, it doesn't appear to offer anything new. Frau has picked an ancient civilization that left some enigmatic structures behind and figured out how a rereading of Plato might be said to describe this people. The same method has been used to place Atlantis all over Mediterranean basin and in Ireland, Denmark, Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Mississippi, and almost anywhere else you care to mention except Fairbanks, Alaska (no one has ever placed Atlantis in Fairbanks).

Plato was very specific about Atlantis. It existed 9000 years before his time. It was of sub-continental size. It existed beyond the Pillars of Hercules. Its capital was a great port on the edge of a square plain. It had a Bronze Age civilization. It fought a war with Athens. It sank beneath the sea in one night leaving only a muddy shoal to mark its location. No one prior to or contemporary with Plato ever mentioned anything even remotely similar to Atlantis.

Scientists have not located Atlantis for the simple reason that scientists are not looking for Atlantis. The overwhelming belief is that Atlantis was a literary construct of Plato's, created to make a political point that he never got around to making. The closest that most scientists or literary critics get to looking for Atlantis is to suggest that Plato might have used certain real events as inspiration for his fictional creation.

Frau's theory revolves around the location of the Pillars of Hercules.

Frau had his brainwave after seeing a print of two maps of the Mediterranean as it was in the Bronze Age.

One showed Tunisia and Sicily almost touching; the other, of the Straits of Gibraltar, was remarkably similar.

Frau thinks Erathosthenes moved the pillars because in the 120 years between Plato's era and his, the Greek world changed dramatically, and the strait between Sicily and Africa was no longer at the outer reaches of the Empire.

Furthermore, geological shifts and rising sea levels widened the distance between Tunisia and Sicily, contributing to Erathosthenes' mistake and reinforcing it over time.

If you move the Pillars of Hercules, shrink the island by two orders of magnitude, contract the time element to one tenth, say it didn't really sink but just had a bad earthquake, and ignore all of the other elements of the story, then the Nuragic civilization of Late Bronze Age Sardinia fits perfectly. This is the classical method of Atlantis hunters: if everything is different, then everything is the same.

As long as we have Atlantis hunters seeking attention and lazy journalists seeking stories we will be able to count on a steady stream of headlines telling us that "scientists" have found Atlantis. That's probably a good thing because it means I'll have a sure line to easy publicity for my forthcoming book about Fairbanks, mud, and mammoths.

Food and language
Here's a question for all you foodies and folklorists (I'm looking at you Martin).

Does anyone have a name for that series of meals wherein meal A provides the ingredients for meal B and, possibly, so on throughout the week? The Platonic ideal lasts al week. The simplest example is the big holiday meal which leads to innumerable turkey or ham sandwiches for the next week.

Actually, I have something more complicated in mind. In our house, when I roast a chicken, I save the pan, with all the drippings it produces, and the carcass, with all the roast seasonings, and boil it all to start soup for the next week. Roast A leads to soup B. Shopping for a roast chicken meal includes soup ingredients.

Does anyone have a name for that sequence of inevitably liked meals, and does anyone have a favorite example that they would like to share with the class?