Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: One side can be wrong- Contro l'insegnamento del creazionismo (The Guardian)

Per i soliti ciurlatori nel manico...
Am.
One side can be wrong
Accepting 'intelligent design' in science classrooms would have 
disastrous consequences, warn Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne
Thursday September 1, 2005
The Guardian
It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Such a modest proposal. Why not 
teach "both sides" and let the children decide for themselves? As 
President Bush said, "You're asking me whether or not people ought to 
be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." At first hearing, 
everything about the phrase "both sides" warms the hearts of educators 
like ourselves.
One of us spent years as an Oxford tutor and it was his habit to choose 
controversial topics for the students' weekly essays. They were 
required to go to the library, read about both sides of an argument, 
give a fair account of both, and then come to a balanced judgment in 
their essay. The call for balance, by the way, was always tempered by 
the maxim, "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal 
intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. 
It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."
As teachers, both of us have found that asking our students to analyse 
controversies is of enormous value to their education. What is wrong, 
then, with teaching both sides of the alleged controversy between 
evolution and creationism or "intelligent design" (ID)? And, by the 
way, don't be fooled by the disingenuous euphemism. There is nothing 
new about ID. It is simply creationism camouflaged with a new name to 
slip (with some success, thanks to loads of tax-free money and slick 
public-relations professionals) under the radar of the US 
Constitution's mandate for separation between church and state.
Why, then, would two lifelong educators and passionate advocates of the 
"both sides" style of teaching join with essentially all biologists in 
making an exception of the alleged controversy between creation and 
evolution? What is wrong with the apparently sweet reasonableness of 
"it is only fair to teach both sides"? The answer is simple. This is 
not a scientific controversy at all. And it is a time-wasting 
distraction because evolutionary science, perhaps more than any other 
major science, is bountifully endowed with genuine controversy.
Among the controversies that students of evolution commonly face, these 
are genuinely challenging and of great educational value: neutralism 
versus selectionism in molecular evolution; adaptationism; group 
selection; punctuated equilibrium; cladism; "evo-devo"; the "Cambrian 
Explosion"; mass extinctions; interspecies competition; sympatric 
speciation; sexual selection; the evolution of sex itself; evolutionary 
psychology; Darwinian medicine and so on. The point is that all these 
controversies, and many more, provide fodder for fascinating and lively 
argument, not just in essays but for student discussions late at night.
Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these 
controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious 
one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, 
in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative 
religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more 
belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, 
phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education 
class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for "both theories" 
would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European 
history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust 
never happened?
So, why are we so sure that intelligent design is not a real scientific 
theory, worthy of "both sides" treatment? Isn't that just our personal 
opinion? It is an opinion shared by the vast majority of professional 
biologists, but of course science does not proceed by majority vote 
among scientists. Why isn't creationism (or its incarnation as 
intelligent design) just another scientific controversy, as worthy of 
scientific debate as the dozen essay topics we listed above? Here's why.
If ID really were a scientific theory, positive evidence for it, 
gathered through research, would fill peer-reviewed scientific 
journals. This doesn't happen. It isn't that editors refuse to publish 
ID research. There simply isn't any ID research to publish. Its 
advocates bypass normal scientific due process by appealing directly to 
the non-scientific public and - with great shrewdness - to the 
government officials they elect.
The argument the ID advocates put, such as it is, is always of the same 
character. Never do they offer positive evidence in favour of 
intelligent design. All we ever get is a list of alleged deficiencies 
in evolution. We are told of "gaps" in the fossil record. Or organs are 
stated, by fiat and without supporting evidence, to be "irreducibly 
complex": too complex to have evolved by natural selection.
In all cases there is a hidden (actually they scarcely even bother to 
hide it) "default" assumption that if Theory A has some difficulty in 
explaining Phenomenon X, we must automatically prefer Theory B without 
even asking whether Theory B (creationism in this case) is any better 
at explaining it. Note how unbalanced this is, and how it gives the lie 
to the apparent reasonableness of "let's teach both sides". One side is 
required to produce evidence, every step of the way. The other side is 
never required to produce one iota of evidence, but is deemed to have 
won automatically, the moment the first side encounters a difficulty - 
the sort of difficulty that all sciences encounter every day, and go to 
work to solve, with relish.
What, after all, is a gap in the fossil record? It is simply the 
absence of a fossil which would otherwise have documented a particular 
evolutionary transition. The gap means that we lack a complete 
cinematic record of every step in the evolutionary process. But how 
incredibly presumptuous to demand a complete record, given that only a 
minuscule proportion of deaths result in a fossil anyway.
The equivalent evidential demand of creationism would be a complete 
cinematic record of God's behaviour on the day that he went to work on, 
say, the mammalian ear bones or the bacterial flagellum - the small, 
hair-like organ that propels mobile bacteria. Not even the most ardent 
advocate of intelligent design claims that any such divine videotape 
will ever become available.
Biologists, on the other hand, can confidently claim the equivalent 
"cinematic" sequence of fossils for a very large number of evolutionary 
transitions. Not all, but very many, including our own descent from the 
bipedal ape Australopithecus. And - far more telling - not a single 
authentic fossil has ever been found in the "wrong" place in the 
evolutionary sequence. Such an anachronistic fossil, if one were ever 
unearthed, would blow evolution out of the water.
As the great biologist J B S Haldane growled, when asked what might 
disprove evolution: "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian." Evolution, 
like all good theories, makes itself vulnerable to disproof. Needless 
to say, it has always come through with flying colours.
Similarly, the claim that something - say the bacterial flagellum - is 
too complex to have evolved by natural selection is alleged, by a 
lamentably common but false syllogism, to support the "rival" 
intelligent design theory by default. This kind of default reasoning 
leaves completely open the possibility that, if the bacterial flagellum 
is too complex to have evolved, it might also be too complex to have 
been created. And indeed, a moment's thought shows that any God capable 
of creating a bacterial flagellum (to say nothing of a universe) would 
have to be a far more complex, and therefore statistically improbable, 
entity than the bacterial flagellum (or universe) itself - even more in 
need of an explanation than the object he is alleged to have created.
If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. 
And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the 
Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of 
scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the 
foot. You cannot have it both ways. Either ID belongs in the science 
classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a 
scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case get it out of the 
science classroom and send it back into the church, where it belongs.
In fact, the bacterial flagellum is certainly not too complex to have 
evolved, nor is any other living structure that has ever been carefully 
studied. Biologists have located plausible series of intermediates, 
using ingredients to be found elsewhere in living systems. But even if 
some particular case were found for which biologists could offer no 
ready explanation, the important point is that the "default" logic of 
the creationists remains thoroughly rotten.
There is no evidence in favour of intelligent design: only alleged gaps 
in the completeness of the evolutionary account, coupled with the 
"default" fallacy we have identified. And, while it is inevitably true 
that there are incompletenesses in evolutionary science, the positive 
evidence for the fact of evolution is truly massive, made up of 
hundreds of thousands of mutually corroborating observations. These 
come from areas such as geology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, 
physiology, biochemistry, ethology, biogeography, embryology and - 
increasingly nowadays - molecular genetics.
The weight of the evidence has become so heavy that opposition to the 
fact of evolution is laughable to all who are acquainted with even a 
fraction of the published data. Evolution is a fact: as much a fact as 
plate tectonics or the heliocentric solar system.
Why, finally, does it matter whether these issues are discussed in 
science classes? There is a case for saying that it doesn't - that 
biologists shouldn't get so hot under the collar. Perhaps we should 
just accept the popular demand that we teach ID as well as evolution in 
science classes. It would, after all, take only about 10 minutes to 
exhaust the case for ID, then we could get back to teaching real 
science and genuine controversy.
Tempting as this is, a serious worry remains. The seductive "let's 
teach the controversy" language still conveys the false, and highly 
pernicious, idea that there really are two sides. This would distract 
students from the genuinely important and interesting controversies 
that enliven evolutionary discourse. Worse, it would hand creationism 
the only victory it realistically aspires to. Without needing to make a 
single good point in any argument, it would have won the right for a 
form of supernaturalism to be recognised as an authentic part of 
science. And that would be the end of science education in America.
Arguments worth having ...
The "Cambrian Explosion"
Although the fossil record shows that the first multicellular animals 
lived about 640m years ago, the diversity of species was low until 
about 530m years ago. At that time there was a sudden explosion of many 
diverse marine species, including the first appearance of molluscs, 
arthropods, echinoderms and vertebrates. "Sudden" here is used in the 
geological sense; the "explosion" occurred over a period of 10m to 30m 
years, which is, after all, comparable to the time taken to evolve most 
of the great radiations of mammals. This rapid diversification raises 
fascinating questions; explanations include the evolution of organisms 
with hard parts (which aid fossilisation), the evolutionary "discovery" 
of eyes, and the development of new genes that allowed parts of 
organisms to evolve independently.
The evolutionary basis of human behaviour
The field of evolutionary psychology (once called "sociobiology") 
maintains that many universal traits of human behaviour (especially 
sexual behaviour), as well as differences between individuals and 
between ethnic groups, have a genetic basis. These traits and 
differences are said to have evolved in our ancestors via natural 
selection. There is much controversy about these claims, largely 
because it is hard to reconstruct the evolutionary forces that acted on 
our ancestors, and it is unethical to do genetic experiments on modern 
humans.
Sexual versus natural selection
Although evolutionists agree that adaptations invariably result from 
natural selection, there are many traits, such as the elaborate plumage 
of male birds and size differences between the sexes in many species, 
that are better explained by "sexual selection": selection based on 
members of one sex (usually females) preferring to mate with members of 
the other sex that show certain desirable traits. Evolutionists debate 
how many features of animals have resulted from sexual as opposed to 
natural selection; some, like Darwin himself, feel that many physical 
features differentiating human "races" resulted from sexual selection.
The target of natural selection
Evolutionists agree that natural selection usually acts on genes in 
organisms - individuals carrying genes that give them a reproductive or 
survival advantage over others will leave more descendants, gradually 
changing the genetic composition of a species. This is called 
"individual selection". But some evolutionists have proposed that 
selection can act at higher levels as well: on populations (group 
selection), or even on species themselves (species selection). The 
relative importance of individual versus these higher order forms of 
selection is a topic of lively debate.
Natural selection versus genetic drift
Natural selection is a process that leads to the replacement of one 
gene by another in a predictable way. But there is also a "random" 
evolutionary process called genetic drift, which is the genetic 
equivalent of coin-tossing. Genetic drift leads to unpredictable 
changes in the frequencies of genes that don't make much difference to 
the adaptation of their carriers, and can cause evolution by changing 
the genetic composition of populations. Many features of DNA are said 
to have evolved by genetic drift. Evolutionary geneticists disagree 
about the importance of selection versus drift in explaining features 
of organisms and their DNA. All evolutionists agree that genetic drift 
can't explain adaptive evolution. But not all evolution is adaptive.
Further reading
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc
Website explaining evolution in user-friendly fashion
Climbing Mount Improbable
 Richard Dawkin (illustrations by Lalla Ward), Penguin 1997
Evolution versus Creationism
Eugenie C Scott, Greenwood Press, 2004
· Richard Dawkins is Charles Simonyi professor of the public 
understanding of science at Oxford University, and Jerry Coyne is a 
professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University 
of Chicago

 Constitution's mandate for separation between church and state.
A parte il tono arrogante e denigratorio dell'intero articolo...
"Although the Intelligent Design movement is often portrayed as a
variant of Bible-based Creationism, many ID arguments are formulated in
secular terms. Most ID arguments do not depend on Biblical
fundamentalism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Ad ogni modo, per chi ne ha la possibilità, ed un cervello
sufficientemente sviluppato da capire che anche un telefilm può
contenere valori scientifici e filosofici, consiglio le seguenti
visioni:
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68598.html
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/VOY/episode/69006.html
Piccola nota: nessuno ha ancora trovato una singola prova che dimostri
l'esistenza dei buchi neri. Solo indizi e teorie. Ma nessuno si è mai
sognato di mettere sul rogo Stephen Hawking. Semplicemente, la scienza
ha dei limiti, e oltre quei limiti ci si può arrivare solo facendo
ipotesi. Anche sull'ORIGINE della vita sulla terra ci sono solo indizi
e teorie, ma nessuna prova che questa si sia sviluppata sulla terra,
piuttosto che esserci stata portata da meteoriti, o altro.
Poi se preferisci ristagnare, fai pure.
Raffaele

 Poi se preferisci ristagnare, fai pure.
Strano concetto. Se vuoi parlare in termini morali, a me l'Evoluzione 
mi porta ad essere piu' cosciente dei rapporti di interdipendenza tra i 
viventi, una sorta di espansione  maggiore della mia consapevolezza 
rispetto a quella che potrei raffigurarmi  essendo controllato, o 
progettato da un Altro, situato chissa' dove. Comunque senza prove 
sperimentali.
Am.

 sperimentali.
Neanche riguardo all'esistenza dei buchi neri ci sono prove
sperimentali. Però massima parte della comunità scientifica pende
dalle labbra di Stephen Hawking.
La teoria dell'evoluzione è sicuramente in grado di spiegare gran
parte delle relazioni tra viventi, ma non l'_esistenza_ stessa dei
viventi. Il primo limite (non un difetto...) della teoria
dell'evoluzione è che non comprende la comparsa della vita sulla
terra. Questa può essere comparsa spontaneamente, può esserci
arrivata trasportata da asteroidi o simili, oppure può esserci stata
portata intenzionalmente.
Soffermarsi poi su quello che tranquillizza di più il tuo animo, mi
pare poi alquanto poco scientifico, alla faccia delle critiche all'ID.
Nel medioevo il popolo trovava tranquillizzante ritenere Dio
responsabile di ogni singolo evento, dal cattivo raccolto alle
pestilenze.
In generale, non è sano credere ciecamente in qualcosa, nè è saggio
escludere a priori una teoria.
Raffaele

 escludere a priori una teoria.
Hypotheses non sint multiplicanda.
Am.

 disastrous consequences, warn Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne
Mi pare impossibile che nel 2005 si sia costretti a ribadire 'ste cose,
incredibile, mai l'avrei pensato.
Palmiro Pangloss
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 Palmiro Pangloss
Mica tanto. Quanto ad analfabetismo, e ad analfabetismo scientifico, 
non scherzano ne' Italia ne' USA. Anche qui su IPI, nel nostro 
piccolo...
Am.

piccolo...
...disse il povero analfabeta, scientifico e non, .... :)
-Stefano



Luccio.
Am.

 Luccio.
Ti ho pescato? :)
*LOL*
Ma d'altronde sei noto per il tuo Irgun che combatteva in Egitto :)
-Stefano

 Poi se preferisci ristagnare, fai pure.
Esistono prove indirette, ad ogni modo tali teorie sono falsificabili.
Se io proponessi una meccanica basata sui due punti:
a) le caratteristiche (traiettoria, velocità, accelerazione..) di ogni moto
sono determinate dall'entità X
b) all'entità X possono girare in ogni momento ...
IYO avrei partorito una teoria scientifica che non ammette alcuna eccezione
né su scala macroscopica né nucleare né subnucleare, e dunque perfetta, o
avrei partorito una gigantesca fesseria per la quale dovrei essere preso a
pedate o ricoverato?
L'id copre i vuoti della teoria dell'evoluzione allo stesso modo in cui la
mia coprirebbe il mancato determinismo della meccanica quantistica,
che si muove in termini di distribuzioni e di densità di probabilità.
Questo ti dà una quadro preciso, poi anche un filosofo come Popper ha
scritto molto a riguardo, dell'importanza della falsificabilità nelle teorie
scientifiche.
La falsificabilità è essenziale per il progresso della scienza perché
permette di far piazza pulita di tutte le teorie (o parti di esse) sbagliate
applicando il metodo scientifico, ossia conducendo esperimenti ripetibili
sulle previsioni che da esse scaturiscono.
Infine non vedo alcuna ragione, eccetto il fanatismo religioso ovviamente,
per fare tutto questo casino considerando che la non falsificabilità
dell'id, esattamente come quella della mia pseudoteoria, discende
direttamente dalla sua assoluta inutilità, cioè dall'impossibilità di
sviluppare modelli predittivi per i fenomeni in fieri e futuri.

 sviluppare modelli predittivi per i fenomeni in fieri e futuri.
La falsificabilità non è altro che un'altra teoria.
Raffaele

La falsificabilità non è altro che un'altra teoria.
No è un requisito che la teoria deve avere per prestarsi alla
verifica sperimentale.
Se poi vuoi intendere il "falsificazionismo" come teoria all'interno
della filosofia della scienza su come si sviluppa e progredisce
la conoscenza ok, ma esula dall'argomento in questione. 

gli stessi risultati a costo minore,
E come potresti "essere sicuro" di qualcosa che non puoi dimostrare in
alcun modo se non a posteriori tramite dietrologia?
-Stefano

 la conoscenza ok, ma esula dall'argomento in questione.
E' un requisito sviluppato dal'uomo, quindi imperfetto per definizione.
Ritenere perfetto ed infallibile una qualsivoglia ideazione fatta
dall'uomo è totalmente illogico ed irragionevole.
Raffaele

 Raffaele
No, e' un requisito per impedire che te la canti e te la meni, come 
stai facendo in questo momento...
Am.

stai facendo in questo momento...
...disse il bue all'asino... :)
-Stefano

 -Stefano
Toh, chi si risente:
Stefano mononeurone De encefalopata Cesari spongiforme...
Una sola soluzione:
http://www.esercito.difesa.it/root/media/musiche/caserma/silenzio.mp3
Am.


http://www.esercito.difesa.it/root/media/musiche/caserma/silenzio.mp3
La suoneremo al tuo funerale :)  Richiederla ad libitum non cambiera'
questo.
-Stefano

 escludere a priori una teoria.
Infatti, credo che la maggior parte degli scienziati sia disponibile a 
credere a tutto quello che gli viene razionalmente provato con i fatti.
Se l'ID ha un senso, dovrebbe poter portare almeno una prova oggettiva 
dell'esistenza dell' "Intelligent Designer".
Non dovrebbe basarsi sull'assunzione che, se le altre teorie sono 
incomplete, la sua spiega tutte le incompletezze.
In questo modo, allora ha anche senso l'argomento che il mondo non 
esisteva fino a ieri e che tutto quello che crediamo e vediamo e 
ricordiamo, etc. è stato creato in quel modo per dare quella impressione.
L'ID avrebbe più senso se dicessero che il "Designer" ha progettato 
tutto per farci pensare che esiste l'evoluzione.
Mirco
P.S.
Un'altra cosa utile in scienza, ma anche nella vita, per dividere le 
buone teorie dalle cattive e il Principio di Economia.
Che dice, più o meno, che la teoria migliore è quella più semplice e che 
richiede meno interventi esterni o assunzioni ad-hoc.
Un ID è il massimo dell'"Ad-Hoc" e di intervento esterno che uno possa 
immaginare.
-=-=-
"Madness has no purpose. Or reason. But it may have a goal." -- Spock, 
"The Alternative Factor", stardate 3088.7
* TagZilla 0.059 * 
http://tagzilla.mozdev.org

 nostro caso, potrebbe essersi verificato.
Infatti non è impossibile, tuttavia ritengo più razionale affidarsi ad
un'ipotesi abbastanza probabile che ad una piuttosto improbabile,
Guglielmo di Occam docet.
IMHO comunque sarebbe giusto separare la scienza dalla fede,
purtroppo, e non capisco perché, spesso si genera astio come se
escludere la fede dalle spiegazioni scientifiche equivalesse a
negare a priori l'esistenza di Dio.

Sono scettico su un intervento esterno consapevole.
Ma la definisci "completamente sballata" lo stesso. E senza nulla di
scientifico in mano per poterlo dimostrare :)
-Stefano

> i
Il Morbo della Mucca Pazza  ha colpito di nuovo fornendoci una  di 
quelle perle che il De Ce' ci aveva negato da qualche tempo.
Ecco cosa succede a frequentare troppo a lungo buoi e asini.
Su tutto stendiamo un pietoso velo e invochiamo il...
http://www.esercito.difesa.it/root/media/musiche/caserma/silenzio.mp3
Am.

 
http://www.esercito.difesa.it/root/media/musiche/caserma/silenzio.mp3
                                                  /\/\/\/\
Interessante... Whippa, pensaci tu...
K 

Il Morbo della Mucca Pazza  ha colpito di nuovo
Fatti curare allora, povero *FESSO MONONEURONE*  :)
-Stefano



Bella svicolata per un' encefalopata spongiforme che crede che la 
Relativita' sia ancora da dimostrare...
Am.

Relativita' sia ancora da dimostrare...
....disse *UN* encefalopata spongiforme che crede che la Teoria della
Relativita' sia gia' stata scientificamente dimostrata in tutti i suoi
aspetti...
-Stefano

 ipotesi.
A parte quanto sopra, mi sa che hai un'idea molto confusa di cosa sia
la scienza.
La relativita' generale predice i buchi neri.  La relativita' generale
e' stata confermata sperimentalmente in un casino di modi (che non
c'entrano con i buchi neri).   Quindi, e' scientificamente ragionevole
supporre che i buchi neri esistono e fare calcoli su di essi.   Perche'
questo sia un
"limite della scienza" lo sai solo tu.
E' una situazione analoga all'evoluzione:  Nessuno ha visto evolvere
l'uomo e la scimmia dall'antenato comune.   Ma l'evoluzione e' stata
VISTA in un casino di situazioni (iniziando dal vaccino contro
l'influenza dell'anno scorso che sara' inutile quest'anno e finendo col
Chihuahua che era un LUPO appena 10,000 anni fa), e le caratteristiche
dei processi evolutivi (mappatura dei geni sulle popolazioni, presenza
di fossili ai diversi stadi evolutivi, etc.) sono presenti
nell'identico modo con l'uomo.
Quindi, e' ragionevole supporre che anche l'uomo sia stato soggetto
all'evoluzione.  Scientificamente.
GT

Perche' questo sia un "limite della scienza" lo sai solo tu.
Perche' non e' "scientificamente provato" che esistano, esattamente come
per la teoria dell'ID. Questo "limite della scienza", l'incapacita' di
dimostrare sempre e comunque scientificamente qualcosa prima di
studiarlo, non ha impedito di cercare prove dell'esistenza di questi
"buchi neri".
-Stefano

 l'influenza dell'anno scorso che sara' inutile quest'anno
Quoto, e riquotero'. Qui siamo davanti a pura ignoranza, ancor prima 
che a revisionismo.
Am.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/090305Y.shtml
The Two Americas
    By Marjorie Cohn
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective
    Saturday 03 September 2005
    Last September, a Category 5 hurricane battered the small island of
Cuba with 160-mile-per-hour winds. More than 1.5 million Cubans were
evacuated to higher ground ahead of the storm. Although the hurricane
destroyed 20,000 houses, no one died.
    What is Cuban President Fidel Castro's secret? According to Dr.
Nelson Valdes, a sociology professor at the University of New Mexico,
and specialist in Latin America, "the whole civil defense is embedded
in the community to begin with. People know ahead of time where they
are to go."
    "Cuba's leaders go on TV and take charge," said Valdes. Contrast
this with George W. Bush's reaction to Hurricane Katrina. The day after
Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, Bush was playing golf. He waited three days
to make a TV appearance and five days before visiting the disaster
site. In a scathing editorial on Thursday, the New York Times said,
"nothing about the president's demeanor yesterday - which seemed casual
to the point of carelessness - suggested that he understood the depth
of the current crisis."
    "Merely sticking people in a stadium is unthinkable" in Cuba,
Valdes said. "Shelters all have medical personnel, from the
neighborhood. They have family doctors in Cuba, who evacuate together
with the neighborhood, and already know, for example, who needs
insulin."
    They also evacuate animals and veterinarians, TV sets and
refrigerators, "so that people aren't reluctant to leave because people
might steal their stuff," Valdes observed.
    After Hurricane Ivan, the United Nations International Secretariat
for Disaster Reduction cited Cuba as a model for hurricane preparation.
ISDR director Salvano Briceno said, "The Cuban way could easily be
applied to other countries with similar economic conditions and even in
countries with greater resources that do not manage to protect their
population as well as Cuba does."
    Our federal and local governments had more than ample warning that
hurricanes, which are growing in intensity thanks to global warming,
could destroy New Orleans. Yet, instead of heeding those warnings, Bush
set about to prevent states from controlling global warming, weaken
FEMA, and cut the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for levee
construction in New Orleans by $71.2 million, a 44 percent reduction.
    Bush sent nearly half our National Guard troops and high-water
Humvees to fight in an unnecessary war in Iraq. Walter Maestri,
emergency management chief for Jefferson Paris in New Orleans, noted a
year ago, "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's
budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq."
    An Editor and Publisher article Wednesday said the Army Corps of
Engineers "never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of
the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security - coming at the same time
as federal tax cuts - was the reason for the strain," which caused a
slowdown of work on flood control and sinking levees.
    "This storm was much greater than protection we were authorized to
provide," said Alfred C. Naomi, a senior project manager in the New
Orleans district of the corps.
    Unlike in Cuba, where homeland security means keeping the country
secure from deadly natural disasters as well as foreign invasions, Bush
has failed to keep our people safe. "On a fundamental level," Paul
Krugman wrote in yesterday's New York Times, "our current leaders just
aren't serious about some of the essential functions of government.
They like waging war, but they don't like providing security, rescuing
those in need or spending on prevention measures. And they never, ever
ask for shared sacrifice."
    During the 2004 election campaign, vice presidential candidate John
Edwards spoke of "the two Americas." It seems unfathomable how people
can shoot at rescue workers. Yet, after the beating of Rodney King
aired on televisions across the country, poor, desperate, hungry people
in Watts took over their neighborhoods, burning and looting. Their
anger, which had seethed below the surface for so long, erupted. That's
what's happening now in New Orleans. And we, mostly white, people of
privilege, rarely catch a glimpse of this other America.
    "I think a lot of it has to do with race and class," said Rev.
Calvin O. Butts III, pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem.
"The people affected were largely poor people. Poor, black people."
    New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin reached a breaking point Thursday
night. "You mean to tell me that a place where you probably have
thousands of people that have died and thousands more that are dying
every day, that we can't figure out a way to authorize the resources we
need? Come on, man!"
    Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff had boasted earlier in
the day that FEMA and other federal agencies have done a "magnificent
job" under the circumstances.
    But, said, Nagin, "They're feeding the people a line of bull, and
they are spinning and people are dying. Get off your asses and let's do
something!"
    When asked about the looting, the mayor said that except for a few
"knuckleheads," it is the result of desperate people trying to find
food and water to survive.
    Nagin blamed the outbreak of violence and crime on drug addicts who
have been cut off from their drug supplies, wandering the city,
"looking to take the edge off their jones."
    When Hurricane Ivan hit Cuba, no curfew was imposed; yet, no
looting or violence took place. Everyone was in the same boat.
    Fidel Castro, who has compared his government's preparations for
Hurricane Ivan to the island's long-standing preparations for an
invasion by the United States, said, "We've been preparing for this for
45 years."
    On Thursday, Cuba's National Assembly sent a message of solidarity
to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. It says the Cuban people have
followed closely the news of the hurricane damage in Louisiana,
Mississippi and Alabama, and the news has caused pain and sadness. The
message notes that the hardest hit are African-Americans, Latino
workers, and the poor, who still wait to be rescued and taken to secure
places, and who have suffered the most fatalities and homelessness. The
message concludes by saying that the entire world must feel this
tragedy as its own.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40081
Bush: Vacation Ruined By 'Stupid Dead Soldier'
August 31, 2005 | Issue 41·35
CRAWFORD, TX-President Bush concluded his summer vacation by holding
an informal press conference Monday to address grieving mother Cindy
Sheehan, saying "her damn dead son ruined my whole summer vacation."
Bush addressed Mrs. Sheehan, who was not present, by saying "a mother
should not have to bury her son this way, by which I mean allowing her
son's death to destroy his commander-in-chief's one chance to relax and
unwind."
Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq in April 2004, has led a vigil
outside of Bush's Crawford ranch since early August, urging the
immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and demanding a meeting with
Bush.
"This is a terrible tragedy," Bush said. "If this dead soldier of a son
had the ounce of sense he needed to keep his worthless ass alive, my
last few weeks might have been peaceful. I mourn the loss of the
beautiful August mornings, and the sweet afternoons that could have
been spent on the porch swing listening to the songbirds. All Americans
mourn this loss."
When asked why he has refused to meet with Mrs. Sheehan, Bush said,
"Listen, I came here to relax. I want to fish, go biking with Lance
Armstrong, play with my dogs, chainsaw some brush, and get back to
nature. 'Course, it's hard to do that when you have to constantly
listen to the mother of some dummy who didn't have sense enough to stay
out of a damned war zone."
Bush added: "I'm more exhausted today than I was when I started this
vacation."
Security concerns stemming from the presence of the anti-war protesters
gathered around Sheenan's "Camp Casey" prevented Bush from making
public appearances in Crawford, including ordering his annual
cheeseburger at Goode Company Barbeque.
"I was really looking forward to that burger," Bush said. "And I could
have had it too, if it wasn't for that soldier getting his stupid ass
blown off."
"We're supposed to be over there showing the Iraqis how to get it done,
not acting just as dumb as they are with all their stupid dying," Bush
added. "I tell you, it feels like every other month since I started
this job, somebody gets himself killed just to mess up my holiday."
When asked to address recent public suggestions, including Sheehan's,
of immediate withdrawal from Iraq in light of mounting casualties, Bush
said, "I don't want to think about that now. We can discuss that back
in Washington. For now, let's relax and have a good time."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush's remarks reflect
the administration's stance on casualties.
"I think what President Bush is saying is that, while we certainly owe
a debt of gratitude to our fine men and women serving abroad, we don't
want the real dumb ones who die to interrupt our precious downtime,"
McClellan said. "It is the president's opinion, and that of the entire
administration, that the best way to honor the brave sacrifices of our
fallen soldiers is by enjoying a relaxing vacation and not thinking
about their deaths."

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:1125932798.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40081
Bush: Vacation Ruined By 'Stupid Dead Soldier'
August 31, 2005 | Issue 41·35
CRAWFORD, TX-President Bush concluded his summer vacation by holding
an informal press conference Monday to address grieving mother Cindy
Sheehan, saying "her damn dead son ruined my whole summer vacation."
* Questo Bush č proprio pazzo...bah! 

 
Domanda stupida vista la fonte dalla quale hai preso l'articolo.
-Stefano

 * Questo Bush è proprio pazzo...bah!
Questa Miriam e' proprio bocalona :)
-Stefano

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0904-20.htm
Do You Know What it Means to Lose New Orleans?
by Anne Rice
What do people really know about New Orleans?
Do they take away with them an awareness that it has always been not
only a great white metropolis but also a great black city, a city where
African-Americans have come together again and again to form the
strongest African-American culture in the land?
The first literary magazine ever published in Louisiana was the work of
black men, French-speaking poets and writers who brought together their
work in three issues of a little book called L'Album Littéraire. That
was in the 1840's, and by that time the city had a prosperous class of
free black artisans, sculptors, businessmen, property owners, skilled
laborers in all fields. Thousands of slaves lived on their own in the
city, too, making a living at various jobs, and sending home a few
dollars to their owners in the country at the end of the month.
This is not to diminish the horror of the slave market in the middle of
the famous St. Louis Hotel, or the injustice of the slave labor on
plantations from one end of the state to the other. It is merely to say
that it was never all "have or have not" in this strange and beautiful
city.
Later in the 19th century, as the Irish immigrants poured in by the
thousands, filling the holds of ships that had emptied their cargoes of
cotton in Liverpool, and as the German and Italian immigrants soon
followed, a vital and complex culture emerged. Huge churches went up to
serve the great faith of the city's European-born Catholics; convents
and schools and orphanages were built for the newly arrived and the
struggling; the city expanded in all directions with new neighborhoods
of large, graceful houses, or areas of more humble cottages, even the
smallest of which, with their floor-length shutters and deep-pitched
roofs, possessed an undeniable Caribbean charm.
Through this all, black culture never declined in Louisiana. In fact,
New Orleans became home to blacks in a way, perhaps, that few other
American cities have ever been. Dillard University and Xavier
University became two of the most outstanding black colleges in
America; and once the battles of desegregation had been won, black New
Orleanians entered all levels of life, building a visible middle class
that is absent in far too many Western and Northern American cities to
this day.
The influence of blacks on the music of the city and the nation is too
immense and too well known to be described. It was black musicians
coming down to New Orleans for work who nicknamed the city "the Big
Easy" because it was a place where they could always find a job. But
it's not fair to the nature of New Orleans to think of jazz and the
blues as the poor man's music, or the music of the oppressed.
Something else was going on in New Orleans. The living was good there.
The clock ticked more slowly; people laughed more easily; people
kissed; people loved; there was joy.
Which is why so many New Orleanians, black and white, never went north.
They didn't want to leave a place where they felt at home in
neighborhoods that dated back centuries; they didn't want to leave
families whose rounds of weddings, births and funerals had become the
fabric of their lives. They didn't want to leave a city where tolerance
had always been able to outweigh prejudice, where patience had always
been able to outweigh rage. They didn't want to leave a place that was
theirs.
And so New Orleans prospered, slowly, unevenly, but surely - home to
Protestants and Catholics, including the Irish parading through the old
neighborhood on St. Patrick's Day as they hand out cabbages and
potatoes and onions to the eager crowds; including the Italians, with
their lavish St. Joseph's altars spread out with cakes and cookies in
homes and restaurants and churches every March; including the uptown
traditionalists who seek to preserve the peace and beauty of the Garden
District; including the Germans with their clubs and traditions;
including the black population playing an ever increasing role in the
city's civic affairs.
Now nature has done what the Civil War couldn't do. Nature has done
what the labor riots of the 1920's couldn't do. Nature had done what
"modern life" with its relentless pursuit of efficiency couldn't do. It
has done what racism couldn't do, and what segregation couldn't do
either. Nature has laid the city waste - with a scope that brings to
mind the end of Pompeii.
·
I share this history for a reason - and to answer questions that have
arisen these last few days. Almost as soon as the cameras began panning
over the rooftops, and the helicopters began chopping free those
trapped in their attics, a chorus of voices rose. "Why didn't they
leave?" people asked both on and off camera. "Why did they stay there
when they knew a storm was coming?" One reporter even asked me, "Why do
people live in such a place?"
Then as conditions became unbearable, the looters took to the streets.
Windows were smashed, jewelry snatched, stores broken open, water and
food and televisions carried out by fierce and uninhibited crowds.
Now the voices grew even louder. How could these thieves loot and
pillage in a time of such crisis? How could people shoot one another?
Because the faces of those drowning and the faces of those looting were
largely black faces, race came into the picture. What kind of people
are these, the people of New Orleans, who stay in a city about to be
flooded, and then turn on one another?
Well, here's an answer. Thousands didn't leave New Orleans because they
couldn't leave. They didn't have the money. They didn't have the
vehicles. They didn't have any place to go. They are the poor, black
and white, who dwell in any city in great numbers; and they did what
they felt they could do - they huddled together in the strongest houses
they could find. There was no way to up and leave and check into the
nearest Ramada Inn.
What's more, thousands more who could have left stayed behind to help
others. They went out in the helicopters and pulled the survivors off
rooftops; they went through the flooded streets in their boats trying
to gather those they could find. Meanwhile, city officials tried
desperately to alleviate the worsening conditions in the Superdome,
while makeshift shelters and hotels and hospitals struggled.
And where was everyone else during all this? Oh, help is coming, New
Orleans was told. We are a rich country. Congress is acting. Someone
will come to stop the looting and care for the refugees.
And it's true: eventually, help did come. But how many times did Gov.
Kathleen Blanco have to say that the situation was desperate? How many
times did Mayor Ray Nagin have to call for aid? Why did America ask a
city cherished by millions and excoriated by some, but ignored by no
one, to fight for its own life for so long? That's my question.
I know that New Orleans will win its fight in the end. I was born in
the city and lived there for many years. It shaped who and what I am.
Never have I experienced a place where people knew more about love,
about family, about loyalty and about getting along than the people of
New Orleans. It is perhaps their very gentleness that gives them their
endurance.
They will rebuild as they have after storms of the past; and they will
stay in New Orleans because it is where they have always lived, where
their mothers and their fathers lived, where their churches were built
by their ancestors, where their family graves carry names that go back
200 years. They will stay in New Orleans where they can enjoy a
sweetness of family life that other communities lost long ago.
But to my country I want to say this: During this crisis you failed us.
You looked down on us; you dismissed our victims; you dismissed us. You
want our Jazz Fest, you want our Mardi Gras, you want our cooking and
our music. Then when you saw us in real trouble, when you saw a tiny
minority preying on the weak among us, you called us "Sin City," and
turned your backs.
Well, we are a lot more than all that. And though we may seem the most
exotic, the most atmospheric and, at times, the most downtrodden part
of this land, we are still part of it. We are Americans. We are you.
Anne Rice is the author of the forthcoming novel "Christ the Lord: Out
of Egypt