The "Strange Doctrines" Undercroft

Varieties of Narcissism

Pat Robertson apparently believes homosexuals are "self-absorbed narcissists."

Oh, how I do dislike that kind of narcissist.

Scientific Imbecile or Craven Panderer?

Or both? We report, you decide.

UPDATE: More at Pharyngula, who includes a politically ecumenical list of those in the anti-antiscience cohort.

The "Consciometer"?

In Slate, David Dobbs predicts:

Science will [within the decade] possess what might be called a "consciometer"—a set of tests (probably an advanced version of a brain scan or EEG) that can measure consciousness the way kidney or lung function is now measured.

He also insinuates that religious conservatives might not like such a test because of the precision that such an instrument would bring to debates about such wide-ranging debates as abortion, stem cell research and Terri Schiavo.

For my part, I think conservatives will love the Consciometer because finally they'll be able to prove Howard Dean wrong.

Moderation Howls

Moderation meets prevarication. Shrillness results.

Separation for Thee

Christopher Hitchens in the WSJ (via Ed Brayton):

[H]undreds of thousands of young Americans are now patrolling and guarding hazardous frontiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Is there a single thinking person who does not hope that secular forces arise in both countries, and who does not realize that the success of our cause depends on a wall of separation, in Islamic society, between church and state? How can we maintain this cause abroad and subvert it at home? It's hardly too much to say that the servicemen and -women, of all faiths and of none, who fight so bravely against jihad, are being stabbed in the back by the sunshine soldiers of the "crusading" right. What is one to feel but rage and contempt when one reads of Arabic-language translators, and even Purple Heart-winning frontline fighters, being dismissed from the service because their homosexuality is accounted a sin?

Maybe Now Bush Will Nominate Some Clinton-Style Activist Judges?

Per Orin Kerr, the only judges on the record voting in favor of federal court relief for the petitioners in the Schiavo case are Clinton appointees.

In addition, it may even be (thought its not certain due to procedural details) that every single Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 appointee who has reviewed the case has voted against the petitioners.

Wacky stuff.

Lithwick is on Fire

Read all of Dahlia Lithwick's response in Slate to Mickey Kaus (et al.) about the Schiavo fiasco. A taste:

Of all the ironies at the heart of the Terri Schiavo case—alleged federalists who scoff at federalism; the fact that Schiavo, who's in a persistent vegetative state, has lived off the winnings in the same kind of medical malpractice suit that Republicans in Congress seek to limit—the most astonishing is this: Congressional Republicans who have staked their careers and the last election on the "sanctity of marriage" have turned this case into a mockery of that very institution.

Daily Show on "Congressional Meddle"

As expected, the Daily Show has the most perspicacious commentary on the whole Schiavo affair. You can see view the clip at onegoodmove.

A Culture of Brain Death

I'm watching these escapades on CNN this morning, all supposedly fostering "a culture of life."

This absurd pageantry in no sense honors the memory of Terri Schiavo: if she still had her brain, she would use it.

Is Schiavo a Victim of Disability Prejudice?

This Slate brief by Harriet McBryde Johnson is one of the more eloquent, thoughtful entreaties on behalf of keeping Terri Schiavo plugged in. She scores points with this remark:

The whole society has a stake in making sure state courts are not tainted by prejudices, myths, and unfounded fears—like the unthinking horror in mainstream society that transforms feeding tubes into fetish objects, emblematic of broader, deeper fears of disability that sometimes slide from fear to disgust and from disgust to hatred. While we should not assume that disability prejudice tainted the Florida courts, we cannot reasonably assume that it did not.

What's right about this statement is that it defines what no doubt is an authentic problem.

What's wrong about this statement is that it define a problem that isn't in issue: no one is assuming anything about the Schiavo case. This case has received more scrutiny than any of its kind. The result? Not a shred of credible evidence of disability prejudice.

If activists like Johnson wanted a cause celebre, they ought to have chosen a better case--preferably one in which the claims of disability prejudice were at least colorable, and in which hope for recovery weren't based solely on the fantasies of the bereaved.