Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
…the genetic code is in fact literally identical in all animals, plants and bacteria … All earthly living things are certainly descended from a single ancestor.
Richard Dawkins
Generic bumps and recycled genetic cascades
The burden of bearing a massive penis
Anencephaly and right-wing moralizers
« A new Circus of the Spineless, and a call for submissions for the next | Main | Franken in 2008 »
Category: Humor • Politics
Posted on: February 1, 2007 8:04 AM, by PZ Myers
Commenter Rheinhard worked hard to get this up last night, so how can I not promote it to more prominence, and so everyone can see the inimitable Molly Ivins?
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $19.95. If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
Posted by: Ric | February 1, 2007 8:19 AM
Off topic: PZ, I have to tell you, you're a liar.
You said you would be posting less now that classes have started. If anything, you have redoubled your efforts.
:)
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 1, 2007 8:26 AM
No, not really -- I'm spending less time on the blog. You'll notice that most of what I do right now is link to all this stuff people send me.
I feel a little guilty about it. I've been reading these great science papers, and haven't been telling you about it -- I might have to do something more substantial in the next week, just for palliation's sake.
Posted by: Rheinhard | February 1, 2007 12:48 PM
Gee, thanks PZ! I'm honored.
I think the main thing here is not the politics but just the warmth, humor, and earthiness - something we desperately need more of in our punditocracy of all political stripes!
Posted by: Kseniya | February 1, 2007 2:58 PM
I love Ms. Ivins and her work. RIP Molly. You'll be missed.
Posted by: K | February 1, 2007 3:06 PM
Oh, here's a link to a pretty good article on Molly ...
Posted by: wildlifer | February 1, 2007 3:31 PM
From an idiot at anncoulter.com:
They seem to be above not speaking ill of the dead. But don't dare anyone speak ill of Reagan ....
Times like this I wished I believed in an afterlife, wherein Molly would come back to haunt them.
Posted by: JScarry | February 1, 2007 4:18 PM
Interesting tidbit. I few summers ago I was teaching American history to some high school kids. I stressed the importance of knowing the past so that you can tell when you are being lied to. We used Molly Ivins and Calvin Trillin articles as a starting point for dissecting lies in the media. I certainly won't miss her and unfortunately someone else will spring up to take her place.
Posted by: Mithrandir | February 1, 2007 5:29 PM
JScarry:
Yes, Molly Ivins was excellent at dissecting lies in the media.
If that's not what you meant, I feel sorry for your students and hope they rise above the misinformation you apparently presented to them.
Posted by: ERIC JUVE | February 1, 2007 6:25 PM
If there was life after death, my father would be in the recieving line. I will so miss her writing.
Posted by: JJR | February 1, 2007 7:30 PM
Molly Ivins was one of the few Texas treasures I could really be proud of, as a Texan myself. She will be missed.
Posted by: JScarry | February 2, 2007 2:08 AM
Mithrandir
I find it amusing that you would propose that we don't teach our kids how to think critically. Any of the syndicated columnists would do to teach children how to question what they see in print. Ivins just happens to be one that appears in a local paper from time to time. As an example, the first Google hit on her articles turned up one from January 20, 2006 where she throws out a series of statistics purporting to say what the majority of Americans want. No source. They sound rather unrealistic at first glance, so the first thing to do is look at how they are presented. "The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do 'whatever it takes' to protect the environment." Clearly people don't think that or there wouldn't be so many SUVs and trucks on the road. So can we find the source of this statement. Are there any real statistics about what people think about the environment? What would a valid question look like? More importantly, just because Americans favor something doesn't make it the right thing to do. In the same article she implies the minimum wage should be raised. What are the implications of that? How many teens and immigrants will lose their jobs? What would be the motivation of someone who wants to put have people lose their jobs. Who benefits from higher minimum wages? Has the government ever implemented price controls that worked?
You could do the same thing for any of her columns. Or most of the other political columnists for that matter. The point is that if you don't know a little history and economics (and statistics helps) then you won't know when you are being manipulated.
Posted by: justathought | February 2, 2007 4:46 AM
I find it amusing that you would propose that we don't teach our kids how to think critically.
Wow, talk about missing the point, whoooooooosh!
For a dissenting view, from a possibly less biased perspective, here's a tribute from The Rude One himself.
If you are familiar with the gentleman's oeuvre, the relative lack of vulgar terminology should seem, at the least, remarkable.