Paulahmartin

Portions of Highway 30 west of Interstate 270, Highway 67, and Highway 109 in Eureka also likely to be shut down

If the video below were a movie, here’s how the trailer might go:

In a land gripped by fear …
In a world where insanity reigns …
In a time of lunatic comments …
One man … will not be out-looned

Shortly after the Paris attacks—but still relevant for what will be obvious reasons—a county commissioner in Sedgwick County, Kansas, put together a slide presentation about people named “Mohammed” and showed it at the end of a commission meeting. Let me ask you to pretend for a second that you don’t already know what his point was.

Commissioner Karl Peterjohn first offered two non-binding resolutions as “new business.” This meant that between agenda items 15-0578 (Proclamation Declaring National Adoption Month) and 15-0740 (Presentation of Retirement Clock to Gregory Harlan), the Sedgwick County Board of Commissioners briefly took up the issue of international terrorism.

By itself that wouldn’t be mock-worthy. Local governments often take up issues not really within their jurisdiction. If they do something like, let’s say, call for a ban on space weaponry, that’s worth mentioning, but here Peterjohn was mostly expressing solidarity with, and condolences to, the people of France and Russia (this was also after the Russian plane was lost in Egypt). And that is of course fine and a nice gesture. But by the time Peterjohn got to the phrase “Islamic savages,” it seemed like there might be something much darker and dumber going on here.

He confirmed both adjectives at the end of the meeting, when he went back on the record saying he was going to provide a “public warning for citizens” and warning it would be “politically incorrect.” Would this warning concern, perhaps, the Quarterly Intrust Bank Arena Report or the parameters of National Public Health Thank You Day, both of which were also on the agenda? No. Rather, Peterjohn said he needed to warn the public that there is now a “clear and present danger” in our midst, and that danger is Gregory Harlan’s retirement clock.

No, wait, it’s “Islam.” I misread my notes. Man, my handwriting has really deteriorated.

Peterjohn offered a rambling, 13-minute statement that fell somewhere between Trumpish bullshittery and Carsonian utter fabulism. And he did not get more than 60 seconds into this diatribe before logic walked out on him (along with one of the commissioners). “I’ve heard some folks say that, well, we’ve got an enemy at the gates,” Peterjohn said he had heard some folks say. But “[i]n light of the most recent Muslim atrocities,” he continued, “we have—in my opinion there is a clear and present danger in our own country.” How had evidence of attacks against Russians in Egypt and French in France convinced him there were traitors in Kansas? Well, because … Muslim.

“Now I’ve heard some folks say, well, not all Muslims are terrorists,” Peterjohn went on. Did he disagree with the folks on this point? Well, in his opinion, that statement is “[t]rue, but irrelevant.” Because? Because “[n]ot all Russians were Communists, not all Germans were Nazis,” he semi-explained. Okay, hang on.

I doubt we’re listening to the same folks, but the ones I’ve heard say “not all Muslims are terrorists” are talking about the problem of inferring group characteristics from what you know about only a few group members. Let’s say you’ve seen exactly one swan in your life and it was black. You might infer from this fact that all swans are black, and—because in my example you were raised by wolves or something—that wouldn’t necessarily be unreasonable because it’s the only evidence you have. If you had seen five or ten swans, and they were all black, the inference would be a little stronger—but it would still be wrong. You know nothing about the larger population, wolf baby, and so any prediction you might make about it is not at all likely to be accurate. Your brain will still suggest the inference, but the challenge is to understand that this is a well-known “cognitive bias” and to override or compensate for it.

Okay, now with people. Let’s say you’ve only met one German in your life, and that German was a Nazi. First of all, yes, Grandpa, you’ve told the Hindenburg story before. The point is that to predict that the next German you meet will also be a Nazi, based on that limited evidence, would almost certainly be wrong. Even in the 1930s it would probably have been wrong. Anyway, this cognitive bias/logical fallacy turns out to have quite a few names, but when applied to people we usually call it “bigotry.”

So, the folks who Karl heard say “not all Muslims are terrorists” were presumably calling attention to this problem. Which he plainly does not understand, because he called the statement “true, but irrelevant” and proceeded to argue that we must treat all Muslims as terrorists because some are. Which, of course, is the opposite of the statement he had just said was true. Normally, the opposite of true is false, not “irrelevant.” But then this is bigotry, not logic.

Not content with taking the position, Peterjohn drove it home in a way that, implausibly, made it even dumber. Instead of talking about Islam itself (that would have required facts), he showed slides depicting about a dozen men named “Mohammad” who, it turns out, are all criminals:

• There was Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers. Definitely bad. Spelled his name differently, probably trying to throw us off, but he’s on the list now.

• John Allen Muhammed, one of the 2002 D.C. snipers. Also bad. Another different spelling, and moved to the end. But Karl wasn’t fooled, so he’s on the list too.

• Heshan Mohamed Hedayet, who killed people at an El Al terminal in Los Angeles. Now it’s a middle name. These guys are crafty!

• Mohammed Bouyeri, who killed a film director in The Netherlands. Victim wasn’t American, but still a Mohammed, so on the list he goes.

• Mohammed Skaf, who Peterjohn said was a member of a gang of rapists in Australia. Okay, that seems like he was just a common criminal, not really a “terrorist,” and there’s no evidence he hates Americans. But on this list, because … Mohammed?

He went on, but you get the idea. Sure are a lot of people named “Mohammed,” or some variant spelling thereof, who have done bad things. So we should infer that all people named “Mohammed,” or some variant spelling thereof, are also going to do bad things. Wow, is that dumb, for reasons that are obvious but fun to say.

• First, his “sample” obviously leaves out terrorists not named “Mohammed.” Like the Tsarnaev brothers, who bombed the Boston Marathon despite sneakily not having any form of the tell-tale name.

• It also obviously leaves out the many millions of Mohammeds who aren’t criminals. Can you think of any? Donald Trump couldn’t, although he’s personally met Muhammad Ali several times. (Ali called Trump out today for his similarly stupid comments about Islam in general.) To be fair, Ali was pretty damn dangerous back in the day, but only if you got in the ring with him.

• And Mohammed may in fact be the most common male name in the world. There are 1.6 billion Muslims, and boy do they like to name boys after the Prophet. There could be 200 million or more Mohammeds out there, so Karl’s sample of 12 is pretty pathetic. Statistically speaking, of course some terrorists will be named Mohammed. So what?

• Based on Karl’s reasoning, we should also watch out for guys named John. I mean, there’s no question there have been many thousands of criminals named “John.” He’s got one on his own list! Be on the lookout.

• I have also learned, my friends, that there have been many bad people named “Karl.” Karl Otto Koch was a Nazi commandant at Buchenwald, for God’s sake. And what about Carl Panzram, serial killer and rapist? Who knows how many other Carls are out there walking the streets? Also, Peter Sutcliffe was the Yorkshire Ripper. And here we have a Karl Peter John right in our midst! (Or they do in Sedgwick County, anyway.)

Ultimately, the point is that as stupid as the name thing is, the argument Trump and others are making about Islam and Muslims in general is the same argument and is wrong for exactly the same reasons: that there are a few bad people in a group that large tells you exactly nothing reliable about any other member of the group. Mr. Karl Peter John should be judged based on what he says and does, not on how he’s labeled (triply suspicious though it is). Muslims are entitled to the same treatment.

Update: A reader reminds me (thanks, James) that legendary weird-newsman Chuck Shepherd noticed in the 1990s that there seemed to be an awful lot of alleged or convicted murderers whose middle name is or was “Wayne” (John Wayne Gacy, etc.), and over the span of at least ten years compiled a remarkably long list of such people for his News of the Weird column. Unlike Karl—whose list was much shorter—Chuck hastened to add that “I have no idea whether the number of middle-named Wayne murderers is statistically significant.” He speculated that if so, it might be due to fathers in the 1960s naming their sons after John Wayne, but made clear this was pure speculation; he certainly did not suggest that we needed to worry about Waynes in general based on this evidence.

I sent the link to Karl just now with the following note:

Commissioner Peterjohn—

 I saw the reports about the slideshow on dangerous people named “Mohammed” that you offered to support your concern about having Mohammeds in our midst. I wondered if you were aware of this extensive list of accused and convicted murderers named “Wayne”—at least one of whom is or was from Kansas! Does this change your view at all regarding the slideshow? If not, will you also warn the public about Waynes?

 Also, I noticed that the commission’s website doesn’t reveal your middle name. Would you be willing to disclose it?

 Thanks—

M. Kevin Underhill

It’s not easy loving Donald Trump. The mainstream media is ever ready to attack your favorite presidential candidate, twist his words, take him out of context. Other people—friends, family, members of the Republican establishment—try to tear him down.

Then there’s Trump himself. The Republican frontrunner rises in the polls as he campaigns on an agenda many of his rivals are unwilling to endorse. On Monday, Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims” entering the U.S. in the wake of a deadly terror attack in San Bernardino. That willingness to be bold is what many of Trump’s fans love best. But it doesn’t mean they don’t occasionally cringe or feel conflicted as the candidate stretches the limits of what’s acceptable in American politics.

“I really am worried that if he keeps saying some of what he’s been saying he might drive people away,” Trump supporter Tina Collier said in an interview.

Collier was one of 29 men and women who convened at a nondescript office building in Alexandria, Virginia on Wednesday evening to talk about Trump for a focus group moderated by Republican strategist Frank Luntz. Most of the participants, identified by name tags that kept the conversation to a first-name basis, called Trump their No. 1 candidate. Supporters conceded that the real-estate mogul sometimes says things that don’t sit well, but they were quick to defend the Republican frontrunner all the same.

“When he said we’re going to stop all Muslims from coming in, at first I just thought oh no way,” Collier said. “But he says something crazy, and then he dials it back and explains it, and then I start to think yeah that makes sense. We have to do something, and I think he’s the only one who will do it.”

Fear was a constant refrain. Even in their own country, many supporters said they don’t feel safe. Trump is the only person capable of steering the country in the right direction. If he isn’t scared of the backlash that words invite, he won’t be scared to stare down the enemy.

“Americans think the country is in crisis,” a participant identified as Jeff said. “I’m attracted to his persona because of what’s happening in the world, international affairs. He stands up there and he gives the image that he’s not going to put up with any crap.”

“The president is not making us feel safe,” another called out. “He wants to yell at us about gun control,” a third chimed in. “We have to protect ourselves!”

Their pervasive sense of distrust only confirmed, in the minds of many assembled, that attacks on Trump are designed to trip him up by forces invested in the status quo. Confronted with criticism, most claimed to like Trump even more—though they were keenly aware of how the candidate may come across to people who aren’t receptive to his message.

“You’ve been highlighting what seem to be Trump’s weaknesses,” Scott, a participant said to Luntz, the moderator. “They’re not that bad. You couldn’t shoot him down with all the things you pointed out. Yeah, he makes mistakes. He’s human. He says some things that are off color, that I’m embarrassed by occasionally, but I still think he’s a leader.”

Luntz put it this way: “The more that you challenge them supporting him, the more people align themselves with him … They don’t like people attacking him, even more than they don’t like what he’s saying.”

While the rest of American society has let Trump supporters down, the Republican candidate gives voice to their thoughts and feelings. The appeal of validation creates a powerful pull. (“[He’s] talking to us not like we’re stupid,” Kara, another participant said.)

Many supporters felt that Trump, and they themselves, have been misunderstood. The media has distorted the facts and created a caricature of Trump’s campaign, and frustration was palpable as Trump’s fans felt pressure to justify the way they see the world.   

“We understand there are radical people and then there are people who are totally fine,” said Kara. “They’re just trying to say ‘oh people distrust Muslims.’ No, that’s not the case. We distrust Jihadists, we distrust people who come here to cause harm and kill us.”

Some supporters expressed anxiety that Trump may go too far, though that usually wasn’t enough to make them change their minds.   

“I would say that Trump has a lot of good words and he’s really positive. The thing about the Muslims, that’s the only thing that I’m kind of nervous about,” Joy, a participant, said. “But I would vote for him.”

“I wish he would tone it down a little bit,” Collier said, “but I’m beginning to think there’s just not a lot left that he can say that would just put him out of the race.”

It is hard to imagine what Trump might say that would alienate supporters who have remained loyal all this time. A few people, however, said that Trump’s brash words have made them less inclined to vote for him. At times, it is difficult to publicly avow support for a candidate who so often offends.

“[I like] to see him speak when he’s serious, when he’s in ‘good Trump’ mode,” a participant named Jennifer said. “Usually we just see the clips of him in ‘bad Trump’ mode. He needs to get out there, shut his mouth and be serious. When he’s serious, he’s very persuasive.”

Several participants reported that their resolve to support Trump had been strengthened at the end of the night.

“He would have been my second choice, Ted Cruz was my first, when I first came in,” Britton Johnson, said in an interview after the event. “Now I feel like he would be my first choice. Ultimately he’s been right on almost every one of his decisions. That has been my thought, but to hear publicly from other people here that they feel the same way, that kind of validated my thoughts.”

“Everybody wants to be a part of something larger than themselves,” he added.  

Katrina's family ordered two cakes, and asked the bakery to write "Happy Birthday Katrina" on the smaller one.

Guess what happened next:

 

Little Ryan's cake is a little more confusing... until you take a look at the order form:

Ahhh, I think we've cracked the code!

 

But my favorite belongs to Kate and Lilly, who were celebrating their victories in a local Spelling Bee.

Their parents asked the bakery to add some little flying bees around the cake for decoration... and OH YES THIS HAPPENED:

Spelling B's?

Well, at least they're consistent.

 

Thanks to Katrina S., Rebecca M., & Amy E. for all the latest buzz.

*****

Thank you for using our Amazon links to shop! USA, UK, Canada.

EASY sausage breakfast casserole! Made with eggs, sharp cheddar cheese, cubed day old bread, and Italian pork sausage. Perfect brunch casserole!

Continue reading "Sausage Breakfast Casserole" »

Via

Donald Trump insisted he saw footage of Muslims cheering in New Jersey on 9/11, but the incident he referenced never occurred.

The USPS isn't issuing a new religiously-themed Christmas stamp this year, but versions from previous years will still be available for purchase.

via

Jeffry Smith, 56, of suburban Cincinnati, wants the St. Louis Zoo to lift its weapons ban.

A hat tip to Miss C at Neatorama for posting a most interesting story from Buzzfeed.

A couple had a child with fertility assistance, but later found out that the child’s blood type did not match either parent. A paternity test, using cheek swabs, determined that the man was not the father of the baby. The couple had more tests, and was prepared to sue the fertility clinic. Then they did a genetic test through 23andMe, which tests many more markers than a standard paternity test in order to establish genetic ties in extended families. That test said the man was the baby’s uncle!

The explanation is that the man is a genetic chimera. Before he was born, he had a fraternal twin that did not develop into a viable baby. But the vanished twin’s DNA survived by being absorbed into the surviving twin...

However, since the cells of his lost twin brother are a part of him, he is still the father. The case shows how a person cannot be defined by their DNA. About one in eight single-child births start out as multiple pregnancies, so chimerism is probably more common than we know.

Last year I posted a similar article involving a young mother:

In order to qualify for financial assistance in supporting her young family, Fairchild was required to undergo DNA testing to prove that she was the mother of children for whom she was claiming... To her horror, the young mother was informed that she would be the subject of an investigation into possible welfare fraud as the DNA tests had revealed no genetic link between her and the children she claimed were hers...

More information at the links, or type "chimera" in the new search box in the right sidebar to see unusual butterflies, apples, and legendary monsters.

One wonders how many lives have been affected/disrupted by genetic testing that did not take the possibility of chimerism into account - especially paternity cases.

via

That's not how to put out a fire, by the way. 

The candidate: Ben Carson

The gaffe: Speaking to Marketplace, Carson revealed that he has no idea how the debt limit—a ceiling not on how much the government spends, but on whether it can borrow to pay off existing debts—functions. “Should the Congress then and the president not raise the debt limit? Should we default on our debt?” Kai Ryssdal asked. Carson replied: “Let me put it this way: if I were the president, I would not sign an increased budget. Absolutely would not do it. They would have to find a place to cut.” Ryssdal tried repeatedly to refocus Carson from spending to the debt limit, and Carson clearly didn’t understand the difference.

The defense: Carson is wrong, but he’s not alone. Most Americans don’t understand the debt ceiling. Moreover, while many Republicans saw brinksmanship on the debt limit as leverage against President Obama, others seemed to sincerely and incorrectly believe the nation wouldn’t default if it wasn’t raised—including Carson’s Republican rival Rand Paul.

Why it matters (or doesn’t): The president of the United States needs to understand the difference between the debt ceiling and the budget.

The moral: This stuff is a little complicated, but it ain’t brain surgery.

Via

More employers than ever are nudging workers toward plans that screen them for risks, monitor their activity and encourage them to make healthful choices. Can you trust the boss to keep the data safe?

» E-Mail This

Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law may play a factor in the fate of Padi a black Labrador-mix who bit off part of a 4-year-old boy's ear at a veterinarian's office in June.



Charles Britt, the attorney representing Padi and his owner, veterinarian Paul Gartenberg, will argue Florida's dog bite statute is inconsistent with Stand Your Ground and dog bite tort law. Padi faces euthanasia by Manatee County Animal Services if his case is lost in the Circuit Court. At issue is the constitutionality of Florida's dog bite statute.

A final decision on Padi went to Circuit Court after a public outcry on Facebook prompted county commissioners to hear her case. Under the current law, Britt said, Padi's owner is not entitled to "due process" and the dog would be euthanised without a hearing. Britt argues Padi was provoked to bite the child when the child was not properly supervised.


YouTube link.

The attorney said that Padi has the right to defend himself in that situation when he was cornered under the veterinarian's desk. This would be in line with Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law enacted in 2005. Attorneys representing the victim's family are arguing that Padi was unprovoked in the attack that severed the earlobe of the child.