Chalk one up for the good guys… Today a U.S. district judge ruled against (more like annihilated) the Dover, Pennsylvania school board who tried to force “intelligent design” into their Grade 9 biology classes.

The judge’s 139-page decision is here, and if it’s not quite of the sheer literary quality of the City of Toronto’s Bellamy report, it’s a remarkably straightforward (not too much legalese) and lucid retelling of facts: starting with a backgrounder featuring the history of creationism vs. evolution in the US courts; all the way through the machinations and outright lying of the born-again board members to push their agenda through. I was just shaking my head at details such as:

…there arose the astonishing story of an evolution mural that was taken from a classroom and destroyed in 2002 by Larry Reeser, the head of buildings and grounds for the [board]. At the June 2004 meeting, [teacher] Spahr asked [board member and creationist] Buckingham where he had received a picture of the evolution mural that had been torn down and incinerated…. Buckingham responded: “I gleefully watched it burn.” Buckingham disliked the mural because he thought it advocated the theory of evolution, particularly common ancestry. Burning the evolutionary mural apparently was insufficient for Buckingham, however. Instead, he demanded that the teachers agree that there would never again be a mural depicting evolution in any of the classrooms and in exchange, Buckingham would agree to support the purchase of the biology textbook in need by the students.

But we probably shouldn’t get too cocky about winning this one; in the judge’s conclusion:

…this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board…to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.

That is, these people were stupid. This won’t always be the case (though one hopes it will be).

From the Nature Fighting Back department? Here’s a story on the BBC website about a pack of starving black squirrels biting a stray dog to death in a Russian park. The attack reportedly lasted about a minute, and they scampered off at the sight of humans, some carrying pieces of flesh.

On the one hand this whole story sounds unverifiable and somewhat dodgy (it’s not like there’s anything more than a few alleged eye-witnesses reporting this thing); on the other hand, squirrels are just rats with nicer tails, so who knows?

The following list is from the usenet, and featured in an interesting exchange of letters between film critic Roger Ebert and a dwarf actor who objected to Ebert’s use of “midget” in a previous column.

It’s a list of Cockney rhyming slang apparently used among disabled Cockneys in East London:

Mutt and Jeff = deaf
Canary Wharf = dwarf
Cardinal Wolsey = cerebral palsy
Raspberry Ripple = cripple
Rubber and plastic = spastic
Tulips and roses = multiple sclerosis
Bacon rind = blind
Diet Pepsi = epilepsy
Benny and the Jets = Tourettes
Wasps and bees = amputee

The Global Rich List

Okay, what is it about Margaret Atwood that produces such negative comment? I know a few people who almost shudder when her name is mentioned; recently Margaret Wente wrote what I thought was a very vitriolic column dissing Atwood in the Globe.

Don’t think I’m an Atwood apologist – I’ve only read three of her recent books: The Handmaid’s Tale (enjoyed); Alias Grace (thought was fine but couldn’t remember details a week after reading); Oryx and Crake (meh.) I don’t know anything about her place in literature (not being “up” on current fiction as a whole) or her personality.

Is it that she’s always the top one cited when the subject is “Can-Lit” and people resent that? Is she seen as a hack who gets too many critical kudos/too much money? Does she have a horrible ego? Clue me in!

How disappointing–I usually have great respect for Snopes, an invaluable resource for the rumour debunker. Tom Tomorrow, however, outlines how Snopes let politics get the better of them. The topic was Michael Moore’s assertion that Bush & Co. let members of the bin Laden family fly on the no-fly days immediately after September 11. Snopes bought the Bush line, said that was categorically false, and proceded to ream Moore a new one. Since this fact has since been proven true, Snopes was forced to recant (and, to give them their due, they apologized to Moore fully). But as Tom Tomorrow puts it:

See, when Michael says it, he’s a crazy truth-distorting axe-grinder. But when much of what he said turns out to be true, suddenly it’s “subjective political issues outside of the scope of this page.”

Planet Autism is an old article (Scot Sea, Salon, 2003; registration or free daypass required), but it is an incredibly intense, realistic and moving account of living with a disabled child. Even though much of the article describes the author’s specific trials of dealing with autism, many of the observations (spinning through the medical system’s endless circles, reduced finances due to not being able to work full-time, clueless friends/neighbours) ring frighteningly true for any parents of severely developmentally disabled children; I find the the fear expressed in the last four paragraphs is chillingly recognizable. Emily Perl Kingsley’s “Welcome to Holland” is the G-rated, Hallmark version (though moving in its own way); “Planet Autism” is the real thing.