A neglected anniversary

January 5, 2008

Gee, here’s one this blog really should be celebrating: December 28 was the 90th anniversary of the Mencken Fillmore Bathtub Hoax column.

According to the Associated Press, this the historic highlight for December 28:

On Dec. 28, 1917, the New York Evening Mail published “A Neglected Anniversary,” a facetious essay by H.L. Mencken supposedly recounting the history of bathtubs in America. (For example, Mencken “claimed” the first American bathtub made its debut in the Cincinnati home of grain dealer Adam Thompson on Dec. 20, 1842, and that the first White House bathtub was installed in 1851 at the order of President Millard Fillmore.)

We know Mencken was only foolin’.


Liberty Counsel turns into Grinch: Hoax press release

December 24, 2007

“And so it was that just two days before Christmas the call went out from the Oklahoma attorney general’s office that faculty and staff at Southwestern Oklahoma State University would have to refrain from celebrating Christmas, or even saying the word “Christmas” on campus.”

Say what?

The AG in Oklahoma probably worries that Mike Huckabee is going secular. Now he’s suddenly all super-anti-Christian on us? And he’s only that way at a smaller, out of the way Oklahoma school, not at the University of Oklahoma or Oklahoma State University?

Of course you know the rest of the story. From the Associated Press, in the Chickasha Express-Star:

A Florida-based group wasn’t being truthful when it sent out a press release claiming Attorney General Drew Edmondson advised a college to refrain from using the word “Christmas,” Edmondson said.

Dozens of calls poured into Edmondson’s office Thursday after callers had read an “alert” from the group, Liberty Counsel, that said a Southwestern Oklahoma State University administrator issued the directive to employees after receiving legal advice from Edmondson’s office.

Want to wager that Liberty Counsel was down a few dollars in the annual contributions, and just wanted to promote a little panic to bring in some money? Or, are you putting your money on the rum being a little too fiery in the office party egg nog? (Check out Liberty Counsel’s public notice, and nota bene the “Donate” button at the bottom.)

Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson - Tulsa World photo

  • Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson: “It seems like stating the obvious, but I would like people to remember that there is no accuracy filter on the Internet. My second message — merry Christmas.” Tulsa World photo and quote.

    “Some of the callers were quite upset,” Edmondson said later. “The idea that a state official would ban Christmas just days before such a holy day obviously struck a chord with a number of people.”

    The Orlando-based group issued two “alerts” on its Web site, saying an order about not using Christmas in written or oral form stemmed from counsel given by Edmondson.

    But Edmondson said he never provided any such advise to Southwestern Oklahoma officials and does not advise the school about anything.

    “Once the false information is out there, it seems to be immortal,” Edmondson said. “What gets reported as fact on one blog gets repeated as such on others.

    “A few of the bloggers did call this afternoon to try to ‘verify’ the story and they did retract their original version of the events, but the damage was already done,” Edmondson said. “When it comes to the Internet, credibility is not required ‚Äî nor is truth.”

    Brian Adler, director of public relations at Southwestern Oklahoma State University, said Thursday that the information was false and that there is no ban on Christmas at the school.

    Employees were asked to keep public areas of the campus free of religious decor because not all students celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, Adler said.

    But faculty and staff members also can decorate their offices however they want, he said.

    The issue “has been resolved, and it’s fine,” Adler said. “We’re going to have a merry Christmas here.”

    Liberty Counsel is a “nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family,” according to the group’s Web site.

    Attempts to reach Liberty Counsel officials weren’t successful on Thursday.

    The attorney general at least kept a little sense of humor about the incident.

    Edmondson had a message for the group.

    “The folks at Liberty Counsel will find lumps of coal in their stockings on Christmas morning,” he said. “That’s what Santa leaves for bad kids who tell lies.”

    Liberty Counsel could have a real target, though. See the comments section on the story at the Tulsa World:

    12/21/2007 8:25:42 AM, Graychin, Eucha
    This must be the latest news from the “War on Christmas.” Somebody has been listening to too much talk radio.
    How come the 2007 White House “Christmas” cards don’t mention Christmas? They only say “Season’s Greetings.”

    “And that is how Liberty Counsel became home to the Boy Who Cried ‘War On Christmas’ Too Many Times.” ::Fade to tinsel::

    Tip of the old scrub brush to Burning Hot (see comments)

     


    Climate hoax|hoax author speaks

    November 11, 2007

    He did it to expose the climate change skeptics.

    Nature‘s blog has the interview, here.

    Why did you decide to construct the fake website? Was it purely a joke or did you set out to make people taking your paper at face value look foolish?

    Its purpose was to expose the credulity and scientific illiteracy of many of the people who call themselves climate sceptics. While dismissive of the work of the great majority of climate scientists, they will believe almost anything if it lends support to their position. Their approach to climate science is the opposite of scepticism.

    Are you surprised at the pick up your coverage has generated?

    Not really. Equally ridiculous claims – like those in the paper attached to the “Oregon Petition” or David Bellamy’s dodgy glacier figures – have been widely circulated and taken up by the ‘sceptic’ community. But you can explain this until you are blue in the face. To get people to sit up and listen, you have to demonstrate it. This is what I set out to do.

    Still waiting for someone to back up junk science purveyor Steve Milloy’s claim that the hoax was exposed by the skeptics it was aimed at. The hoaxer doesn’t think so.

    [Yeah, I know — Nature is a British publication, and they use the British spelling for “skeptic.”]


    Global warming a hoax? No, the hoax claim is a hoax

    November 9, 2007

    Global warming a hoax? No, the hoax was the claim that there was a study that said global warming is a hoax.

    Bob Parks put it succinctly:

    4. GLOBAL WARMING HOAX: OR WAS IT JUST A HOAX OF A HOAX?
    There was a wild scramble on Wednesday about the death of the manmade global warming theory, except the authors didn’t exist, nor their institution, nor the journal. It took two minutes to find this out, so what was the purpose? Just a prank?

    What was it?

    Nature reports the hoax site, looking like the website of a research journal, took the article down (that’s the link to the article; it’s gone, as you can see. The hoax included a purported article and a purported editorial from the journal.

    But nothing checked out. The journal doesn’t exist. The researchers probably are bogus, too, nor does their purported institution/department exist.

    Rush Limbaugh fell for it, though, as did several others who profess to be skeptical of global warming.

    Certainly a hoax — but by whom? For what purpose?

    In the meantime, junk science purveyor Steven Milloy claims that it was the skeptics of global warming who smoked out the hoax, not the many scientists who immediately smelled fishiness. Does he suggest the name of even one warming “skeptic” who called it? No.

    Did Limbaugh apologize yet? Do you think he’ll be more skeptical next time?

    Update, November 11, 2007:  Nature interviews the hoax creator and perpetrator. Explanation, excerpt, and links to the article.


    Hoaxes as campaign tools

    November 2, 2007

    Barack Obama is a Christian, a Protestant.

    Hillary Clinton met with the Gold Star Mothers, and the Gold Star Mothers were happy with the meeting.

    But I’ll bet you get an e-mail soon saying otherwise.

    Here, more debunking, this time from the venerable, and clearly biased, The Nation: “The New Right-Wing Smear Machine.”

    Read it, and be inoculated with the facts, against the hoaxes.


    Spinning the hoax, saucing the gander

    October 22, 2007

    Bloggers who made the Dishonor Roll for mindlessly passing along a hoax quiz designed to pillory Hillary Clinton failed to make amends. So far as I can tell, not a one has apologized for the hoax, and a couple have their backs arched to hiss that they won’t change until or unless . . . well, they say the hoax is fair.

    Really? Hoaxes are good things? Politicians make fair game?

    Nuts.

    Part of the problem comes from the way the questions plop out at people on that quiz. Any national polling firm can give us chapter and verse on the need to phrase questions and potential answers just so, so that they do not mislead the people questioned into making an answer choice they would not normally make. Any teacher can tell you that phrasing of questions and answer choices can affect the way students perform on a test.

    So, let’s rephrase the quiz. How about a hoax quiz that makes Hillary look good? I’ll wager not one of the blogs that runs the earlier hoax would dare to run this quiz:

    _________________________

    American Free Enterprise: Who said it?

    A little history lesson: If you don’t know the answer make your best guess. Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it?

    1) “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

    A. Abraham Lincoln
    B. Alexander Hamilton
    C. Andrew Jackson
    D. None of the above

    2) “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few…and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.”

    A. Ronald Reagan
    B. Franklin D. Roosevelt
    C. Jesus
    D. None of the Above

    3) “(We)…can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”

    A. Herbert Hoover
    B. Theodore Roosevelt
    C. Rudolph Giuliani
    D. None of the above

    4) “We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own…in order to create this common ground.”

    A. Winston Churchill
    B. Sam Houston
    C. Lincoln
    D. None of the above

    5) “I certainly think the free-market has failed.”

    A. Ludwig von Mises
    B. Milton Friedman
    C. Herbert Hoover
    D. None of the above

    6) “I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.”

    A. Alan Greenspan
    B. Ben Bernanke
    C. Teddy Roosevelt
    D. None of the above

    Answers below the fold. Read the rest of this entry »


    Hoax quote collections: Quote mining Hillary Clinton

    October 17, 2007

    We’re past the political equinox in the political hemisphere (not to be confused with any real equinox anywhere), and we’re coming down to silly season in the presidential race. Soon the hoax quotes will start appearing in full breeding plumage, to be beaten to death by unsuspecting candidates who wish to instill fear in voters, and by partisans who would rather give a tweak to someone they don’t like, rather than get their facts straight.

    Remember when the oral faux pas of former Vice President Dan Quayle went around the internet — attributed instead to Al Gore? Yeah, that’s the sort of bird we’ll see. (To be fair, we should note that some of the Quayle quotes are invented, and they were also attributed to George W. Bush, and then to John Kerry; watch for them sometime in 2008.)

    How do I know the misquote mocking birds will sing? I’ve already seen one bird, with sightings claimed by dozens of non-thinkers in the blogside. Hillary Clinton’s victory at the 2008 Democratic Convention is so much assumed that people are already staking claims on quote mines, pulling out nuggets of disinformation. In one “quiz,” quotes are listed, and the reader — that would be you or me, Dear Reader — is asked to select who might have said the disgusting thought, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Nikita Kruschev, the Devil Himself (just kidding), or “None of the above.” Each quote’ s “correct” answer is then revealed to be “none of the above,” because Hillary Clinton said it.

    SEn. Clinton at Iowa rally, January 2007 - Reuters photo

    For those who may doubt, a date is attached to each “quote.”

    • Photo: Sen. Hillary Clinton at a campaign rally in Iowa, January 2007 – Reuters photo.

    You can see this one coming from miles away: Clinton’s quotes are true quote mine nuggets, ripped out of context, disguised with odd dates and no other details, and edited so a discerning reader cannot track them down to expose the fraud by the makers of the quiz (who was identified as Neal Boortz in one piece I saw but I haven’t been able to find his version).

    We’ll take a more rational, hoax-debunking view below the fold. You can bet that Hillary Clinton didn’t take the Idi Amin-Stalin-Mao-Hitler view. You can take that to the bank.

    Read the rest of this entry »


    Intelligent design: Pigs still don’t fly

    October 1, 2007

    Encore Post

    On the road for a day and a half. Here is an encore post from last October, an issue that remains salient, sadly, as creationists have stepped up their presence in Texas before the next round of biology textbook approvals before the Texas State Board of Education. I discuss why intelligent design should not be in science books.

    Image: Flying Pig Brewing Co., Everett, Washington 
    Flying pig image from Flying Pig Brewery, Seattle, Washington.

    Flying pig image from Flying Pig Brewery, Everett, Washington. (Late brewery? Has it closed?)

    [From October 2006]: We’re talking past each other now over at Right Reason, on a thread that started out lamenting Baylor’s initial decision to deny Dr. Francis Beckwith tenure last year, but quickly changed once news got out that Beckwith’s appeal of the decision was successful.

    I noted that Beckwith’s getting tenure denies ID advocates of an argument that Beckwith is being persecuted for his ID views (wholly apart from the fact that there is zero indication his views on this issue had anything to do with his tenure discussions). Of course, I was wrong there — ID advocates have since continued to claim persecution where none exists. Never let the facts get in the way of a creationism rant, is the first rule of creationism.

    Discussion has since turned to the legality of teaching intelligent design in a public school science class. This is well settled law — it’s not legal, not so long as there remains no undisproven science to back ID or any other form of creationism.

    Background: The Supreme Court affirmed the law in a 1987 case from Louisiana, Edwards v. Aguillard (482 U.S. 578), affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment against a state law requiring schools to teach creationism whenever evolution was covered in the curriculum. Summary judgment was issued by the district court because the issues were not materially different from those in an earlier case in Arkansas, McLean vs. Arkansas (529 F. Supp. 1255, 1266 (ED Ark. 1982)). There the court held, after trial, that there is no science in creationism that would allow it to be discussed as science in a classroom, and further that creationism is based in scripture and the advocates of creationism have religious reasons only to make such laws. (During depositions, each creationism advocate was asked, under oath, whether they knew of research that supports creationism; each answered “no.” Then they were asked where creationism comes from, and each answered that it comes from scripture. It is often noted how the testimony changes from creationists, when under oath.)

    Especially after the Arkansas trial, it was clear that in order to get creationism into the textbooks, creationists would have to hit the laboratories and the field to do some science to back their claims. Oddly, they have staunchly avoided doing any such work, instead claiming victimhood, usually on religious grounds. To the extent ID differs from all other forms of creationism, the applicability of the law to ID was affirmed late last year in the Pennsylvania case, Kitzmiller v. Dover.

    Read the rest of this entry »


    Legendary hoaxes: Neiman Marcus cookie recipe

    September 30, 2007

    Neiman Marcus cookies, Evans Caglage/Dallas Morning News photo, food styling by Jane Jarrell

    [Substitute photo from Desserts by Juliette, dessertsbyjuliette.com]

    Photo: Evans Caglage for the Dallas Morning News; food styling by Jane Jarrell [photo no longer available; substitute photo from Desserts by Juliette]

    Caption: “When the legend wouldn’t die, Kevin Garvin created a cookie worthy of the Neiman Marcus name.”

    Snopes.com and other sites debunk the old urban legend about the woman who was charged “two-fifty” for a chocolate chip cookie recipe at Neiman Marcus’ stores — but in defense of mainstream media, let it be noted that the Dallas Morning News does it up right, repeating the recipe, fact-checking the story, and actually baking the cookies and providing that mouth-watering photo above (et tu, Pavlov?)

    The story began circulating in the late ’80s and spread quickly.

    Although Neiman’s denied the story – in fact, the company said it had never served cookies in its restaurants – it kept gaining momentum. Finally, with the help of the Internet and e-mail, it became The Urban Legend That Would Not Die.

    Inquiries about the costly recipe kept coming in until, finally, the store tasked its bakers to come up with a recipe worthy of the NM reputation. It was perfected in 1995 by Kevin Garvin and is on the company Web site, www.neimanmarcus.com. Free. It also is in the Neiman Marcus Cookbook (Clarkson Potter, $45) by Mr. Garvin and John Harrisson.

    The store served cookies made from the recipe as part of its 100th anniversary celebration this month.

    When victimized by a hoax, make a cookbook and make some money off of it. Of course, it’s a lot nicer being “Neiman Marcus cookied” than being “swift-boated.”

    Here’s the Neiman Marcus version of the Neiman Marcus cookie made famous in the hoax:

    • ½  cup (1 stick) butter
    • 1 cup light brown sugar
    • 3 tablespoons granulated sugar
    • 1 large egg
    • 2 teaspoons vanilla extract
    • 1 ¾ cups all-purpose flour
    • ½ teaspoon baking powder
    • ½ teaspoon baking soda
    • ½ teaspoon salt
    • 1 ½ teaspoons instant espresso coffee powder
    • 1 ½ cups semi-sweet chocolate chips

    Preheat oven to 300 F. Cream the butter with the sugars until fluffy using an electric mixer on medium speed (approximately 30 seconds).

    Beat in the egg and vanilla extract for another 30 seconds.

    In a mixing bowl, sift together the flour, baking powder and baking soda and beat into the butter at low speed for about 15 seconds. Stir in the espresso coffee powder and the chocolate chips.

    Using a 1-ounce scoop or 2-tablespoon measure, drop cookies onto a greased cookie sheet about 3 inches apart. Gently press down on the dough with the back of a spoon to spread out into a 2-inch circle.

    Bake for about 20 minutes, or until nicely browned around the edges. Bake a little longer for a crispy cookie.

    Makes 2 dozen cookies.

    PER SERVING: Calories 154 (43% fat) Fat 8 g (5 g sat) Cholesterol 20 mg Sodium 119 mg Fiber 1 g Carbohydrates 21 g Protein 2 g

    More:

    Read the rest of this entry »


    Creationists: The film director who couldn’t shoot straight

    September 21, 2007

    Hilarity continues to roll out of Waco. The creationists can’t even shoot film straight.

    Tim Woods, a reporter for the Waco Tribune-Herald tells the story well:

    Baylor University’s recent controversy regarding a professor’s intelligent design-related Web site took a dramatic turn Thursday when a film crew went to President John Lilley’s office, hoping to speak to him about what they deem academic suppression.

    But Lilley was out of town.

    Mark Mathis, associate producer for the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and a film crew went to Lilley’s office about 10 a.m. When they learned Lilley was in Houston and unavailable Thursday, Mathis asked to speak with Baylor spokeswoman Lori Fogleman.

    Not satisfied with the hoax e-mail attributed to President Lilly by Bill Dembski, the ID version of the Keystone Kops tried to ambush Lilly. I don’t endorse ambush journalism even when the journalists are honest and competent, but Mathis’s dishonesty and lack of manners in dealing with other stars of his films suggest Mathis is the last person on Earth who should be doing such stuff.

    Mathis said Stein and the film’s producers believe Baylor’s removal of distinguished engineering professor Robert Marks’ Web site devoted to evolutionary informatics — a concept Marks’ collaborator, William Dembski, termed “friendly” to intelligent design — from its server is an example of academic suppression.

    While Baylor officials have said the site was removed for procedural reasons, namely the absence of a disclaimer separating the university from involvement in Marks’ research, Mathis believes it was taken down because of its content.

    “To us, it seems pretty obvious what’s going on with Professor Marks’ Web site. . . . To us, that’s academic persecution and suppression,” Mathis said. “What is the problem with tenured, distinguished university professors pursuing a scientific idea? What’s wrong with that? It’s especially interesting in the case of Baylor, in that this is happening at a Christian university.”

    Baylor provost Randall O’Brien, who was in New York on Thursday, said Marks is free to conduct evolutionary informatics research and, like Fogleman, denied the site was removed because of its content.

    “What we say is you have the freedom to formulate your own views and so forth, just make sure that you issue a disclaimer that your particular view does not necessarily express the view of Baylor University,” O’Brien said. “We fully endorse the right and responsibilities of academic freedom.”

    While Mathis was at Baylor, he could have ambushed Prof. Marks, and challenged Marks to tell him what Marks’ research hopes to find, and asked Marks to show the lab for the world.

    It would have been the first time that anyone has ever caught on film that elusive animal, the intelligence design research facility.

    If the lab exists, it would be the first time ever caught on film. If it exists.


    Stone of Destiny and Ian Hamilton

    September 17, 2007

    For U.S. students there is an uncomfortable nexus between mythology of the Arthurian style legend, Biblical mythology and history, and British history that fascinates me. The Stone of Destiny has a provenance stretching back 5,000 years to the Jewish patriarch Jacob, and which features a blog by one of the last men to steal the stone — with several stops along the way to open the story to trickery, hoaxes and uncertainty. It’s a fabulous story that too few people know.

    Ian Hamilton, as pictured in his blog's masthead

    And, as I noted, one of the last men to steal the thing is blogging away on politics today — on the topic of Iraq and how we treat our veterans, for example. Is history great, or what?

    This is a long way of getting to recommending Ian Hamilton’s blog for an interesting read, which we’ll do below the fold, after a bit of history.

    Read the rest of this entry »


    Franklin Pierce? Wrong hoax, Scholastic

    September 14, 2007

    Maybe Fillmore fans should be offended.

    Scholastic.com has a section, “Fun Facts to Know about the White House and its Residents, which contains this chesnut:

    Franklin Pierce ordered the first bathtub for the White House. Many people were upset. They thought taking baths was not healthy and would make you sick!

    Good heavens! They’ve got all the points of the Millard Fillmore/bathtub in the White House hoax — but they’ve attributed it to the wrong president!

    It’s a hoax hoax!


    You can’t parody this: Jonathan Wells on “Darwinism Top 10”

    September 5, 2007

    Anti-science and anti-evolution groups’ desperation erupts in odd ways. When scientists get together and discussion turns to the political movement known as intelligent design (ID), they express frustration at the sheer volume of supercilious ideas and claims that surge out of ID advocates. At its heart, this frustration has an almost-humorous puzzle: Scientists cannot tell what is a real claim from ID advocates, or what is a parody of those claims.

    Neither can anyone else.

    I stumbled into a mackerel-in-the-moonlight* example to show the problem: Jonathan Wells, a minister in the Unification Church of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, wrote a slap-dash screed against evolution published by right-wing cudgel publishing house Regnery, called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.

    Amazon.com invites authors to set up blogs, and Jonathan Wells has one. The only post there is reproduced in full below the fold — a list of . . . um, well . . . a top ten list of something (Wells just calls it a “top ten list”). It consists of amazing flights of fancy surrounding the issue of teaching science in public schools. I promise, I am not making any of this up — when I quote Wells, it will be his words entirely, completely, in context, uncut and unedited. If I didn’t tell you this was not parody, and if you have half your wits, you’d think either I was making it up, or somebody at Amazon was.

    Point by point criticism, in brief, below the fold. I promise, I am not making this up.

    __________________________________

    * John Randolph is reputed to have said of Henry Clay: “Like a rotten mackerel by moonlight, he shines and stinks.” Read the rest of this entry »


    Getting Newtonist ideas out of the science books

    September 3, 2007

    When the Discovery Institute’s campaign against Darwin succeeds, will they be content? Remember, the real war is against materialism, DI says. Will Isaac Newton and the materialist theory of gravity be next?

    Here’s a parody that suggests what that campaign would look like, from Tiny Frog. It’s a parody. It’s a hoax.

    I said, it’s not real, it’s a parody.  It’s a parody.
    Immediate update: Pharyngula picked up on Tiny Frog’s post, too — a sign the post is worth reading, generally.


    Cincinnati Enquirer coverage of Creation Museum

    August 15, 2007

    For a while, at least, the Cincinnati Enquirer’s coverage of Ken Ham’s Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky is all neatly assembled online: http://news.nky.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=creationmuseum