When I was in high school and the lawyers first started to over-populate the country, it was common to read about people suing their rescuers. Some Good Samaritan would run into a burning building and save someone, then get sued by the family because he didn't save someone else or injured the person in some way while carrying them out. Most states quickly enacted Good Samaritan Laws that shield average citizens from lawsuits when they just stop to help someone. So the lawyer/pigs had to go find some other trough to snout around in.

But now, Good Samaritans can be arrested. This is stupidity on stilts. If law enforcement is trying to lose credibility or authority, then all I can say is "Keep up the good work, guys!!" The money quote:

Police say Dave Newman, 48, disobeyed repeated orders by emergency personnel to leave the water. The police report does not mention Newman's rescue of 35-year-old Abed Duamni of Houston on Sunday afternoon.

[snip]

University spokesman Mark Hendricks said he did not know whether Newman rescued Duamni. Hendricks said it was his understanding that Newman was uncooperative with authorities.

Of course the police report makes no mention of the rescue, because that would make them look like the complete idiots that they are. And we all know since the Martha Stewart case, that being "uncooperative with authorities" will land you in prison. I would think that this sort of stupidity would be rare in Texas, and I do note with pleasure that the crowd gave the pigs a hard time about what they were doing. A lot of people in Texas still think they live in a republic of self-governed individuals and are not likely to take kindly to "police officers" that treat citizens as if they were subjects, especially citizens that risk their lives rescuing someone while the "police officers" stand on the shore barking orders.

Anyway.

I feel I need to address Lindsey's comment to yesterday's entry. I know this guy is small fish and isn't really a scientist. That is part of the problem with the whole Creation Science movement (and its primary cheerleader organization, the ICR). None of these guys are scientists, yet they (not necessarily Scott, but others like Henry Morris, Kent Hovind, etc.) make a living out of giving lectures on scientific topics. Because they have no basic understanding of what they are talking about, they often make complete fools of themselves. But of course, their primary audience is as scientifically illiterate (and generally proud of it) as they are. Preaching to the converted has the advantage of not having to concern yourself with accuracy as along as you bracket every statement with a sufficient number of "Praise God" and "Can I get an aaaaaa-men" -type phrases.

Having said that, I do not intend to stand up in the middle of his talk and try to shoot him down. I may not be able to restrain myself if he says something monumentally stupid, like "Evolution is just a theory." Yea, well so is gravity; so go jump off the roof. But I will content myself with voluminous note-taking so I can later correct him via e-mail or some such. I prefer to do such things in writing because a) it makes it harder to get into he-said/she-said arguments afterwards and b) I can include references to back up what I say.

And while Scott may not be a scientist, his ambition is to teach secondary school science classes from the "creationist viewpoint." Unless he is talking about teaching in private schools only, his plans are in direct conflict with established law here in Michigan and any other state I am aware of. This is main reason for the Intelligent Design movement as promoted by the Discovery Institute. By being vague about who the designer is (according to Bill Dembsky, it could be aliens) they are trying to sneak in under the radar and teach creationism in the classroom. The problem is that every time you turn around, someone is spilling the beans and equating the designer with the Christian God.

And that is all I have time for. Gotta go.