The Moderate Liberal

Doing my part

2008-05-23T15:18:00.000-07:00

Homemade movies

2006-01-26T20:28:00.000-08:00

UPDATE III: Fixed with much better service, actually usable, now.

Just for the fun of it I put two homemade mini-movies on line. The first is a trailer to my daughter's, eh, "upcoming film", The Realm (~2 min, 13MB).

The second is from my niece Lisa's wedding (~ 4min, 23MB). Lisa was the flower girl at my wedding which both makes the wedding special and makes me feel very old. Lisa married a Marine who is being deployed to Iraq this week, I believe.

Too Much Time

2005-12-15T13:02:00.000-08:00

I wish I had the time to do this.

Best Summary of Iraq Lies I've Seen

2005-11-12T16:02:00.000-08:00

Josh Marshall wrote one of the best summaries I've seen detailing the lies put out by the White Houses as we went into war with Iraq. For those that only hear the exaggerations of the extreme left, check out the real problems:

1. Longstanding effort to convince the American people that Iraq maintained ties to al Qaida and may have played a role in 9/11. This was always just a plain old lie...

2. Repeated efforts to jam purported evidence about an Iraqi nuclear weapons program (the Niger canard) into major presidential speeches despite the fact the CIA believed the claim was not credible and tried to prevent the president from doing so...

3. Consistent and longstanding effort to elide the distinction between chem-bio-weapons (which are terrible but no immediate threat to American security) and nuclear weapons (which are)...

4. The fact that the administration's push for war wasn't even about WMD in the first place...

History will judge this president very harshly. Will he really be judged the worst president ever? Perhaps not. Perhaps someone will beat him out. I don't know who, though.

Conservatives Begin to Agree

2005-09-21T13:25:00.000-07:00

Worst President Ever.

(They still aren't there yet, of course, but they are coming around. History will be conclusive, competence is more important than ideology, and the guys in power have yet to show any competency at anything.)

(Ok, except Rice. She's doing a fairly good job right now. Of course, she's basically implementing Kerry's plans, but I'm not going to complain about that.)

Bush

2005-09-01T10:09:00.000-07:00

Worst President Ever.

Vampire Domestication

2005-05-30T21:17:00.000-07:00

This is just hilarious. Long, dry and dark, but hilarious.

UPDATE: I forgot to add: (via David Brin).

Not Satire, Just Scary

2005-05-17T23:55:00.000-07:00

My wife showed me this site. At first I assumed it was satire, but the more I looked the more I realized it was real. They actually put the word "Bush" where Jesus normally goes.

No, they don't want a theocracy! Why should I worry? And besides, theocracy works just fine in the Middle East, thank you very much...

Pool Deck Worked

2005-05-17T23:10:00.000-07:00

Reminding me a bit of grade school, my pool deck was picked second to last, but it made the cut. Also reminding me of grade school, it performed better than others expected. (I've probably won more "most improved" awards than anyone, I never really improved it's just that people assumed I was bad..., but that's another story...) You can read about the auction here. Note that the name of the article is "Maher Stands Tall in Auction Action". Bob Maher, the man who won the Invitational received my deck, "Pool", thank you very much.

That left only Bob and Carlos with three decks to choose from -- "Mind," "No," and "Pool." Bob smiled at the former World Champion, "Hey we can both get a deck here for 8/25." He bid the full amount on "Pool" and left the decision in Carlos' hands.

"If you outbid me it's fine. I didn't realize that 'No' had all these 2/1 creatures."

Carlos let Bob take the deck for 8/25 and took "No" for himself at full price.
...
Bob came into the auction looking to get a deck with as many cards and as much life as possible. He was happy to get that but even happier to discover the deck had three Stalking Stones and four Blinkmoth Nexus -- after the fact. Carlos, on the other hand, ended up with a deck that had pretty shaky mana with two Glimmervoids, few artifacts, and contradictory cards like Shortfang/Juntu Stakes. Antoine showed me his notes on the deck and claimed there were only 18 playable cards in the whole deck.

While the auction itself doesn't count toward the final standings, you would have to chalk it up as a victory for the reigning Invitational Champ, who worked the system to get a playable deck at full price while doing some damage with his comments before the 16 players even sat down to play the first game.

Ok, so "playable" isn't the most awe inspiring praise ever and they were mostly congratulating Bob for getting the deck with the full complement of cards and life, but I'll take what I can get.

I really should have added the fourth Stalking Stones to the deck, though. I knew that at the time, but I couldn't think of what to cut. In reality, the direct damage of Barbarian Ring and Keldon Necropolis never got used. [I think you just lost your one remaining reader. -- ed. (hey, you can't steal Dan's gimmick! -- sr. ed.)]

Anyway, it was great fun watching the deck in action by a real professional. There's no link, but if you download Magic Online you can watch the recorded games at any time. Bob won the first match easily against Sam Gomersall with the Burn deck, lost 2-0 against Masashiro Kuroda with the deck everyone (including me) thought was the best deck, Light, (after getting Masashiro down to two life in game one before the life gaining of the Sword of Shadow and Light kicked in) and won 2-0 against Eugene Harvey with the Two deck. You can check out the results by looking up rounds 4, 5 and 6, and read all the rest here.

Just to throw in a tiny bit of politics, it's interesting to note that this American game of Magic The Gathering only had four out of 16 players in it's Invitational come from the States. That would have been unheard of just a few of years ago. This isn't due to any decline in America but simply the rest of the world catching up, and there are a lot more of them than us. Sounds just like real world, doesn't it?

Auction of the People Today

2005-05-17T00:00:00.000-07:00

Remember when I bragged about all my geekiness by getting Magic deck into the Magic Invitational? Well, the Auction of the People is today. I'll let you know how it goes. Out of the 17 accepted decks, only 16 will actually be used, let's hope the leftover isn't mine!

Congratulations Women of Kuwait!

2005-05-16T15:17:00.000-07:00

The women in Kuwait just got the right to vote in parliamentary elections. Now only our "ally" Saudi Arabia doesn't allow women to vote in middle eastern countries that have any voting at all.

(Via Kevin Drum)

UPDATE: Check out the awesome pictures of the protest that lead to this newly earned right. Apparently, this is 8 year old Layla, a willful child who insisted the next day to go to the parliament again until this issue was resolved. Click on image to see more.

Store Wars

2005-05-12T11:08:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine sent me this cute Star Wars spoof, Store Wars by the Organic Trade Association. I often buy organic food because I think it's healthier but I have no illusions about it, I know this is a luxury I'm lucky enough to afford. While there are legitimate problems with some corporate farms (you should read Al Franken's account of "shit geysers" on pig farms), this video doth protests too much. We have over six billion people on this planet and enough food for everyone. Yes, people still starve but for political and economic reasons, not technological or agricultural reason. I don't think we can feed six billion people organically.

And while you are at it, check out the trailers for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which actually puts "The Chronicles of Narnia" as the main title, leading me to believe they plan to make a movie from each book. Could this be like Lord of the Rings where we see a new movie each Christmas?

Bush -- Biggest Spender In 30 Years

2005-05-11T17:26:00.000-07:00

From the conservative (libertarian) CATO Institute:

President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.

Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.

The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.

The GOP was once effective at controlling nondefense spending. The final nondefense budgets under Clinton were a combined $57 billion smaller than what he proposed from 1996 to 2001. Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs. Bush signed every one of those bills during his first term. Even if Congress passes Bush’s new budget exactly as proposed, not a single cabinet-level agency will be smaller than when Bush assumed office.

Republicans could reform the budget rules that stack the deck in favor of more spending. Unfortunately, senior House Republicans are fighting the changes. The GOP establishment in Washington today has become a defender of big government.

Bush and his Republican colleagues in congress have spent more than Clinton or Carter and certainly more than any other Republican, and he's done all this while simultaneously cutting taxes dramatically. If Bush was a CEO he would have been booted out years ago for such recklessness.

I'm all in favor of getting back to the old debate between higher taxes with increased services versus lower taxes and decreased services -- both sides are logically consistent have real advantages and disadvantages -- but nobody, nobody should be in favor of this reckless combination of spending and tax cuts. There are many reasons why I have a bumpersticker claiming Bush is the "worst president ever", but this is by far the main reason. Nothing more clearly demonstrates the idiocies of this president's policies. Personally, I believe most of his policies are at about the same level, but this one is so obvious everyone should see it.

Clinton saved us from that deficit only a few years ago and we threw it all away. We may have to wait another generation before we see another president with enough guts to hold down spending while keeping taxes high enough to pay for what services are there. The success of the 90's should prove that such policies, at a minimum, don't produce the doom and gloom scenarios Republicans claim.

Good government. Not dramatic government, not exciting government, just a bunch of smart guys with our best interests in mind doing the right thing. Is that too much to ask for? Can we have that again?

(Hat tip: Pacificus)

Optimism

2005-05-09T20:18:00.000-07:00

Before I talk about conservative and liberal alliances I'd like to toss in a note I meant to mention below about optimism. Notice that even though it is the conservatives who fear change and the liberals who are open to change, it is very easy for conservatives to paint liberals as pessimists. After all, if you want to change something the first thing you do is point out what is wrong with the current system and that comes across as pessimistic. The conservatives, on the other hand, just have to say positive things about how things are and how horrible those evil liberals are for wanting to change everything.

Yet, it is the conservatives whom actually are most afraid, for they fear change. You can see this in the Republican party, they do an awesome job of looking optimistic while simultaneously painting a fearful picture of all things different. We Democrats tend to assume Rove is some genius for this juggling act, but really it is a natural consequence of conservatism and thus quite easy.

Liberals must remember we are the ones pushing for change so it is up to us to make the positive case.

Note also how easy it is to make liberals look like elitists. Even though the true elites are squarely in the conservative camp, we are the ones who claim we know what is wrong and what must be changed. That sounds awfully elitist, doesn't it? We must remember the people are right to resist change, the burden of proof really is in our court.

Change

2005-05-09T17:43:00.000-07:00

At the most basic, non-politically defined level, conservatives resist change while liberals are open to change. Just from these simple definitions it’s amazing how many observations can be made. For one, this is a sliding scale. Most everyone has some openness to change and some resistance, yet it is possible to be completely resistant to all change and still be considered sane, an old coot, perhaps, but mostly sane. On the other hand, belief that everything should be changed, regardless of what was being changed, what it was being changed into, or any other details, probably requires a sanity check. Perhaps this is why there will always be more conservatives than liberals.

For similar reasons, openness and resistance to change aren’t really opposites, at least in the abstract. Openness for change requires details to become support for change, while resistance does not require any such details. The two only become opposites in specific debates, such as gay rights, with liberals pushing for change and conservatives resisting.

Once we get into politics, there are two groups that naturally resist change, those that currently hold power and those who support traditional values. Those who currently hold power, whether it be by wealth or monarchy, wish to maintain that power; the status quo is good to them and they have no desire to see any change that could disrupt that. The traditional values crowd, on the other hand, tend to have religious reasons for their beliefs, or perhaps just dislike a world that moves too quickly. This crowd tends to assume the world is going downhill (“to Hell in a hand basket!”) and resists that perceived trend.

Sure enough, those two groups make up our current Republican party. The rich and powerful don’t have a whole lot in common with those promoting traditional values other than this resistance to change, but there’s the alliance nonetheless.

Liberals, on the other hand, have no obvious groups that simply promote change. Instead, there are lots of different groups that promote very specific changes. One group wants to give gays the right to marry while another wants tougher regulations to reduce pollution and yet another wants to help the poor. Anyone who fights for change becomes liberal, at least temporarily, until they get their change.

And sure enough, the Democrats tend to be a hodge-podge of various interest groups that often have nothing in common. And while conservatism leads itself to a simple philosophy (what’s simpler than “don’t change”) no such philosophy exists for liberals. Perhaps this is why it is so hard to come up with an “elevator pitch” for liberalism. It really does boil down to details. It also backs up my assertion that liberals tend to become conservatives once they have won whatever they were fighting for.

As I said, it really is amazing how much you can observe from just the two simple definitions of resistance and openness to change. But it doesn’t explain everything. Why are conservatives viewed as better at national security? Why are conservatives pushing for changes in Social Security while liberals are resisting that change? Why do libertarians tend to be conservative? We need to look at our alliances more closely and iterate through the analysis loop at least one more time. I’ll save that for another post.

Book Burying

2005-04-28T13:59:00.000-07:00

See, they don't want to burn books, they just want to bury them:

MONTGOMERY - An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.

A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."

"Our culture, how we know it today, is under attack from every angle, [but mostly just from the radical religious right -- Mark]" Allen said in a press conference Tuesday.

Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.

"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.

I will not bring up Nazi analogies... I will not bring up Nazi analogies... dang, just did.

Liberal Elevator Pitch

2005-04-27T17:58:00.000-07:00

A few months back I wrote about the American Prospect's contest to come up with an elevator pitch to describe the liberal agenda. I don't know if anyone ever won that contest, but a large number of selected entries can be found here, many of them good, some of them bad, none of them great. I think my favorite was one of the shortest:

A liberal believes that the purpose of government is to improve the life of its citizens. --M.B., Wheatley Heights, NY

Although it isn't very specific, probably less specific than it should be, it does have the important trait of being something the conservatives disagree with, yet sounds good to almost everyone as Matt points out here. Many want us to say we are for the middle class, but everyone is for the middle class, or at least will say it. The distinction is we want to increase the size of the middle class -- a classless society. In our ideal world, everyone is in the middle class and there are no poor and no super wealthy. Of course, we can't really have that ideal world for a whole host of practical reasons, but that's why we are in favor of projects like head start to pull the next generation out of poverty and inheritance tax, to prevent runaway unearned wealth.

We also believe it is better to prevent problems then to react to them and this requires investments up front. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We also believe in protecting the environment for future generations. How about:

We believe the purpose of government is to improve the life of its citizens. We must invest in the future, increase the size of the middle class and protect the environment for future generations.

Still not great, though, is it?

Not Science

2005-04-22T12:29:00.000-07:00

Here's more evidence that the religious right is turning away from science in all forms. not just evolution. Physics professor Chad Orzel, the author of Uncertain Principles, reads a "science" article in Children's Ministries Magazine:

...it mentioned that the public sparring over evolution and creationism was causing many Christians to turn away from science entirely, and that this was a Bad Thing. Which sounded pretty reasonable, so I kept going.

...And then I looked at the "experiments." The scare quotes are there for a reason....

One of the ones that sticks in my mind (I'd link to the article, but it's subscribers-only) was a classic surface tension demo, where you float two small objects on the surface of a glass of water, and then dip a toothpick with a trace of soap on it into the water (the soap changes the surface tension of the water, and the objects will fly to the sides-- it works really well with a sprinkling of pepper).

The problem started with the presentation, which suggested identifying one object as God, the other as the child, and the soap as sin. When sin is introduced, it pushes people away from God. OK, fine. I mean, it's dorky as hell, but whatever floats your boat.

But they don't explain the trick. The words "surface tension" do not appear anywhere in the article. There's nothing at all about what makes the two objects separate on an actual, rather than a symbolic level.

It's even more maddening with their version of the egg-in-the-bottle trick (which is meant to show that with God, nothing is impossible), which includes the explicit instruction to ask the child "Why do you think that happened?" and then doesn't provide the answer.

This isn't science, it's stage magic. I mean, sure, God could force the egg through the neck of the bottle, but He didn't, save in a very Deist sort of sense.

Have we actually gotten to the point that any attempt to explain natural phenomena as the result of natural causes and not the direct result of the supernatural is considered anti-Christian?

(Via Kevin again.)

Set America Free

2005-04-21T17:56:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting site by a bunch of security hawks promoting environmentalism, at least in terms of oil independence: Set America Free.

America consumes a quarter of the world’s oil supply while holding a mere 3% of global oil reserves. It is therefore forced to import over 60% of its oil, and this dependency is growing. Since most of the world’s oil is controlled by countries that are unstable or at odds with the United States this dependency is a matter of national security. At the strategic level, it is dangerous to be buying billions of dollars worth of oil from nations that are sponsors of or allied with radical Islamists who foment hatred against the United States. The petrodollars we provide such nations contribute materially to the terrorist threats we face. In time of war, it is imperative that our national expenditures on energy be redirected away from those who use them against us.

Conservatives tend to be a bit slow, by say twenty years or so, but they eventually get it.

Benedict XVI

2005-04-19T11:21:00.000-07:00

They just elected Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany as the new Pope. In many ways I think of this choice as a bit of punt by the cardinals. Ratzinger is a conservative who will not allow any liberal change or reform in the church, but he is also 78 years old. He'll hold down the fort for a few years while the church contemplates its role in the 21 century.

However, I suspect he will be quite good at cleaning up many of the non-doctrinal issues facing the church, such as the child abuse problems. That is what the church really needs right now.

First strengthen the core, than contemplate reform. Probably the right choice.

UPDATE: Now I've read a few things pointing out that Ratzinger was one of those trying to protect the church more than defend the children. Hopefully, quotes like below only represent one side of his views; if he really just going the victim route, then I'll have to take back what I said above. From Zenit:

Q: This past year has been difficult for Catholics, given the space dedicated by the media to scandals attributed to priests. There is talk of a campaign against the Church. What do you think?

Cardinal Ratzinger: In the Church, priests also are sinners. But I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign, as the percentage of these offenses among priests is not higher than in other categories, and perhaps it is even lower.

In the United States, there is constant news on this topic, but less than 1% of priests are guilty of acts of this type. The constant presence of these news items does not correspond to the objectivity of the information nor to the statistical objectivity of the facts. Therefore, one comes to the conclusion that it is intentional, manipulated, that there is a desire to discredit the Church. It is a logical and well-founded conclusion.

I was assuming because he was conservative he would push personal responsibility within the ranks of his church, and perhaps he will. If, however, he just blames the media and takes the Church-as-victim route then I'll have no respect for him at all. I guess we'll see.

Geek Credentials Verified

2005-04-19T01:16:00.000-07:00

Magic the Gathering first came out in the mid-nineties, several years after I completed college, so I missed out during the years one would normally expect to play such a game. As it is, I learned to play Magic only a few years ago, in my mid-thirties. I don't get to play much, but I get online from time to time and occasionally play with cardboard with friends or family. I do, however, enjoy reading about the new sets as they come out and follow the meta-game. Having once created my own game, (one inspired by Cosmic Encounter even, just like Magic was) I really appreciate the effort and creativity required to continually produce a product like Magic.

And what I really appreciate is the revenue model. No other game manages to bring in repeat business like Magic. As the first card collecting game, it is in a unique posistion. By continually producing new card sets and shifting the standard playing environment they both keep the game interesting and produce a market for continual sales. In fact, Magic makes so much money they can afford to promote the game with a professional league, paying out tens of thousands of dollars to the top winners.

And like professional sports, they have an all-star game, the Magic Invitational, which is coming up next month. This is where I get to show off my true Geek Credentials. You see, one of the formats they play at the Invitational is the Auction of the People, where they players bid on 17 decks submitted by fans. This year, the decks all had to use cards based on some word, with that word appearing on every card. I submitted a card based on the word Pool and out of almost 1200 entries my submission will be one of the 17. Pretty cool, eh? Told you I was geeky. Not bad for an almost 40 year old who only picked up the game a few years ago and hardly plays! Check it out, you can see my entry here.

Foreign Policy Myths Progressives Need to Let Go Of

2005-04-15T19:06:00.000-07:00

The new, but excellent progressive foreign policy blog Democracy Arsenal featuring five real, honest to goodness Democratic foreign policy experts is always worth reading. But I particularly found this top 10 list insightful:

Top 10 Myths Progressives Need to Let Go Of to Regain the Upper Hand on Foreign Policy
1. Americans like and care about the UN
2. Americans want to be liked/don’t want to be seen as a global bully
3. Americans care about alliances for their own sake
4. A progressive foreign policy is reconcilable with protectionism
5. Either the left or the center will get a foreign policy platform it is reasonably happy with
6. America is a dangerous force in the world/does more bad than good
7. Americans can fully appreciate abstract threats
8. The failures in Iraq will push ordinary Americans toward a progressive foreign policy
9. We’re up against a tradition of passivity and pacifism in our own ranks
10. The U.S.’s challenges in the Middle East are primarily caused by our policy toward Israel

Check out the post to see the explanations for each of these. And notice how the next blogger disagrees slightly with 1, 2 and 4.

For myself, I somewhat disagree with #6. America is a dangerous force in the world. But I agree with the second half, we don't do more bad than good. But we are dangerous and we should never forget it. To quote Gandalf:

Yet a treacherous weapon is ever a danger to the hand.

Dangerous! And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord. And Aragorn is dangerous, and Legolas is dangerous. You are beset with dangers, Gimli son of Gloin; for you are dangerous yourself, in your own fashion.

Say also, that to crooked eyes truth may wear a wry face.

Dangerous does not mean bad, but to pretend America is not dangerous is foolish.

Health Care Satisfaction and Expense

2005-04-14T11:48:00.000-07:00

Does the U.S. have the best health care system in the world, as often stated by conservatives? What do the people think? Check out these statistics:

Country	Satisfaction	Cost per Capita
Denmark	91%	$1940
Finland	81%	$1539
Austria	73%	$1960
Netherlands	70%	$1911
Luxembourg	67%	$1985
France	65%	$2125
Belgium	63%	$1738
Ireland	58%	$1200
Germany	58%	$2365
Sweden	58%	$1943
UnitedKingdom	57%	$1193
Canada	46%	$1836
Spain	43%	$1211
UnitedStates	40%	$3724

All that money for so little satisfaction. Sad, really. On the other hand, maybe we shouldn't count the 40 million Americans without insurance in these statistics, since they don't actually participate in our health care system they have no idea if it is good or bad. Yea, that's the ticket.

(Via, Kevin Drum)

Rumsfeld Visits Iraqi Leaders

2005-04-12T11:33:00.000-07:00

I see that Rumsfeld recently visited the Iraqi leaders.

I'm glad he made the trip, it's important for our high ranking officials to share a little face time with the elected officials in Iraq. But I can't help but be reminded of another trip Rumsfeld made to Iraq to talk to the Iraqi leaders. You know, that one where he met Saddam Hussein to normalize US/Iraqi relationships during the Iran-Iraq war, the one where Saddam used chemical weapons. Actually, it was two trips, one an 1983 and another the following year.

Hopefully, the result of this trip will have a happier ending than the result of that other one. I'm an optimist, I'm sure it will.

PG-13

2005-04-11T21:57:00.000-07:00

This is old news, perhaps, but I just noticed that Star Wars III, Revenge of the Sith will be PG-13, the first Star Wars movie to not be rated at just PG. I'll take this as a good sign that maybe, just maybe this one won't disappoint as much as I and II. Every few years Lucas manages to excite my ten year old heart only to disappoint my almost forty year old brain. Sigh. The trailer sure looks cool, though, doesn't it?

(Or check out the captioned trailer here, if you need it translated to teenage, IM talk.)

Geography Test

2005-04-08T11:45:00.000-07:00

Go to maps.google.com and click on Satellite in the top, right-hand corner. Without peeking at the maps try to find the following:

1) Central Park
2) The Washington Monument
3) Disneyland
4) Luxur on the Vegas Strip
5) Your own house.

Personally, I had to cheat just a bit on 1) and a whole lot on 2) and 3).

Pope John Paul II

2005-04-06T11:50:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to chime in quickly on Pope John Paul II. I've always had a great deal of respect for the man and his Culture of Life. John Paul II was always consistent on his support of life, he opposed both euthanasia and the death penalty; he fought against abortion and war. The day he visited and forgave his attempted murderer is one we will all remember. Consistent.

Contrast this to our politicians who love to throw around the term "Culture of Life" to fish for votes but turn around and execute mentally retarded murderers, sign laws to let hospitals turn off life support against the patient's and family's will to save money and start wars based on speculation and fear.

I don't agree with the Culture of Life in terms of law, sometimes wars are necessary or the lessor of evils (Afghanistan, Kosovo, Gulf War I), sometimes a women believes an abortion is the best choice for her family, and certainly legal abortions are preferable to our daughters dying to the illegal kind, but the Culture of Life represents the ideal we should all strive for. The church should support that ideal.

I do have a problem with the birth control issue, but not as much as others. The most important method to prevent women from getting pregnant too young or too often is education; the negative correlation between birth rates and education is amazing; even a third grade education means so much, and the Catholic church is one of the greatest educators of young girls in third world countries. Despite what the critics claim, the church has done more to curb birth rates in third world countries than most any other organization. True, it wasn't really on purpose, but that was the result.

I'm not Catholic, but if I had my wish there are a few areas I'd like to see change. One is the birth control issue just mentioned. Also, I'd like to see them revisit the end of life issue. As technology advances death becomes less and less the 'will of God' and more the decisions of humans. How do we deal with that? What is moral? We can no longer pretend we don't make those decisions, we do, so how do we make them? For abortion I agree with the ideal even if I disagree with the law, but for end of life decisions I think the ideal needs to embrace the complexity more.

Rapture vs Environmentalism

2005-04-05T16:40:00.000-07:00

My cousin sent me an article from the Omega Letter about the coming rapture. The full article is here. What follows are the relevant parts and my reply:

Depending upon whom one asks the question, mankind has been on this planet for somewhere between six thousand and six million years. The six million year figure is the extreme end of the evolutionist's estimates, where the six thousand year period is the time frame generally accepted by creationists.

Allow yourself to dwell, for a minute, on just how long six thousand years really is. Not in abstract, cosmic terms, but rather, in terms of human society. It was only six hundred years ago that conventional wisdom said the earth was flat. Mankind had been on the earth for more than five thousand five hundred years before we learned otherwise.

America, the greatest nation the world has ever known, is only two-hundred and twenty-nine years old. It was just one hundred and forty-five years ago that Americans were willing to kill each other over the right to own other human beings as property.

Only sixty years ago, human beings were being shoveled into ovens in their millions or shot down into mass graves at the hands of citizens of the oldest and most cultured civilizations in Europe.

Even at six thousand years, man has been here a long, long time, when you think about it.
...
The approaching hoofbeats of the Pale Rider, by whatever name, are getting too loud to ignore. Evidently, after six thousand years, the human race has used up our host planet.

A new scientific study -- prepared in Washington under the supervision of a board chaired by Robert Watson, the British-born chief scientist at the World Bank and a former scientific adviser to the White House -- warns that very thing.

According to the study, human civilization has consumed two-thirds of the world's resources, most of it in just the last sixty years. Among the study's findings:

• Because of human demand for food, fresh water, timber, fiber and fuel, more land has been claimed for agriculture in the last 60 years than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined.

• An estimated 24% of the Earth's land surface is now cultivated.

• Water withdrawals from lakes and rivers has doubled in the last 40 years. Humans now use between 40% and 50% of all available freshwater running off the land.

• At least a quarter of all fish stocks are overharvested. In some areas, the catch is now less than a hundredth of that before industrial fishing.

• Since 1980, about 35% of mangroves have been lost, 20% of the world's coral reefs have been destroyed and another 20% badly degraded.

• Deforestation and other changes could increase the risks of malaria and cholera, and open the way for new and so far unknown disease to emerge.

•Flow from rivers has been reduced dramatically. For parts of the year, the Yellow River in China, the Nile in Africa and the Colorado in North America dry up before they reach the ocean.

•An estimated 90% of the total weight of the ocean's large predators - tuna, swordfish and sharks - has disappeared in recent years.

•An estimated 12% of bird species, 25% of mammals and more than 30% of all amphibians are threatened with extinction within the next century.

Let's revisit the fact we've been on this planet for six thousand years. Or even, for the sake of argument, some indeterminite period of millions of years, which makes it even more amazing.

Which ever time frame fits your comfort zone, it is nonetheless this generation that is alleged to have used it all up and begun the process of planetary doom.

It is THIS generation in which men's hearts have begun to fail them 'for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth.'

Signs in the sun, moon and stars have astronomers baffled; fears of a catastrophic collision with giant space rocks have us scanning the heavens and planning our defense from a threat that a generation ago, we didn't even know existed.

The 'distress of nations' is palpable; the United Nations has a whole bureaucracy exclusively devoted to saving the planet from extinction.

The study says that we are running out of food sources, out of fresh water, we face the threat of killer plagues and epidemics; we've overfished the oceans and destroyed the seabed.

And the study concludes all this damage took place -- not gradually over six thousand years of human existence -- but within a single generation!
...
Like science, Bible prophecy also foretells the impending ecological judgment of the planet, saying that it will come upon a single generation, somewhere in time.

Logic demands an explanation, and coincidence won't do. The only other explanation is that it is true. That time is running out. That the Lord is about to return, exactly as the Bible says He will.

It is time to choose Whom you will serve. There isn't time to put it off. There really isn't.
...
He is coming!

My reply:

Well, I can't speak for the theology, but I can comment on the science:

The six million year number is very long for anything that should be called 'mankind', the number is probably less than 100,000 years, but they called it an 'extreme estimate' so no complaints there.

"It was only six hundred years ago that conventional wisdom said the earth was flat." Not true. The ancient Egyptians had the circumference of the Earth measured to an astonishingly accurate number. Commoners 600 years ago may have thought the world was flat but the educated class did not. There was, however, argument over the size of the planet -- Columbus thought the world was much smaller than what the ancients thought. Columbus was wrong but he died believing he was correct.

What hits me about the rest of the article, though, is the assumed belief that our morals and wisdom are in a decline. Yet, every time he refers to where mankind used to be, he points out how our morals and wisdom have *improved*. Better knowledge of our world, the end of slavery, the end of death camps, etc.

The human race is growing up yet people seem so determined to think we are going in the other direction, losing our wisdom and morals. But look at the real world and it just isn't so. We still have a long way to go, but we are getting there.

But yes, the environmental problems are real, but they aren't irreversible yet. The Earth is proving itself quite resilient, so far. We are still learning how to take care of this planet of ours. We're getting there. Are hearts are not failing, at least they are failing less than they used to. He mentions overfishing but for the most part we stopped doing that! See, we are learning.

The reason all of this happened recently isn't the decline in morals or wisdom, it's the increase of technology and power. So far I believe wisdom is outpacing technology, but it's a close race. I have faith wisdom will win. Fortunately, many of the answers to these problems are also technological, so 'winning' the race isn't even required.

Remember, faith is about hope and optimism, not an easy way out. (Ok, so I commented on the theology, so sue me! :-)

Planning on the prophesies saving us from a dying planet is like ignoring retirement funds because you might win the lottery. Regardless of what actually happens we need to *plan* on the assumption we are on our own.

What scares me is some people start using the rapture as an excuse to not fix these problems. Even if Jesus comes tomorrow let's fix what we can today! But please, please, please let's not secretly wish for the problems to worsen in the hope it will quicken Jesus' return. Let's fix these problems.

Theocracy Watch

2005-04-05T13:45:00.000-07:00

Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.

Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.

Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.

Light Blogging

2005-04-05T00:48:00.000-07:00

It will probably be light blogging this week. I particularly busy at work and my wife is out of town, leaving little extra time. Kind of strange working from home and staying with the homeschooled kid; a different life style, not particularly chosen, it just sort of happened, but it works quite well for us.

I'm glad to see other blogs posting how they think the end-of-life laws should be modified, that is the correct line of discussion, not this wacky obsession with the courts that kept coming up the past few weeks. I'll chime in a bit later, when I have the time, but my short take is we should stop worrying about what is or is not an "extraordinary" means of keeping someone alive. The whole ordinary/extraordinary dichotomy is a practical one, not a moral one. If a means of life support can be afforded we are beyond practical considerations and purely in the realm of moral considerations.

Where the law needs to be more clear is on what level of brain damage leaves the person in a state morally equivalent to dead.

Change of Heart

2005-04-01T02:02:00.000-08:00

I'm embarrassed to say it, but the more I've talked about evolution and the controversies surrounding it the more I've realized that the only reason I believed in evolution in the first place is because someone told me about it when I was young. By this point in my life, it truly is just another faith, no different than what any religious person believes.

I used to think scientists held a special place in the world when it came to discovering the truth, but now I realize they are just another special interest, protecting their turf by promoting whatever lies make it easier for them to get money. But really, scientists just believe that Christianity must be wiped off the face of the Earth, and they must convince everyone that God doesn't exists and the Bible is all wrong. Galileo lead the way and all scientists since have followed.

It's strange, but the same day I realized this Scientific American comes to a similar conclusion. Check out this month's editorial:

There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.

In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

The rest of the editorial can be read here. The editorial concludes, "This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day." Good for them. I'll try to maintain the same level of fairness in this blog as well. Say goodbye to the Moderate Liberal and hello to the Balanced Centrist. I'll report, you decide.

UPDATE: Now that I've had this change of heart I've found Michelle Maklin's blog much more informative than I used to. Check her out.

Calling 911, Bad Burger At Laguna Niguel

2005-03-31T22:38:00.000-08:00

Ok, enough of the depressing stuff. For a laugh, listen to this 911 call (wma file). Apparently, some lady wasn't getting the burger she wanted, so she called for the police.

O: Okay, what exactly is it you want us to do for you?
B: Uh, send an officer down here. I want them to make my order right.
O: Ma'am, we're not going to go down there and escort your Western bacon cheeseburger.
B: *pause* ....What am I supposed to do?

The transcript is here, but you really need to listen to the whole thing.

(via Kevin Drum)

Overreacting?

2005-03-31T16:42:00.000-08:00

I keep hoping, wishing, praying that I'm overreaction to the whole Terri Schiavo case. Surely our democracy isn't really in jeopardy over this case! But then I read comments like this:

And if the whole system collapses..well, toooooo bad. In this case, I believe it better to have the devil we don't know, than the devil we do---because the one we DO leads to death.

This scares the bejeezus out of me. I'm not the only one, check out the Moderate Voice:

We may have thought things were bad before she died.

Now, the gloves are going to come off.

We may destroy our republic over the fate of one woman, after sacrificing tens of thousands over more than two centuries.

Even I'm not willing to go that far. Yet. For a similar reaction, go checkout the article by the most popular Republican, pro-Bush blogger on the internet, Glenn Reynolds:

Trampling traditional limits on governmental power in an earnest desire to do good in high-profile cases has been a hallmark of a certain sort of liberalism, and it's the sort of thing that I thought conservatives eschewed. If I were in charge of making the decision, I might well put the tube back and turn Terri Schiavo over to her family. But I'm not, and the Florida courts are, and they seem to have done a conscientious job. Maybe they came to the right decision, and maybe they didn't; this is a hard case. But respecting the courts' role in the system, and not rushing to overturn all the rules because we don't like the outcome, seems to me to be part of being a member of civilized society rather than a mob. I thought conservatives knew this. Before things are over, they may wish they hadn't forgotten.

As pointed out, Tom Harkin, Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson all supported this legislation and more direct federal involvement. Perhaps we finally found an issue where it's moderates versus the extremists, with the far right and far left teaming up against all of us in the middle. Or perhaps, this has nothing to do with those old, discardable terms 'right', 'left', 'liberal' or 'conservative', just those of us still fighting for good government against those who can't see the forest for the trees.

I've been writing about this one issue far too much lately. Time to move on. Hopefully, the rest of the country will as well. I fear the results if it does not.

It's Over

2005-03-31T09:40:00.000-08:00

Terri Schiavo died this morning.

Listen to the Judge

2005-03-30T13:40:00.000-08:00

From today's ruling:

"Any further action by our court or the district court would be improper," wrote Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., who was appointed by former President Bush. "While the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate discharge of duty."

Birch went on to scold President Bush and Congress for their attempts to intervene in the judicial process, by saying: "In resolving the Schiavo controversy, it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people — our Constitution."

Just for the Record

2005-03-30T13:04:00.000-08:00

Just for the record I'd like to point out my preferred outcome of the whole Terri Schiavo case would be to hand Terri over to her parents. I don't believe there is anyone in that body but I certainly see no harm.

But that preference pales in comparison to my concern over Bush and congress (hypocritically) passing laws to circumvent the legal system. The Schiavo case is complex. We have a system for determining the solution to complex cases like this. The integrity of that system is far more important than any conclusion to this current pop-culture, made for TV tragedy.

I'm getting the impression that many conservatives have determined the legal system is more of a problem than a solution. I hope I'm wrong.

Vouchers

2005-03-29T12:17:00.000-08:00

Kevin Drum points out an editorial that suggests healthcare vouchers, and decides he likes that terminology as a good frame for selling single-payer healthcare. Just to toot my horn for a second, I used the word 'voucher' to explain single-payer healthcare a month ago:

While contemplating all this I wondered if I was the only person who supported both school vouchers and single-payer healthcare. Vouchers are considered further to the right than most Republicans are willing to go and single-payer healthcare is considered further to the left than most Democrats are willing to go, yet I think both are a good idea. Then, just as I was thinking this was a perfect example of how we should look to pragmatic solutions to problems regardless ideology, it occurred to me that both ideas are, in fact, basically the same.

A voucher program as I would like to see it would be a federally funded program where each child gets a voucher of equal value to pay for the schooling of their parent's choice. The single-payer healthcare system would give each person a choice of healthcare plans (insurance) they could choose as they like. Just introduce the word 'voucher' into the healthcare plan and they look almost identical.

However, I wasn't quite at the point of using the word 'voucher' as a selling point. Kevin is right, we should use this term more. Now, if I just can get Democrats to support a good, fully-funded school voucher program....

Not Theoretical After All

2005-03-28T11:41:00.000-08:00

I've been quite concerned about the (supposedly theoretical) possibility of Gov. Bush violating the judge's order and 'rescuing' Terri Schiavo. Maybe it wasn't a theoretical concern after all, from Knight Rider:

MIAMI - Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo wasn't to be removed from her hospice, a team of Florida law enforcement agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted - but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge's order, The Miami Herald has learned.
...
"There were two sets of law enforcement officers facing off, waiting for the other to blink," said one official with knowledge of Thursday morning's activities. In jest, one official said local police discussed "whether we had enough officers to hold off the National Guard."

"It was kind of a showdown on the part of the locals and the state police," the official said. "It was not too long after that Jeb Bush was on TV saying that, evidently, he doesn't have as much authority as people think."

Now the same article also states

Said Bush spokesman Jacob DiPietre: "There was no showdown. We were ready to go. We didn't want to break the law. There was a process in place and we were following the process. The judge had an order and we were following the order."

so it isn't completely obvious what really happened. It's interesting, before I learned about this I said in the comments "Put it this way, if Gov. Bush ordered the police to 'rescue' Terri, should the police even obey? It isn't obvious since Bush would be asking them to violate the law." Is this what happened?

Parents, Children, Love, Letting Go

2005-03-28T01:36:00.000-08:00

As horrible as it is, you are supposed to bury your parents some day, but you are never, ever supposed to bury your children. From the Guardian:

But, given the vehemence with which he has been fighting to prolong Terri's life, it is a little surprising to learn that Robert [Schindler, Terri's father] decided to turn off the life-support system for his mother. She was 79 at the time, and had been ill with pneumonia for a week, when her kidneys gave out. "I can remember like yesterday the doctors said she had a good life. I asked, 'If you put her on a ventilator does she have a chance of surviving, of coming out of this thing?'" Robert says. "I was very angry with God because I didn't want to make those decisions."

Death Not DeLayed

2005-03-28T01:29:00.000-08:00

From the L.A. Times:

CANYON LAKE, Texas — A family tragedy that unfolded in a Texas hospital during the fall of 1988 was a private ordeal — without judges, emergency sessions of Congress or the debate raging outside Terri Schiavo's Florida hospice.

The patient then was a 65-year-old drilling contractor, badly injured in a freak accident at his home. Among the family members keeping vigil at Brooke Army Medical Center was a grieving junior congressman — Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
...
"There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old widowed mother, recalled in an interview last week. "There was no way [Charles] wanted to live like that. Tom knew — we all knew — his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way."

Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay.

When his father's kidneys failed, the DeLay family decided against connecting him to a dialysis machine. "Extraordinary measures to prolong life were not initiated," said his medical report, citing "agreement with the family's wishes." His bedside chart carried the instruction: "Do not resuscitate."

On Dec. 14, 1988, the DeLay patriarch "expired with his family in attendance."

DeLay, of course, claims his father's case was "entirely different".

Worse Than Death

2005-03-27T14:39:00.000-08:00

WESTLEY
Then you're not married -- if you didn't say it, you didn't do it --
(a pause)
-- wouldn't you agree, Your Highness?

HUMPERDINCK
A technicality that will shortly be remedied. But first things first. To the death.

WESTLEY
No.
(a little pause)
To the pain.

HUMPERDINCK(about to charge, stops short)
I don't think I'm quite familiar with that phrase.

WESTLEY
I'll explain. And I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand, you wart-hog-faced buffoon.

HUMPERDINCK
That may be the first time in my life a man has dared insult me.

WESTLEY
It won't be the last. To the pain means the first thing you lose will be your feet, below the ankles, then your hands at the wrists, next your nose.

HUMPERDINCK
-- and then my tongue, I suppose. I killed you too quickly the last time, a mistake I don't mean to duplicate tonight.

WESTLEY
I wasn't finished -- the next thing you lose will be your left eye, followed by your right --

HUMPERDINCK(takes step forward)
-- and then my ears, I understand. Let's get on with it --

CLOSE UP: WESTLEY HUGE
WESTLEY
Wrong! Your ears you keep, and I'll tell you why --

HUMPERDINCK.
And now he stops, and the look that was in his eyes at the wedding, that look of fear, is starting to return.

WESTLEY
-- so that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish -- every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, "Dear God, what is that thing?" will echo in your perfect ears. That is what "to the pain" means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.

HUMPERDINCK
I think you're bluffing --

WESTLEY,
lying there, staring at him.

WESTLEY
It's possible, pig -- I might be bluffing -- it's conceivable, you miserable vomitous mass, that I'm only lying here because I lack the strength to stand -- then again, perhaps I have the strength after all.

And now, slowly, Westley begins to move. His body turns, his feet go to the floor, he starts to stand --

HUMPERDINCK,
staring, eyes wide.

WESTLEY.
And now he is standing, sword in fighting position.

WESTLEY
-- DROP YOUR SWORD!

PRINCE HUMPERDINCK,
and he's so panicked he doesn't know whether to pee or wind his watch. He throws his sword to the floor.

That, of course, was from The Princess Bride.

Anti Freedom Republicans

2005-03-24T21:11:00.000-08:00

I agree completely with what Digby says:

These people want to dictate how you live your private life. They want to tell you who you can marry, how to raise your kids, what religion to practice (and you must practice it) and what "values" you must hold. And they want to use the strong arm of the government to do it. Sure, there are problems in our society. Yes we are living in a fast paced society in which it is difficult to raise children and the world is changing so quickly that it's hard to keep your balance sometimes. But most Americans don't wish for others to make decisions for them about how to live their day to day lives, regardless of the challenges. It's just not the American character.

That is not to say that we have no concept of the common good. Americans once came to a consensus that the government was the most democratic means of helping people to mitigate the pitfalls of capitalism and ensuring all of its citizens a fair shake. But we have never seen it as a means to legislate what people do behind closed doors or when making the most personal life decisions about their marriages, families or their own bodies. We believe that the government is far too clumsy a mechanism for such delicate matters. The individual reigns supreme over himself. All we ask is citizens pitch in for the national defense, the running of the government, social services to help the weakest among us and insure themselves against the risks they must take in a dynamic capitalistic system.

It's just this simple: The Republican party wants to tell you how to live your personal life while they systematically remove all government cooperation in ameliorating the risks this fast paced world creates. The Democrats want the government to leave you to make your own personal decisions while having it help you mitigate the social and economic risk our fast paced world creates. It is a stark choice. There is no reason we cannot begin to make the affirmative case for ourselves on this basis.

Many people have convinced themselves that higher taxes with higher services is anti-freedom. Because of taxes, and basically taxes alone as far as I can tell, they somehow convince themselves that Republicans provide greater freedom to Americans than Democrats. But it's the Republicans who consistently try to micromanage our lives, distrust judges and local control and always, always assume they know best, regardless. Take the Terri Schiavo case. Republicans assure us they know the correct answer and all the judges and doctors involved in the case are just idiots. "Trust us," they say, "we know best." Democrats make no such broad proclamation of know-it-all truth, they just assume the system probably worked and give those closest to the issue the benefit of the doubt.

Tear Down The Walls

2005-03-24T16:05:00.000-08:00

From David in the comments: "I'm still unclear how the republicans are willing to tear down every check and balance? Seems if they wanted to do that, they'd order the national guard in there...instead of searching for any loop hole they can find."

From World Net Daily:

Religious and political groups are banding together to urge President Bush and his brother Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to use their executive powers to order police to take Terri Schiavo into protective custody.

That was news from World Net, here is some commentary:

If Gov. Bush will confront this evil by sending in the state police or national guard to protect Terri, he will be remembered for his courage and integrity. Moreover, his commitment to his oath of office and to protecting the citizens under his care will likely ensure him a successful run for the White House in 2008.

And Ann Coulter:

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military.

And William Bennett:

It is time, therefore, for Governor Bush to execute the law and protect her rights, and, in turn, he should take responsibility for his actions. Using the state police powers, Governor Bush can order the feeding tube reinserted. His defense will be that he and a majority of the Florida legislature believe the Florida Constitution requires nothing less. Some will argue that Governor Bush will be violating the law. We think he will not be violating the law, but if he is judged to have done so, it will be in the tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr., who answered to a higher law than a judge's opinion.

Rumor has it Pat Buchanan supports this action as well, though I can't google up a quote.

I realize the Brothers Bush haven't taken this action. I'm just saying.

UPDATE: I missed a very important sentence in William Bennett's piece: "It is a mistake to believe that the courts have the ultimate say as to what a constitution means." If that doesn't scare you, you don't understand our system of government.

How Far Will They Go To Kill Conservatism?

2005-03-24T09:49:00.000-08:00

Check out the post by conservative blogger John Cole, How Far Will They Go To Kill Conservatism:

I have said it before- this is jihad for these folks. They don't give two hoots in hell about Terri Schiavo- this is about abortion, religion, and most of all, about power and control. Their concept of morality is king, you see- your behavior in the bedroom, your choice in sexual partner, your desires about end of life decisions, abortion, even the medication you use to ease the pain when you are dying of terminal diseases- their religious text should have authority over you, and if all these 'small-government strict constructionists states right's advocates' have to attain that through government proxy, so be it.

Now, that's a conservative Republican talking. You know, there are parts of conservatism that I agree with, but more and more it seems that the those are the parts that Republicans have been dropping from their platform. I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, but that was back when the phrase really meant fiscal responsibility. Today fiscal conservative means tax cuts are the answer to every problem and deficits don't matter. Since Clinton, the Democrats have been the party of fiscal responsibility. This reminds me of liberal Kung Fu Monkey's post several months ago I Miss Republicans:

No, seriously. Remember Republicans? Sober men in suits, pipes, who'd nod thoughtfully over their latest tract on market-driven fiscal conservatism while grinding out the numbers on rocket science. Remember those serious-looking 1950's-1960's science guys in the movies -- Republican to a one.

They were the grown-ups. They were the realists. Sure they were a bummer, maaaaan, but on the way to La Revolution you need somebody to remember where you parked the car. I was never one (nor a Democrat, really, more an agnostic libertarian big on the social contract, but we don't have a party ...), but I genuinely liked them.

How did they become the party of fairy dust and make believe? How did they become the anti-science guys? The anti-fact guys? The anti-logic guys?

I'm not talking McCain, Hagel, Snowe, or Lugar, here, the cool hard-ass Republicans who still operate in the real world. I'm talking specifically about the guys running the party right now.

Stem cell research? Agin' it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."-- Why not?
Biggest Surplus to biggest debt, even not counting the war? More tax cuts!
Post-war planning in one of the most divisive Arab communities in the world? Don't need it.
Global warming? No, no it's not.
No WMD's? So what? ... "So what?" SO WHAT?
Conservation? Bigger tax breaks for Hummers than hybrids.
Soldiers need more armor! No, no they don't. Nonny-nonny-nonny ...

UPDATE: Even Glenn Reynolds is beginning to see a Conservative Crackup and quotes many more conservatives who see the same thing. As pointed out above, this has been going on for quite some time, but now it's becoming obvious to most everyone.

Schiavo & Hudson & Nikolouzos

2005-03-22T23:14:00.000-08:00

Originally, I was going to stay out of the whole Schiavo thing; generally I think this lady is dead in every way that matters. I don't really understand why anyone on any side gets all that upset. I mean, I understand the parents and the husband, but not everyone else. She isn't in pain, she isn't going to get better, she doesn't have any dignity to worry about, she's dead. But then Bush cancels a vacation for the first time in his presidency to stick his nose into the whole mess.

But what makes this all he more interesting is in 1999 George Bush signed a law allowing hospitals in Texas to stop supporting terminally ill patients, even against the wishes of the patient and family. A six month old boy recently died due to that law. Read about it here. These are all interesting moral issues and virtually all of us struggle at least a bit on how we would react in these situations. But the fact Bush would showboat and step in directly in one situation yet sign a law that leads to similar situations is just plain bazaar.

Sun Hudson, a six-month-old boy with a fatal congenital disease, died Thursday after a Texas hospital, over his mother's objections, withdrew his feeding tube. The child was apparently certain to die, but was conscious. [Or perhaps not: see third update below.] The hospital simply decided that it had better things to do than keeping the child alive, and the Texas courts upheld that decision after the penniless mother failed, during the 10-day window provided for by Texas law, to find another institution willing to take the child .

Where, I would ask, is the outrage? In particular, where is the outrage from those like Tom DeLay, who referred to the withdrawal of Terry Schiavo's life support as "murder"? If it's appropriate to Federalize the Schiavo case, what about the people being terminated simply because their cases are hopeless and their bank accounts empty?

Sun Hudson is dead, but 68-year-old Spiro Nikolouzos is still alive, thanks to an emergency appeals court order issued yesterday. However, his life support could be cut off at any moment. A nursing home is willing to take him if his family can show that he will be covered by Medicaid after his Medicare runs out. Otherwise, the hospital gets to pull the plug.

UPDATE: Check out an interesting liberal perspective from The Talking Dog:When the Wrong People try to do the Wrong Thing for the Right Reason.

UPDATE 2: The Moderate Voice is horrified by Bush and company on this, for what some would call conservative reasons. See Barry Goldwater And Ronald Reagan Are Turning Over In Their Graves and a follow up.

Hubris

2005-03-21T16:07:00.000-08:00

Sometimes, heck, maybe even most of the time, the whole liberal vs conservative dichotomy doesn't really cut it. And in politics, were power corrupts right before our very eyes, we often think we are criticizing the left or right, but really we are criticizing power abuse and hubris, something both parties are quite capable of. Republicans have claimed they are for limited government and local control, but give them power and it's blindingly obvious to all who care to look that they don't care about limited government at all, they only say that when the government is run by someone else. Whether it's to force testing at local schools (without funding), stick their noses into Major League Baseball, expanding the ability to lock up American citizens without trial or getting directly involved in a family medical squabble, Republicans have proved they don't mind broad, overriding governmental power at all, just as long as they are the ones in control.

Andrew Sullivan, who still considers himself a conservative for some reason I don't quite understand, states:

So it is now the federal government's role to micro-manage baseball and to prevent a single Florida woman who is trapped in a living hell from dying with dignity. We're getting to the point when conservatism has become a political philosophy that believes that government - at the most distant level - has the right to intervene in almost anything to achieve the right solution. Today's conservatism is becoming yesterday's liberalism.

The Bull Moose, a conservative Democrat and former member of the Christian Coalition continues:

The Moose notes the passing of conservatism.

All pretenses of limited government conservatism have been cast aside with congressional intervention in the Schiavo case. The era of big government conservatism is in full swing. That is, if it can be called conservatism, at all.

At its heart, conservatism had reverence for process and order. But what we are witnessing now is the triumph of ends over means. That is exactly what the right loathed about the left. In the eye of conservatives, the left would stretch the Constitution and the law to serve its so-called noble ends. Liberals would turn to the federal courts to nullify the judgments of localities. In the end, according to the right, the law of unintended consequences would prevail and the rule of law would be obliterated.

Process no longer matters to the right - after all they are on the side of the angels. Whether it is pork barrel spending , the Senate filibuster or federal intervention in a family dispute, modern conservatism knows no boundaries. The right is now intoxicated with power - process is for wimps.

When it comes to federal intervention on behalf of the disadvantaged, the conservative response is to leave it to the states and the "mediating institutions" of community and locality. However, when it involves pandering to the religious right, federal power in the pursuit of righteous aims is no vice.

A few brave souls such as George Will and Andrew Sullivan attempt to hold the right to its principles. But the right is now aping all that it loathed in liberalism - the arrogance of power.

Look in the mirror conservatives - you have become your own worst enemy.

Jesus Christ Superstar

2005-03-20T13:27:00.000-08:00

My wife and I finally got my daughter to watch Jesus Christ Superstar and it was an interesting experience. Now, you may be wondering what "finally got my daughter to watch" really means. You see, my attempts to raise an open-minded or at least agnostic child capable of making her own decisions about religion as she grows older have so far failed; I seem to be raising a little atheist. In the past, any attempt to talk about the various religions in the world have been met with a somewhat fearful reaction as if we were going to try to convert her or brain wash her or something.

I think this reaction started back when she was four and in school. Apparently, one of her classmates tried to convert her and she didn't take it very well. Eventually this ended up with her getting into an argument with the entire class, with my daughter claiming there was no God and every other student taking the other side. Imagine, the lone four year old, grade skipped from the pre-school a month into the school year, taking on a class of gifted five and six year olds. (That year only went so well. The following year went much better, mostly due to a kindred spirit in the class, and we've been homeschooling ever since.)

The strange thing is my daughter is no unimaginative literalist; in fact, quite the opposite. At that point in her life I was somewhat afraid she was going to get completely sucked down into her own imaginative world. This is a girl who fully believed that Pooh Bear was real and would later develop an elaborate mythology based on the Sprite of Spring where the Sprite's deaths and rebirths directly corresponded to evolutionary epochs. (She also believed it was the Sprite's fault the volcano erupted for she ignored the Elk's warning -- my daughter's own little original sin story.)

But I could never get her interested in the religions of the world. Even Greek mythology wasn't interesting to her, so she said. And any talk of God or Christianity was met with much resistance. Basically, what little she knew she gathered from Little House on the Prairie episodes.

But we have been getting into musicals lately. She likes Moulin Rouge and we recently watched Hair!. But it was the recent viewing of Once More With Feeling, the musical episode from Buffy the Vampire Slayer that opened her to the idea of watching Jesus Christ Superstar. (I wonder how often that has happened? I'm guessing not often.)

So anyway, here we are watching Jesus Christ Superstar with someone who's into the movie but doesn't know how it ends. That's a unique experience. Ok, she figures out that Jesus is probably going to die and we warn her that she's right. But how? Why? She wonders if the whipping killed him. No, we tell her, they kill him some other way. How?? We think you'll recognize the instrument of death when you see it. And wouldn't he really be upset if he knew he was going to die the next day? Well yes, that's what this song is about right here.

When we told her this story (well, actually the resurrection a few days later) was what Easter celebrated, she instantly asked what this story had to do with bunnies and eggs. Tempting as it was, I spared her the Eddie Izzard¹ routine.

I'm not sure many have watched a passion play completely unaware of the basic story arc or how the play would end. As I said, a unique experience. Now she knows, even if it does include a bit more sympathy for Judas than conventionally granted.

¹Bonus somewhat related Eddie Izzard quote:

Umm, so they murdered him. And kids eat chocolate eggs, because of the color of the chocolate, and the color of the…wood on the cross.

Well, you tell me! It’s got nothing to do with it, has it! You know, people going, uhh, “Remember kids,” the kids who’re eating the chocolate eggs, uhh, “Jesus died for your sins.” “Yeah, I know, it’s great! No, no no, it’s bad, it’s bad! No, it’s bad! It’s very bad. It’s terrible! Whatever you want, I mean – just keep giving me these eggs."

And the bunny rabbits! Where do they come into the crucifixion? There were no bunny rabbits up on the hill going, “Hey – you – what, are you going to put those crosses in our – bur – warrens? We live below this hill, all right?” Bunny rabbits are for shagging, eggs are for fertility. It’s a festival – it’s the spring festival!

From My In Box

2005-03-18T14:56:00.000-08:00

Respect the Sacrifice -- Protect the Freedom -- Stop Government Censorship Today

Dear Fellow American,

This past Veterans Day, ABC honored America's vets for a third straight year by airing "Saving Private Ryan." But 66 local ABC affiliates, bullied by a small group of right-wing zealots who objected to the realistic violence and language in the film, asked the Federal Communications Commission for a ruling to protect themselves before proceeding.

How did the FCC respond? Silence. They left the stations hanging out to dry. And these 66 affiliates, fearing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, chose not to air "Saving Private Ryan," depriving one-third of the country from watching it.

Just a few weeks ago, the FCC finally ruled that the stations could air the film -- but it was too little, too late. And in the meantime, the damage to our democracy had been done -- a small group of right-wing zealots had held these stations hostage, using the fear of fines as a political tool, and the FCC played along.

This kind of de facto censorship is wholly unacceptable. We deserve a government that will stand up to these groups, leaving the decision about whether or not to watch these programs up to us. That's our right as Americans. That right was secured by the sacrifice of the fighting men and women portrayed in "Saving Private Ryan" and by all of us who have served in America's armed forces.

I urge you to email FCC Chairman Kevin Martin by signing my petition below and demand that he end this de facto censorship. Tell Chairman Martin that we will not stand idly by as the government enables the erosion of one of our most precious freedoms.

And then invite everyone you know to join our cause.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

Another American Century?

2005-03-17T01:45:00.000-08:00

I stated in the comments that "I always knew the 'American century' would come to an end, but Bush is doing all he can to accelerate the process" and was asked for details. Here is how I see it.

The decline of the American century isn't just one or two things, it is how all the pieces play together. The deficit, the declining dollar, the weakest military since Vietnam¹, the anti-Americanism, the decline of Pax Americana, the weakening of international law, the promotion of might makes right foreign policy, torture, the increased distribution of wealth to the rich and the largest corporations, and the increased difficulty of the world's brightest to study in the US all play a part.

Because of the declining dollar, low interest rates and our massive debt America is a relatively poor place to invest compared to other countries, just as we are directing more money to those Americans who can most easily invest elsewhere. Combine this with the huge decline of foreign students studying in the US and we face a world where US entrepreneurship declines while entrepreneurship in the outside world climbs to new heights, largely funded by US dollars.

Note this isn't the normal cycle of average Americans buying cheap stuff from overseas spawning growth in those nations and ours, this is a cycle of investment and return that ignores the bulk of America. Trade deficits don't bother me all that much. Other nations getting richer don't bother me at all; we all benefit from that. This is something entirely different, mega-rich international corporations controlled by a new international aristocratic class that answers to no nation.

As the EU, China and others (India?) become dominate players on the global scene, other countries have more options of whom they'd like to emulate and whom they'll go for their strongest aliances. If they go to the EU instead of the US, then our power decreases, but I don't mind the world outcome too much. If they go to China, it's a whole other story. I tend to believe China can't increase their push for capitalism and economic power while maintaining their totalitarian regime, but I don't really know that. But certainly they can maintain the balance for a while and woe be the world that choses to emulate that system.

For the first time in our country's history, America is no longer the place others look up to, no longer where the world sends it's brightest to learn, no longer the only obvious choice of where to immigrate, no longer the one country you want to imitate, no longer the beacon of hope for the world, no longer the one country you want to be when you grow up.

As I said, I knew the 'American century' would come to an end. While I'm a great believer in Pax Americana and think we've been very good to the world (on a whole, warts and all) I don't think the end needs to be all that bad; we have great power now to influence the new, emerging world. But right now, at that point of influence we are steering the world away from international law and towards a world of might makes right. How ironic that we push the might makes right doctrine so strongly just as our might starts to decline. And how horrible.

Now, as I've just stated these points it sounds like I believe the world is about to blow up or go to hell or enter the worst era of lawlessness we've ever seen. I don't believe this. There are many, many good things are happening in the world as well and these events are not the only actors. But these are the paths I believe Bush are leading us down. While we could be building towards a much better world, it is as if we desire the worst.

Hopefully, I'm just plain wrong. Or perhaps I've got the trends right, but some of the trends Bush actually intended are also there; certainly the pro-democracy movement in the Middle East is heartwarming. Perhaps once some grownup cleans up after all of Bush's messes what remains of his presidency will be positive; the bad cop that got the bad guy talking; the kick in the rear that got everyone moving; the example of how bad America can be that will help the world appreciate how good we normally are. I'm an optimist by nature, I can't really help myself, so I'm beginning to believe we may see some good from all this yet. I sure hope so.

¹In terms of our ability to respond to any emergency, the military is extremely weak right now because they are deployed, but it is more than that; the perception of power has weakened as well.

City Superviser Blog Vs Newspaper

2005-03-16T02:15:00.000-08:00

San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly and the SF Chronicle have a long running feud, so Daly starts his own blog to reach the public directly. Great! But he's using taxpayer supplied equipment to do it. Is that a problem? Legally it is only a problem if he uses the blog for political campaigning, not public communication. But laws like this tend to show how stupid laws can sometimes be. Seriously, what can a politician do that isn't for political gain, that isn't campaign related in one sense or another? Legally, it would make much more sense if our representatives were simply given a small budget for communication and that was that. Don't worry if it is political self promotion or not, at some level it will be anyway. Again, laws that try to micromanage just don't work very well.

This reminds me of the injured reserved (IR) list in the NBA. Teams are only allowed to have 12 active players, but up to three injured additional players may be on the IR list. So what happens? Every team has a few extra players that have "back spasms" or some other such injury that always miraculously cures just when another player is taken off the roster to place on the IR. In other words, every team cheats and everyone knows every team cheats. Just drop the dang injury requirement and have a reserved list!

Anyway, back to the issue at hand, here is what the Chronicle says about Daly's blog:

Daly is the first of the city's elected officials to create a blog, short for Web log, and do it on the government's dime by using San Francisco's official Web site -- a move that's caused City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office to start drafting a list of dos and don'ts.
...
The supervisor joins the likes of Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, who launched a blog in February, and East Bay Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, who in October became the first state legislator in California to start a Web log.

In both their cases, their blogs are not part of a government Web site.

Ethical and Internet experts say Daly will have to walk a fine line with his new online journal.

"Anybody who does this has to be careful not to cross into campaign territory," said John St. Croix, who took over as executive director of the Ethics Commission about six months ago.

And here is what Daly says in response:

But today the Chronicle did weigh in under the headline "Public picks up tab for Daly blog - District 6 supervisor first official to keep diary on city's dime" (they have since softened the headline online). Talk about obscuring the issue. In order to avoid discussing policy issues that I have raised or even covering the enhanced content of this site, the Chronicle has decided to attack me yet again (yawn), implying that I am misusing public funds. Without making specific allegations, Ilene Lelchuk writes about the possible legal issues of government web sites. "Questions remain then about whether the city can be held liable for postings on the blog or for any links listed on Daly's Web site that take visitors to noncity Web sites." Ilene, do you mean, for example, my links to your venerable publication?

City Attorney spokesperson, Matt Dorsey, tells me that the Chronicle had inquired to their office about any wrongdoing but that there was none.

If I were Daly, I'd move the blog to a private site just to avoid any potential legal issues. It's not like it's hard -- I don't pay for my site!

(Via Wizbang!)

Our Grandchildren Deserve Social Security Too

2005-03-15T13:09:00.000-08:00

Two guest bloggers, Jonathan Chait over at Talking Points Memo and Brad Plumer over at Washington Monthly both caught this uplifting conclusion to a Post article on Social Security:

By and large, the elderly do understand the president has promised not to touch their Social Security checks, according to polling.

But that is not relevant to their political opposition, Smorodin said, noting that older people also worry that pension benefit cuts will hurt their children and grandchildren.

At 69, Gene Wallace knows the White House's proposal would have no impact on his Social Security check, but if Bush believes that will silence the Republican mayor of Coldwater, Mich., Wallace grumbled, "he's all wet."

"I'm a parent as well as a grandparent. Somewhere along the line, they are going to be eligible for retirement assistance," he said, with all the energy he could muster three weeks after open-heart surgery. "It's everybody's concern what happens to this country."

In other words, those that know Social Security the best understand the program works and want to make sure their children and grandchildren have the same great program available for them as well.

Is The Chinese Communist Party In Trouble?

2005-03-15T09:58:00.000-08:00

Daniel Drezner notices the Epoch Times is pushing a story that over 200,000 Chinese have quit the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in four months. Here are some details:

On November 19, 2004 The Epoch Times published in Chinese the first of “The Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party”. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been scrambling ever since to find a way to respond.

The “Nine Commentaries” are a book-length set of nine editorials that tell the true history of the CCP. Written under the auspices of The Epoch Times editorial board, the authorship is anonymous.

The “Nine Commentaries” lay out the Party’s crimes: its campaigns of mass murder, brainwashing and terror; the 80 million plus unnatural deaths; the avoidable famines; the degradation of the environment; the corruption that goes from top to bottom, and much more....

On December 3, 2004 The Epoch Times established the Tuidang (“withdraw from the Party”) website in order to give the people of China the opportunity to renounce their membership in the CCP and its related organizations, such as the Communist Youth League (CYL).

On December 4, the website received its first solemn declarations by Party members who wished to renounce all ties with the CCP. In December the rate of such statements was a few hundred a day. But the rate has increased exponentially. On March 7, the Tuidang website recorded over 22,000 renunciations. The website has been limited in the number it can post by its ability physically to keep up with the huge volume of statements....

As I mentioned during my recent trip to China the Chinese people seem to have no love for the Communist Government. But they do have a love for China and have completely embraced Modernity¹:

When talking to people about what's happening here it is all "the government is planning this", "the local government is doing that". In the world of us and them, the government is "them". It's like the government is just another corporation.

At the museum today someone mentioned Chinese history is all about Dynasties, each intended to last forever. None of them lasted. The lesson seemed obvious... They know.

The people I've met have completely embraced Modernity and are looking forward to better and brighter days and they are willing to work hard to get it. China will be a major source of competition in the coming years and decades.

Still, it is my guess that the CCP won't fall anytime soon. The reason is people are experiencing real progress and gaining new freedoms, though mostly economic freedoms. All of this will lead to a demand for democracy and we will see a democratic China in the future, but it will take time. Freedom is addictive (in a good way), the more they have the more they will want, but as long as progress is continually made in that direction their addiction will be sated. They have so much further to go on the economic side they can probably avoid the political side for quite some time. That's my guess, at least.

On the other hand, I'm not sure they'll ever put up with another Tiananmen Square incident, so I may be only one big event away from being proven wrong. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

(As a side note, I was in college during Tiananmen Square and saw all the Chinese students studying in America helping out those back home with faxes, emails, phone calls, etc. It was all very exciting until it all came crashing down. To me, and probably only me, purely by chance of what I was into at the time, Buffalo Springfield's song For What It's Worth will always be about Tiananmen Square. The association is strong enough the song still gives me shivers.)

¹So, does one blockquote one's own writing, or is it considered okay to plagiarize one's self? I guess I'll be safe and go with the blockquote...

Bankruptcy 'Toons

2005-03-14T09:03:00.000-08:00

(Tip: TPM)

WesPac

2005-03-13T22:23:00.000-08:00

Over on the left I've had a link to the Clark Community Network since I first added links to this site. While that site was still extremely active, it was basically just left over from the old Wes Clark campaign. Well, over the past couple of weeks they've completely updated the site for long term use. Also, Clark now has a new WesPac site.

Does all of this mean Clark is preparing for a 2008 campaign? I don't know. By all counts he was bitten by the political bug last year so I'm sure he's interested. But so far this seems to be mostly for advocacy and promotion of Clark's ideas. I doubt even he knows were it will lead just yet, but obviously they are spending time and money on it. Anyway, go check it out.

A Little Bit Of Truth

2005-03-11T14:16:00.000-08:00

Atrios, Kos, and many other member of the liberal blogosphere caught this interesting exchange in one of Bush's recent town hall meetings. You know those meetings, where only supporters are let in and everyone signs a loyalty pledge; they are about as real as those late night infomercials. Well, apparently they got slightly off topic for a few moments and accidently reached a bit of truth. From the White House:

THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you something about the Thrift Savings Plan. This is a Thrift Savings Plan that has a mix of stocks and bonds?

MS. WEBSTER: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, how hard was that to learn how to do that?

MS. WEBSTER: And I chose the safe plan, government bonds. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: That's all right. Well, not so safe, unless we fix the deficit. But other than that -- (laughter). We're fixing the deficit. (Applause.)

So far we haven't seen any evidence of "we're fixing it", only "we're breaking it", but other than that...

In Support Of Bankruptcy Bill

2005-03-09T12:52:00.000-08:00

Kevin Drum asks the same question we have all been asking, "can anyone point me to the arguments in favor of this bill?". In the comments we get directed to the Volokh Conspiracy which has arguments in favor of the bill here:

...economic theory would predict that the primary effect of the introduction of credit cars would be to shift around patterns of consumer credit use, by substituting credit card debt for other less-attractive forms of credit, such as pawn shops, personal finance companies, and retail store credit (such as from appliance and furniture stores). In fact, this is what the evidence indicates has actually happened.

and here:

This article identifies three institutional factors that can explain the observed rise in bankruptcy filings over the past several decades: (1) A change in the relative economic costs and benefits associated with filing bankruptcy; (2) A change in social norms regarding bankruptcy; and (3) Changes in the nature of consumer credit, toward more national and impersonal forms of consumer credit. It is argued that all of these factors tend to increase the incentives for filing bankruptcy or reduce the constraints imposed on filing bankruptcy. The result has been to increase the equilibrium level of bankruptcy filings in America.

Read them yourself.

Although these posts get into detailed economic theory I find myself very unimpressed. Medical emergencies are never mentioned, yet half of all bankruptcy cases involve unexpected medical bills and/or loss of work time due to medical emergencies. I don't see how the subject can even be addressed without at least considering this. Also, it never points out the theoretical reason credit card interest is so high is because the credit is non-secured and easily defaulted. That is the risk credit card companies make and they charge for that risk.

The only argument I found compelling was the fact most people who declare bankruptcy pile up the credit card debt just before declaring, leading one to believe the person clearly knows they are about to default and might as well get what freebies they can. I agree that is bad. However, the question is whether the credit card companies have the information available to recognize this situation and cancel the credit accordingly. I suspect they could do this quite easily as long as they were willing to lose some profits when accidentally overreacting. Again, that is the risk credit card companies make -- it is their choice.

UPDATE: One more thing: they imply that the increase in bankruptcy cases is a bad thing, but never even try to back up that claim. At the personal level this is obvious, but these guys are talking economic theory. Is it economically bad for the country that bankruptcy cases are increasing? I don't know. In fact, I actually doubt it is bad in any macro-economic sense. Regardless, they need to make that case, not just assume it.

Micromanagement

2005-03-08T22:53:00.000-08:00

Another reason I'm against the bankruptcy bill is this is yet another case of legislative micromanagement that takes away power from local judges and gives that power to congress' perfect wisdom in table form. Just look up someone's income, debt, etc. and have the table tell you whether bankruptcy shall be allowed or not. Currently the system gives local judges leeway to look at the total case and make an informed decision. For example, someone in debt due to unexpected medical bills (over half of today's bankruptcy cases) is a completely different situation than someone who can't stop himself from betting on the ponies.

S256 is so bad it doesn't even cover medical cases separately from gambling, but even if it did, do you really trust congress to produce the perfect lookup table to cover ever possible consideration? Of course not. That's why we let local judges do it.

I'm fundamentally against these forms of micromanagement unless the reason is extremely clear and necessary. Whenever possible all the details should be left at the local level, as close to the problem as possible. I believe this is simply a universal truth; certainly it is true in software design and team management. This is the point I was trying to make a week ago.

For example, there are laws that prevent overfishing. That's good. These laws are absolutely necessary, without them each fisherman will simply catch as many fish as he can until the species dies out. If he doesn't someone else will! But sometimes these laws get very, very specific, to the point ships can't even come into port temporarily to avoid a storm without it impacting how many fish they can catch. That's just stupid. There was even a case recently of a ship and crew lost to a storm for just this reason. Just give a guy a license to catch so many pounds of fish -- don't micromanage.

Minimum sentencing laws are another example of micromanagement. Good sentencing laws give the judge guidelines with a fair amount of flexibility. The judge can review the entirety of the case to determine the correct sentence. Judges that ignore the guidelines should be booted out of office, but all to often the reaction to controversial sentencing is to increase the minimum allowed sentences, transferring power and decisions from the local level to perfectly calculated tables composed by those in higher powers. For some reason legislators (and voters!) think they greater wisdom, with no knowledge at all, than local judges. Let the judge do his job, don't micromanage.

Government can and should look after the big picture, but legislating details is almost always a bad idea, and laws that micromanage are almost always bad laws.

Nothing In Science Ever Proved

2005-03-08T00:50:00.000-08:00

I often say nothing in science is ever proved, theories just survive long series of tests and observations in an attempt to disprove them. Most people, even most scientists, tend to not agree with me. At least at first. Eventually they realize I'm right but only up to a point; they claim I'm being too stringent on my definition of 'proof'. Well, I started reading Brian Greene's Elegant Universe and right there, smack on page one (ok, really page number three, but its the first page of the first chapter nonetheless) is perhaps the best example of unproved science I can think of (no link, I'm typing from the book, here):

The problem is this: There are two foundational pillars upon which modern physics rests. One is Albert Einstein's general relativity, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the largest of scales: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and beyond to the immense expanse of the universe itself. The other is quantum mechanics, which provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the smallest of scales: molecules, atoms, and all the way down to the subatomic particles like electrons and quarks. Through years of reasearch, physicists have experimentally confirmed to almost unimaginable accuracy virtually all predictions made by each of these theories. But these same theoretical tools inexorably lead to another disturbing conclusion: As they are currently formulated, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right. The two theories underlying the tremendous progress of physics during the last hundred years -- progress that has explained the expansion of the heavens and the fundamental structure of matter -- are mutually incompatible.

Proofs are the domain of math and logic, not science. Proofs require assumptions, definitions and postulates; one can think of science as that list of assumptions, definitions and postulates. Of course, sometimes science boils down to math, so some scientific papers are proofs. For example, scientists recently "proved a mathematical theorem that shows the pointer states do actually coincide with the states probed by indirect measurements of a system's environment," and thus, quantum mechanics actually is capable of producing an objective reality.

Bankruptcy

2005-03-07T16:59:00.000-08:00

The other day a very liberal friend mentioned that half of all personal bankruptcy cases stem from medical emergencies (it turns out to be closer to 2/3). I jokingly argued from the right that this just showed the system was working. Being out of the country for the week I didn't catch on to the context of this new bankruptcy bill.

My initial blink is this bankruptcy bill is one of the most blatantly evil corporate give-away bills I've ever seen, even for this administration. But not wanting to just be a reactionary I looked around a bit more. Even Glenn Reynolds agrees:

As I say, people should have to face the consequences of their bad decisions -- but that includes their bad lending decisions, especially when the lending is, fundamentally, dishonest.

I assume that the Bush Administration is supporting this legislation, but I really don't see it as consistent with "compassionate conservatism." I see it, in fact, as consistent with the worst stereotypes about corporate-friendly Republicanism.

Not all Republicans fit the stereotype, but the crew in the White House certainly does.

Happy Birthday Cassandra!

2005-03-07T00:47:00.000-08:00

Monday my daughter turns nine, so happy birthday Cassandra! I know it's cliché to say this, but man they grow up fast! Half way to adulthood, now that's scary.

The other night we were watching Hair! together. She and my wife just finished their year or two study of American history, with excellent History Of Us series and tons of supplemental material. Having just read about the 60's and 70's I thought Hair! would be a fun way to see what that era was like. Now, this movie has scenes with pot and psychedelic drugs in it, which some may question letting a young child see, but I think creates an great opportunity for discussion. Well, my daughter is a very bright girl and all I had to do was explain what this drugs were and she quickly points out "being against the war is good, but taking drugs is just stupid!" I told you she was bright.

Ok, one more brag. Although my wife and I learned long ago not to brag because people either don't believe us or think we are some kind of hyper-competitive, flash-card-wielding, pushy parents, but you'll just have to put up it for one more paragraph! (I shared this story at Hoagies many years ago, as well.)

Once when she was three she was looking at a triangle, circle and square and told me the triangle was "wrong". Not getting it I asked "you mean it is most different?" (She was really into figuring out what was most different at that age.) "Yea." "Why is that?" "Because it has three sides." Still not getting it I asked "well, how many sides does a circle have?" She looked at the shapes carefully, thought for a while and finally said "lots and lots of really, really small sides."

I still have no idea why the the triangle was "wrong" in her head, but I was definitely impressed with her answer. I don't think many adults would get that one correctly.

Ok, enough of bragging, back to our regularly scheduled programming....

So Much Flying For So Short A Trip

2005-03-04T20:08:00.000-08:00

I'm back.

You know, I want to be sympathetic to all the extra security we currently have in our airports, but I really don't think it helps all that much. None of this security would have stopped 9/11. 9/11 didn't occur because some people smuggled box cutters on board, it occurred because some people were willing violently and dramatically take innocent human life as a show of power; pens, keys or even bare hands would have worked just as well. But 9/11 can't happen again because the paradigm shifted, no longer do passengers or crew believe the proper response to a hijacking is to stay quiet, do what they say and wait for the plane to land in Cuba. This kind of hijacking can't happen in a post 9/11 world. In fact, the paradigm shifted so quickly it couldn't even happen in a post 10:00am 9/11 world -- it was the rapid paradigm shift that prevented that fourth plane from becoming the fourth bomb.

Think about it, would you let a hijacker get away with anything today? Of course not. You know your life is probably forfeit, anyway. That fourth plane wasn't filled with former green berets, it was filled with ordinary people who probably saved the White House (or where ever that plane was headed.)

Anyway, here are a few smaller observations from China:

When I first entered the Shanghai airport I heard the music of bamboo flutes -- playing music from Evita.

In America, Chinese food is often served family style, where each person spoons what he or she wants onto his or her plate. In China it is the same, except they use their chopsticks to grab and eat the food directly.

The cans still use pull tops where the tops come completely off.

There are peasants living in makeshift shacks in the same neighborhoods as nice, middle class apartments. I'm guessing those kids don't go to school, but I could be wrong.

At the hotel there was an envelope to leave money to help poor women in the country.

The subway typically costs two or three RBMs per trip; that's less than 50 cents.

No one drives. Only one person at the office drove a car and she worked in Canada for years. Car tax is huge to discourage purchase, plus you must win a lottery or something like that, I believe.

Random Observations From China

2005-03-03T02:44:00.000-08:00

Wear a sweater. The office building isn't heated, only individual rooms in use are heated. Each room has it's own thermostat, usually turned down when now one is in the room. Meeting rooms start out cold. I experienced the same thing at a restaurant we ate at today; we had our own room but the heater wasn't turned on until we sat down.

Likewise, my hotel room requires the room key (card) to turn on the lights. Assuming I take the key with me, it's impossible for me to leave the lights on.

After cleaning, the sink and bathtub drains are closed. This is true both at the hotel and at the office. I have no idea why as the drain doesn't work too well that way.

Meat and fish have bones in them. I've yet to have a meal that didn't require removing something inedible from my mouth before swallowing. Everyone else has to as well, so it isn't just me. Here it is normal.

They really do use chopsticks. I've been told that Chinese students in America don't use chopsticks even to eat Chinese food, so shouldn't bother either. (I've always liked using chopsticks when eating Asian food.) The implication was Chinese don't really use chopsticks anymore, it's just an old tradition. Not true. I'm in perhaps the most modern portion of China (PuDong, Shanghai) and I have yet to see a fork anywhere. They don't use them. (Well, maybe in a American or European restaurant, but I've been avoiding those.)

There are no napkins to be found. I'll try the pidgin soup, the fungus (not a mushroom), the lotus root, the they-don't-know-how-to- translate-it-but-I'm-fairly-sure-it-is-plant-matter-of-some-kind, the skinny fish on a stick where you actually eat the bones (but I drew a line at the head), and other new foods, but I really miss my napkins. Sometimes it's easier to try new things than to give up what you are already used to.

The subway trains have flatscreen TV's showing commercials in them. Outside the elevator at the office is a flatscreen TV showing commercials. The subway station shows commercials. Huge electric billboards dominate the view across the river, advertising various corporations. I'm in a communist country but it looks like capitalism gone wild or a scene from Brazil.

When talking to people about what's happening here it is all "the government is planning this", "the local government is doing that". In the world of us and them, the government is "them". It's like the government is just another corporation.

At the museum today someone mentioned Chinese history is all about Dynasties, each intended to last forever. None of them lasted. The lesson seemed obvious... They know.

Please, learn a lesson from Disney; always leave the gift shop open for longer than whatever it is the shop is associated with.

While eating across from a school, I asked if it was public or private. I was told it was a school for workers at some factory, but he thought others could attend, only it would be more expensive. I asked more about education and learned, very much to my surprise, that there is no public education here. I'm still thinking I must of misunderstood, but I'm fairly certain I'm right; everyone pays for their children education one way or another.

The people I've met have completely embraced Modernity and are looking forward to better and brighter days and they are willing to work hard to get it. China will be a major source of competition in the coming years and decades.

I already knew this, but it's good to be reminded. All of us humans are basically the same. Yes, we have differences, but they are nothing, nothing compared to the similarities. There is only the human race, the rest is just details.

Cultural Differences

2005-03-01T06:29:00.000-08:00

When someone gets you a glass of water and the dispenser gives both hot and cold, in China they choose hot. A couple times today someone got me a cup of hot water; no tea bags are any else like that, just hot water to drink.

Twice today I absolutely stunned people simply by being able to use chopsticks. My thought was "I'm American, of course I can use chopsticks!" And eat Indian food, and French, and sushi, and Ethiopian, and everything else. In America we don't just have one culture, we have everyone's! Usually the best of everyone's culture!

In China, taxi drivers swerve in and out of traffic like mad men, constantly honking on their horns. Oh, wait, that's just like everyplace else in the world...

Yes, I Can Blog From China

2005-02-28T06:03:00.000-08:00

It's a world of laughter
A world of tears
It's a world of hope
And a world of fears
There's so much that we share
That it's time we're aware
It's a small world after all.

(From memory, did I get that right?)

China

2005-02-26T12:45:00.000-08:00

I'm off to China for a week. I think I'll still be able to blog from time to time, but I'm not sure. If I stop posting, that's why.

Maya, Bria Interview

2005-02-25T12:56:00.000-08:00

Maya Keyes' girlfriend Bria posted their interview in Metro Weekly. Maya explains her situation:

MW: At what point did you come to the realization that "I may be one of those people?"

MARCEL-KEYES: In middle school. Everybody else would be sitting around talking about actors and I was more interested in Angelina Jolie than Leonardo DiCaprio.

MW: What kind of conflict did that produce within you?

MARCEL-KEYES: Obviously, when you're young your parents sort of shape your whole world. When all I'd heard through my entire growing up years was how it was wrong and bad and evil and sinful, it didn't make me very happy when I began to realize that I was queer. But part of growing up is distancing yourself from only thinking what your parents have told you to think, shaping your own views of things. I started learning to accept that maybe being queer really wasn't all evil and immoral and wrong.

MW: So you lived with your feelings for a while, but kept it quiet.

MARCEL-KEYES: Yes. It really didn't make much sense to me to say anything about it when I knew exactly what my parents thought. I didn't think it would make life very pleasant.

MW: Did you at any point think that your being gay could change their minds about homosexuality?

MARCEL-KEYES: No. My parents believe what they believe because of their religion. My mom, if possible, is even more conservative than my dad. I didn't think it would change anything. If you think that something is morally wrong, just because somebody you know is doing it doesn't mean that you start accepting it. So if people like my parents really believe it is a sin, then because I'm sinning isn't suddenly going to make them stop and think, "Oh, well, it's okay now."

MW: You admire their dedication to their principles?

MARCEL-KEYES: Yes. They have a lot of integrity. I think they're wrong on this issue and I wish they would change, but I don't think they're going to.
...
MW: Roughly how long has your father known you are gay?

MARCEL-KEYES: He's known since the end of high school. I graduated in 2003, so a couple of years now.

MW: The story we're hearing is that he disowned you, kicked you out.

MARCEL-KEYES: He cut off all financial support, but that's something that I can totally understand. I am working for things that he's directly opposed to. It doesn't make much sense for him to be [financially] supporting someone who is working against what he believes in.

On a personal level, I'm not sure what's going to happen. It's been crazy.

MW: Why was there no conflict while you were working on your father's campaign if he knew you were gay?

MARCEL-KEYES: Well, basically, I think my parents have never really accepted that I was queer. They thought it was a phase. As long as I was quiet about it and it was just them who knew, they could kind of try and push me back toward heterosexuality. But when I actually acknowledged it publicly, then it was sort of like "Oh, gosh, we can't be having that around here."

Bria share's her story and has something good to say about Focus on the Family (all things considered):

MW: Bria, what's your story?

MURRAY: I was raised with the same beliefs as Maya, that being gay was wrong, it was a sin. My parents were separated. My dad left when I was 7. He was abusive to my mom, and my mom was abusive to me. She would beat me and quote Bible verses at me. She was pretty ultra religious.

She read my journal where I wrote down "I think I might be bi." She called her therapist, all upset. I'm sure you're aware of "Focus on the Family." Are you aware of their [ex-gay program] "Love Won Out?" Well, she took me to one of those.

MW: Did you resent her for trying to change you?

MURRAY: No, because it was fascinating to me to hear all this "psychology." It was not what I expected, you know, "gays bad, going to hell." It was definitely not coming from a condemning point of view. So I don't necessarily resent her for that. I don't resent a lot of people for a lot of things. It's not worth my time nor my energy.

I've become a regular reader of Maya, Bria and some of their friends' blogs. I always find different points of view interesting and they come from an angle I've never seen; gay, Christian, anarchist, pro-life -- they defy stereotypes. That makes them interesting. Recently one of Maya's best friends started his his own blog. This guy (I don't know his name) seems to be the only atheist in the group, but he furthers the cause of defying stereotypes by being in the air force and currently deployed in Iraq. Fascinating people, all of them. And they all seem like good people, too.

Ideology or Pragmatism? -- or -- What's My Political Philosophy?

2005-02-24T15:32:00.000-08:00

I had a few different lines of thought hit me today. I often define 'ideology' as believing in a preconceived set of solutions, regardless of pragmatic considerations. This is why I say pragmatism trumps ideology. But pragmatism by itself is meaningless, you need to have morals, goals and a vision to strive towards before you can actually be pragmatic about the solution. Once you have that vision, pragmatism kicks in.

Think of a map. Once you have a destination in mind you can use a good map to determine the course. First you have to find your current location and the location of your destination, then you find the best route. There may be more than one route, perhaps the freeway is busy this time of day or they are doing construction on a certain street, it really doesn't matter as long as make it to your destination. That's the pragmatic approach.

Ideologues want to drive, say, south. No matter what, you have to drive south. Then another set of ideologues come around and say you have to drive north. Before you know it everyone is arguing over whether to drive north or south and completely ignores the destination. Those that try to point to the map and say that sometimes we need to drive north and sometimes we need to drive south are derided as wishy-washy flip-floppers. First he says north! Then he says south! Which one is it?? He can't make up his mind! I say go South! I've always said go South! You may not like where I'm going, but at least you know where I stand, I'm going South!

(I didn't mean this to become a rehash of the election, but, oh well, there we are. Kerry isn't the perfect pragmatist, but Bush is an excellent example of an ideologue most of the time. But now I'm distracting myself, this really wasn't the point...)

Well, that's one train of thought. The other is "what is liberalism?", a common question in the liberal blogosphere lately. (See Matt, Mark and Kevin.) Or more pragmatically, what should the Democratic party stand for? Or more personally, what do I really believe in? Part of the reason of creating this blog was to get past the "I know what I like when I see it" stage and develop a consistent philosophy of government. But is a philosophy of government the same as an ideology as I've defined it? Can be, which is part of the problem I and others like me keep running into. We seem to keep going back to The Enlightenment or pragmatism. The best I've seen is Brin's Modernism approach, but that still isn't really it.

While contemplating all this I wondered if I was the only person who supported both school vouchers and single-payer healthcare. Vouchers are considered further to the right than most Republicans are willing to go and single-payer healthcare is considered further to the left than most Democrats are willing to go, yet I think both are a good idea. Then, just as I was thinking this was a perfect example of how we should look to pragmatic solutions to problems regardless ideology, it occurred to me that both ideas are, in fact, basically the same.

A voucher program as I would like to see it would be a federally funded program where each child gets a voucher of equal value to pay for the schooling of their parent's choice. The single-payer healthcare system would give each person a choice of healthcare plans (insurance) they could choose as they like. Just introduce the word 'voucher' into the healthcare plan and they look almost identical.

More to the point, they both have the same philosophy: combine a centralized collection and distribution of funds (the leftist, socialist side) with local control and the power of the free market (the rightist, capitalist side). The central government should also play a roll in the collecting and distributing information such as what results are gained from various (educational or medical) practices, making sure school and medical records are easily exchanged between providers, etc. Who says social justice and the free market are opposites?! I want to eat my cake and have it too! The only reason one idea seems leftist and the other idea rightist is because we are starting at two very different places on the map; education is almost completely socialized and healthcare is almost completely free market. But the destination for both are actually quite close, even if the drive is north for one and south for the other.

In fact, in the real world this is exactly how I manage. I don't micro-manage, instead I get people to take ownership of their own work, try to clear roadblocks, make sure communication occurs laterally between developers, build consensus when problems arise, etc. Hmm, perhaps I really do have a solid, consistent philosophy and didn't even realize it. That's great if it holds out.

Of course, it doesn't hold out completely. Obviously we don't want to collected everyone's pay check and just distribute them equally. Nor do we want to give local control to hire whichever soldier you decide with your military voucher. (Why is it the military is the best example I can think of something that needs to remain completely socialized? Funny how that works.)

But this is a good start on a political philosophy. I think the same philosophy can be applied in the temporal dimension as well. As I implied in Stratum IX Leadership, leaders need to be forward thinking. And even if we can't be guaranteed brilliant leaders, the basic idea can still be institutionalized. Is it fair to say government itself should focus on the long term but leave the short term up to the individual and free market? Perhaps not universally, but I think this is a good philosophy. Companies are great and making a profit from quarter to quarter and are generally okay at investing in shorter term R&D, but they really can't waste resources on long term science, math and other investments that take decades to pay off. Definitely something worth thinking about.

So here's he question. Does this mean I'm now an ideologue trying to apply the same solution to every problem? That's certainly something to look out for. But it's good to have a philosophy and this seems like a reasonable start. It seems to capture most of my (seemingly) haphazard ideas into a single philosophy.

I'm curious what others think. Totally nutzo? Absolutely brilliant?

UPDATE: I continue this train of thought in Micromanagement.

Hank

2005-02-23T22:06:00.000-08:00

I've seen this before, but it's too good not to post. Sorry to everyone out there that's religious. Hank:

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple.

Man: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss his ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, he'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do what ever he wants, and what he wants is to give you a million dollars, but he can't until you kiss his ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has he given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and he kicks the shit out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think he'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?
John: "Hank has certain connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass he'll kick the shit of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight from him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss his ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass,and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss his ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl's got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on From the desk of Karl letterhead. There were eleven items listed:
Kiss Hank's ass and he'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
Use alcohol in moderation.
Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
Eat right.
Hank dictated this list himself.
The moon is made of green cheese.
Everything Hank says is right.
Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
Don't drink.
Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
Kiss Hank's ass or he'll kick the shit out of you.
Me: "This would appear to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says everything Hanks says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says Eat right,' and item 8 says Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying Hank's right because he says he's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary blushes. John says: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary looks positively stricken. John shouts: "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary sticks her fingers in her ears: "I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary faints. John catches her.
John: "Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

No Child Left Behind: The Football Version

2005-02-23T16:30:00.000-08:00

From Hoagies, No Child Left Behind: The Football Version:

All teams must make the state playoffs, and all will win the championship. If a team does not win the championship, they will be on probation until they are the champions, and coaches will be held accountable.

All kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the same time and in the same conditions. No exceptions will be made for interest in football, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities. ALL KIDS WILL PLAY FOOTBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL.

Talented players will be asked to work out on their own without instruction. Coaches will use all their instructional time with the athletes who aren't interested in football, have limited athletic ability or whose parents don't like football.

All coaches will be proficient in all aspects of football, or they will be released.

Games will be played year round, but statistics will only be kept in the 4th, 8th and 11th games.

This will create a New Age of sports where every school is expected to have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the same minimal goals.
If no child gets ahead, then no child will be left behind.

When it comes to education, there is only one reasonable goal, every child should have the opportunity to fulfill his or her potential.

UPDATE: Hoagies also links to a Wall Street Journal article "What If Einstein Had Taken Ritalin?" which requires a subscription. I found an illegal copy here.

2004 Koufax Award Winners

2005-02-23T16:08:00.000-08:00

Go check out the 2004 Koufax Award Winners for whom the liberal blogosphere believe to be the best bloggers. In particular, check out the winner of the most humorous posting, Poker with Dick Cheney. Here's a snip:

TE: Fifty bucks.

DC: I'm in. Show 'em.

TE: Two pair, sevens and fives.

DC: Not good enough.

TE: What do you have?

DC: Better than that, that's for sure. Pay up.

TE: Can you show us your cards?

DC: Sure. One of them's a six.

TE: You need to show all your cards. That's the way the game is played.

Colin Powell: Ladies and gentlemen. We have accumulated overwhelming evidence that Mr. Cheney's poker hand is far, far better than two pair. Note this satellite photo, taken three minutes ago when The Editors went to get more chips. In it we clearly see the back sides of five playing cards, arranged in a poker hand. Defector reports have assured us that Mr. Cheney's hand was already well advanced at this stage. Later, Mr. Cheney drew only one card. Why only one card? Would a man without a strong hand choose only one card? We are absolutely convinced that Mr. Cheney has at least a full house.

Tim Russert: Wow. Colin Powell really hit a homerun for the Administration right there. A very powerful performance. My dad played a lot of poker in World War 2, and he taught me many things about life. Read my book.

TE: He's extremely good at Power Point. But we would like to see the cards, or else we can't really be sure he has anything to beat two pair. We don't think he would lie to us, but ... well, it is a very rich pot.

Jonah Goldberg: Liberal critics of Mr. Cheney's poker hand contend that "he doesn't have anything". Oh, really, liberal critics? Cheney has already showed them the six of clubs, and yet these liberals persist in saying he has "nothing". Why do liberals consider the six of clubs to be "nothing"? Is it because the six of clubs is black?

Matt Drudge: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
The Drudge Report has learned that Dick Cheney has a royal flush, hearts. Developing ...

The runner ups are great as well, here is a printable snippet of the Rude Pundit's What Kerry Should Say, Part 2:

'Global mother{bleep}ing test' means that you can go anywhere in the {bleep}n world and talk to any {bleep}n' person, and you can back your actions up. You can say, 'Hey, look, we were right - mother{bleep}er was gonna bomb the {bleep} out of us.' That means you could walk up to a screaming, bleeding soldier, whose {bleep} was ripped off by a rocket-propelled grenade, and say, 'You know what, man? Sorry about your {bleep}, but you just helped stop the U.S.A. from bein' nuked.' That way, when that soldier is back home, lookin' at the empty space where his {bleep} used to be, he can be proud that he lost his {bleep} savin' the U.S. So that that soldier never has to think, 'Why the {bleep} was I sent to that mother{bleep}n' hellhole to lose my {bleep}?'

The sad part is the Rude Pundit just described "Global Test" better than Kerry did, not that anyone actually paying attention had any doubt what he meant. Lastly, Michael Bérubé describes his second day as a newly converted Republican at the RNC convention in his post, Second night:

...the point is that leadership is all about “making decisions you think are right, and then standing behind those decisions.” Even when it looks like your decision to invade Iraq was based on the advice of a notorious kleptomaniac who was possibly serving as a double agent for Iranian mullahs, you stand behind your decision, because leadership is all about making decisions you think are right and then standing behind them. Um, I said that already. But that’s all right, because it makes it even more true!! And I stand firm in repeating what I said about leadership!!

I do have two quibbles with Arnold’s speech. One, he said, “you don’t reason with terrorists, you defeat them.” Maybe this is one of those moments where he’s respectfully disagreeing with the President, who recently told us (and I’m paraphrasing from memory here) that we can’t win a war on terrorism in a way that winnably defeats terrorists because this is a different kind of conflict than the kind of conflict in which you win a war, but that doesn’t mean we won’t win. But I think Schwarzenegger should have consulted the President about this. And two, he said that “we do not fight for imperialism, we fight for human rights.” I know I’ve only been a Republican for 24 hours now, but I have to press the “respectful disagreement” button here. Screw human rights-- I’m in it for the imperialism. You may be happy right where you are in Sacramento, Arnold, but me, I want one of those no-bid contracts.

I think he's got a handle on what it takes to be a Republican in the post 9/11 world!

Bash and Double Bash

2005-02-21T22:32:00.000-08:00

It seems we have another case of Republicans running around and demanding everyone completely disown someone who makes a stupid statement. It never works the other way around, though. Think of how often mainstream Republicans used the term 'aiding and abetting the enemy' to describe anyone who publicly disagreed with their foreign policy. 'Aiding and abetting' is a technical term meaning a form of treason (they say 'treason' a lot as well) that, last I saw, was still punishable by death. But when Republicans haphazardly imply their political opponents should be killed no one blinks an eye. But here we are, some House member says he believes Rove was behind Rathergate and we're all supposed to be up in arms. Wonderful.

So according to the now famous, large mammal Carpe Nequam, er, Bonum:

Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY): People have been - people in the media have been intimidated. The media has changed in the last four years. People have changed in the last four years. They've had a very very direct, aggressive attack on the, on the media, and the way it's handled. Probably the most flagrant example of that is the way they set up Dan Rather. Now, I mean, I have my own beliefs about how that happened: it originated with Karl Rove, in my belief, in the White House. They set that up with those false papers. Why did they do it? They knew that Bush was a draft dodger. They knew that he had run away from his responsibilties in the Air National Guard in Texas, gone out of the state intentionally for a long period of time. They knew that he had no defense for that period in his life. And so what they did was, expecting that that was going to come up, they accentuated it: they produced papers that made it look even worse. And they - and they distributed those out to elements of the media.

...

Audience Member: Don’t you think it’s irresponsible to make charges like that?

Congressman Hinchey: No I don’t. I think it’s very important to make charges like that. I think it’s very important to combat this kind of activity in every way that you can. And I’m willing — and most people are not — to step forward in situations like this and take risks.

Audience: [Clapping and cheering.]

Now, if people are expecting me to be a good moderate Democrat and jump to Rove's defense, sorry about that. I have zero respect for Rove and his morals, of which he clearly lacks. Seriously, is there anyone, Democrat or Republican, who thinks Rove is morally above this kind of thing? Didn't think so.

That said, this Hinchey dude is a complete idiot, apparently. As dumb as the administration who claimed the Iraq war would cost the U.S. less than $2 billion dollars? Nah, not that dumb. As dumb as believing Ahmed "Iranian Spy" Chalabi when he said that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq? Certainly not that dumb. As dumb as thinking the best way to solve the deficit problem potentially aggravated by social security is to borrow trillions of dollars? Hardly. But still, pretty dumb.

For one, Mr. Hinchey didn't even get his conspiracy theory right. There is no way Rove wanted this fake document out in the public. What ever long term strategic gain they might have hoped to gain wouldn't be worth the risk of short term tactical damage caused by emphasizing the issue. No, the only theory that even has a shot at being true is the possibility Rove or some other Republican was trying to discredit Bill Burkett. The theory goes Burkett was given the memo on the assumption any competent news agency would quickly discover it was a fake. After that, no news agency would ever listen to Burkett again, cutting off the main supplier of negative Guard stories. The fact CBS was too stupid to catch the forgery was not part of the plan.

Personally, I think Burkett forged the letter himself. I'll give that a better than 50% chance. If, however, he really was given the memo by someone else I'd say it is 50/50 whether it was from a Bush hater or a Republican for the reason stated above. All in all, I'd give it a one in ...oh, let's say... five chance Rove was involved.

What did Hinchey hope to gain from this? I don't know. Maybe he thought since this kind of BS works for Republicans all the time it would work for him. Silly man, Republicans have their own set of special privileges that let's them get away with this kind of stuff.

But for the righty blogosphere who take politics as a sport, a chance to get a piece of fame and prove their worth, this will get kicked up well beyond any reason. Keep it up guys! Everyone needs a hobby!

The Enlightened Path to Truth

2005-02-20T20:52:00.000-08:00

From David Brin's excellent discussion of modernism versus romanticism:

Given what may be at stake -- either billions of dollars or else a perceived world-in-peril -- it would be surprising if human subjectivity and bias did not sometimes bias outcomes.

This is, in fact the critical discovery of science. That we often perceive what we expect or want to perceive, often at variance with what is objectively true. The Cro Magnon genius of trumping objective evidence with subjective belief. The original and only true form of magic.

How has science dealt with this quandary? By encouraging open enquiry and vigorous reciprocal accountability. And by enticing younger researchers to take risks and challenge portions of the edifice that may be weak, with substantial status awaiting those who do succeed in toppling a paradigm, some time.

I have generalized this with a catchy acronym-aphorism - CITOKATE ... or... Criticism is the Only Known Antidote to Error. A practicing scientist knows this, in his or her bones, even as the Cro Magnon ego inevitably tugs in the other direction, murmuring to each of us that we are 100% correct and that critics are all vile fools. Yes, that tug is overwhelming. Which makes even the partial success of scientific training - at making some egotists welcome criticism - all the more wondrous, almost a miracle.

The lesson for everyday life? If none of us are likely to catch our own mistakes, we can hope that others will catch them for us. And yes, even when eagerly rebellious, snotty graduate students do the catching.

Even though reality itself is obviously objective, no human is capable of understanding anything other then a subjective version of that truth. No experiment, no observation, no set or laws or theories are completely objective, but we can arrive at a very close approximation when many people attempt to recreate an experiment or make the same observation or contemplate the theories. Through the combination of many subjective minds each criticizing the others (hopefully in a nice way, though it isn't strictly required) we can asymptotically approach objective reality.

Often even scientists don't see their own subjectivity. In college I attended an open forum dealing with some great injustice done by one of the college officials. (Yea, that was sarcasm. This was an excellent example of liberal activism run amok.) At one point a science professor chimed in that scientists could not be racist because they dealt with objective reality, and more than that, the scientific community was innately international in nature. This sounded reasonable enough to me at the time. He then went on to say that the end of racism was a good thing if for no other reason then intermarriage would lead to a darkening of skin color that would help protected us from the sun's UV rays.

It wasn't until contemplating what he said the next day that I realized the subjectivity of his last statement. One could even call the statement racist, but in a purely accidental, not at all evil sort-of way. The fact it took me a day to catch it showed that I too could fall for this mild, unconscious form of racism. (Re-read the sentence if you didn't catch it right away. It seems blindingly obvious to me now.) That science professor assumed that people were white. Intermarriage doesn't lead to a darkening of the skin color, it leads to an averaging. It's only darkening from the point of view of the white guy. As you can see, the scientist wasn't as objective as he thought.

I have this dream that someday creationists will someday play a true critical analysis role for evolutionary biology. For the most part, the creationist arguments against evolution have been weak, but they are getting stronger. (Though no where nearly as strong as the mountains of evidence supporting evolution.) Ideally, if creationists really want to be taken seriously they'll have to make real proposals and engage in real science. If they honestly believe creationism will be proven correct, they should have no fear in participating in the process honestly. Historically they only cared about propaganda but I've seen some signs they me be getting more serious in the debate. We'll see. In my perfect world the IDers and creationists will play a useful critical role in the natural sciences. But if they do choose to be serious they will have to open themselves to criticism right back at 'em. We'll see if that ever happens.

Daily Show Takes on Bloggers

2005-02-18T15:23:00.000-08:00

Via Daniel Drezner (whom I'm told is conservative, but I always seem to agree with him, so that can't be right), the Daily Show's take on bloggers:

They have no credibility -- all they have is facts! Spare me.
...
For therein lies our only hope. For with legitimacy, the bloggers get a seat at the table, and with that comes access, status, money, and power -- and if there's anything we've learned about the mainstream media, that breeds complacency.

Full 'report' here.

UPDATE: More Daily Show on blogging here.

Conservative America

2005-02-18T00:33:00.000-08:00

The Economist¹ ran a pull on American social values that seems counter intuitive yet gave back exactly the results I was expecting. Basically, everyone in America agrees that the country is more conservative now than it was several years ago. However, American's view of the actual social issues themselves are, with the exception of abortion, consistently more liberal. Here's the graph:

The full survey is here.

Americans believe we are more conservative than ten years ago, but realize we are more liberal than our parents. We are more tolerant of gays, less tolerant of the death penalty and, a bit to my surprise, more willing to legalize marijuana.

Marijuana is an interesting one. I agree that it isn't more dangerous to use than alcohol, but that's a comment on alcohol more than pot. And I certainly agree with the basic premise that prohibition doesn't work and we are wasting jail space and people's lives locking up pot smokers. On the other hand, what do we do about second hand smoke and children? I don't believe any child should be exposed to marijuana smoke. Also, although pot isn't more dangerous than alcohol, the two together can be deadly. Alcohol is a poison that will kill in large quantities, it is only the body's ability to purge itself (worshiping at the porcelain altar) that saves the heavy drinker. However, marijuana's main medicinal benefit is its ability to reduce nausea, allowing the alcohol to kill.

On abortion it seems we are both more pro-life and more pro-choice, with more and more moving to the middle ground. Only 14% believe abortion should be Illegal in all circumstances (down 1% since '95) while only 29% believe abortion should always be legal (down 4%). A solid 53% believe believe abortion should only sometimes be legal (up 3%). It's interesting that neither party can muster a 50% majority on either extreme. America really is pro-life and pro-choice, despite all the claims this was the one issue there could never be a compromise.

It turns out Hillary was right. After her speech on abortion I expected only mockery from the pro-life crowd, but the response was far more positive than I anticipated. Yes, the mockery was certainly there, but so was the praise. For examples of pro-life praise see The Moderate Voice and the Bull Moose, each with their own links to other sources. NARAL's request to pro-life America to help them prevent abortions was another good move towards moderation by the pro-choice crowd.

Abortion has always been about two completely different issues. The issue most of us think about is weighing the right of the unborn child versus the right of the mother. Until the feminist movement women were considered by most to have few rights, so the balance was obvious. Since feminism was a liberal cause, abortion rights became a liberal cause as well. But the true pacifist liberal, like Kucinich until a couple of years ago, those who consistently believe in life and the whole Maya Keyes gang show the division isn't so obvious.

The other issue, though, is there are some conservatives that want to make abortions illegal just to put women in their place, back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. Personally, I don't think this is more than a percent or less of the whole pro-life side, so why do I bring it up? Because I suspect many on the left believe this group is much, much larger than it really is, which leads to a dig-in the heels, can't budge mentality. But for those who now assume the sexes are equal, instead of fighting to prove it, the issue becomes what it should always be, the weighing of two rights.

Approval of Unions are also more moderate now than before. Those that approved of unions dropped from 60% to 52% in just eight years, but disapproval dropped from 31% to 27% over the same time. Maybe this is because people just don't think about unions as much as they used to. Personally, I'm strongly in favor of the existence of unions, I think they are one of the more powerful tools available to balance the natural, unhealthy power employers have over workers. That said, the odds of me siding with a union in a labor dispute are small; I'd probably remain neutral and would be just as likely to take the businesses side if I thought the union was demanding too much. I'm always looking for balance and distrust excess of power in any form, including unions.

On the question of business versus the environment everyone flocked to an answer that wasn't allowed in a '95 poll: both should be given equal priority received 49% in the survey. Those that chose an extreme went with the environment over business by a margin of two to one, just like in '95, only both numbers halved due (I assume) to the new choice.

So with all this moderation, why does the country feel so extra divided today? The Republican mastery of the wedge issue is part of it and Iraq and other extreme Bush policies help as well, but I don't think it explains everything. Personally, I think Jon Steward was right and the Crossfire culture in the media and blogosphere has done wonders to emphasize and magnify our differences. We aren't really all that divided, it just looks like we are on TV.

¹ That magazine free trade liberals like myself want to love, but can't. For example, they recently wholeheartedly endorsed Bush's social security privatization plan, except, of course, for every single detail. Maddening.

Data Blizzard

2005-02-14T19:48:00.000-08:00

Over the past few weeks or so I've enjoyed reading David Brin's essay-in-parts on modernism but I've read enough a Brin to know where he was headed most of the time. For me, nothing Earth shattering. However, there was a anonymous comment that has had me thinking for a while. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, but I think it's an important idea. Here's the post in whole:

In part 10 you imply that what you call modernism should be judged on the "pragmatic success-failure ratio" of various endeavors. Presumably you believe that ratio is greater than 1, and that any honest observer will come to the same conclusion.

The problem is that many honest observers won't, and here's why, via an analogy. There's a paradox in mathematics where it can be shown that the number of even numbers is "the same" as the number of numbers in general. The problem is that both sets are infinite. For every number you can pair up a corresponding even number, and vice versa, so there's justification in saying there are as many of each kind, even though one is "obviously" larger than the other.

A similar principle applies when it comes to evaluating data points in support of political positions today. For any situation where there is some disagreement, both sides will have an effectively infinite number of facts to support their position, due to the fact that a vast amount of raw data is collected about everything these days. Anything one side comes up with to support its position can be match on the other side with something to support its position.

So now it's not simply a matter of "my side has more facts to support its position than yours". Both sides have "the same" nearly-infinite number of facts supporting their positions. Your view of the world then comes down not to some kind of objective comparison, but by how things *feel* to you personally.

So when you say "obviously, the modernist program has had more successes than failures", someone who feels the opposite can say "that's not so obvious" and counter every success you cite with a failure.

(The environment created by this blizzard of data is what allows modern spin-based politics to exist, and figuring out how to deal with it will be necessary if we think the future of the country shouldn't necessarily be directed by whoever has the best public-relations apparatus.)

This is certainly something I've thought of before, but never at quite this level. It's an awfully nihilistic view of today's information overload. I'm not positive this is relevant in the Real World, but in the blogosphere and perhaps the media and public arena at large I this may be dead-on correct. This certainly is an idea to mull over.

Almost random, quasi-related thought: I once drew a stair with four steps, Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom. Each step required additional intelligence and, ironically, fewer datums. Sometimes we confuse the first step for the last.

Maya in Post

2005-02-14T13:31:00.000-08:00

I missed this yesterday, a column on Maya Keyes in the Sunday Post.

Fighting Spirit

2005-02-14T00:40:00.000-08:00

CB states:

How should a peaceful society approach fighting a just war? Should we fight with gusto, relishing every victory and eager for more, or should we approach it grimly, with reluctance, and mourn every loss, innocent, friendly and enemy?

The answer is: both.

In the policy-making plane, when we are deliberating what to do, how to pay for it, etc., we absolutely need to be sober and grim about the momentous choice of going to war. But in the operational plane, the people, resources and activities involved in actually conducting the war, unwavering commitment is critical to good performance. It is the operational plane I will discuss in this post, and show that neither recent efforts to muzzle a politically incorrect General nor the idea of reinstating the draft are useful to enhancing the war effort.
...
Carpe Bonum commenter Mark, proprietor of The Moderate Liberal blog, calls me out on a comment I made regarding Marine Corps Lieutenant General James Mattis:
Mattis: "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

CB: "Thank God we have people like General Mattis to do it."

Jesus: " But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well." "...I say to you, love your enemy..."

Now, I'm nowhere nearly as liberal as Jesus and think in the real world we really do need to resist the evil doer. But do we really need to enjoy it?
A discussion of whether the Iraq war is just belongs in the policy-making plane, so I'm not going to get into it here. And if you don't believe Iraq is a just war, I'm sure I lost you on the first sentence of this post anyway. So, assuming we are fighting a just war in Iraq, do we need to enjoy it? Answer: no, but we need to maintain and maximize our troops fighting spirit any chance we get.

I wasn't lost on the first sentence. It was a nice try, though. :-)

There are many just reasons for this war, a couple of them where even mentioned quietly once or twice before we invaded: for example this war was probably the only way to lift the sanctions that were seriously hurting the people of Iraq while their brutal dictator continued to live in luxury.

The reasons usually stated for invading Iraq weren't particularly just reasons, but there were others. But the main reason I opposed this war wasn't due to it's legitimacy, but it's wisdom. I believed the war would hurt our fight against Islamic Fundamentalists by driving moderates away from us and towards the radicals. But now that we are in, I agree we need to see this through, as I've said a few times before while still believing the real goal is to win the hearts and minds of moderate Islam.

Anyway, CB raises an interesting issue of liberal and conservative PCness. Conservatives have been trying to enforce a form of political correctness where no one should ever criticize the war, the decision to go to war or the Commander In Chief. He brings these points up again, pointing to the need to keep moral high in Iraq. While I think there is some truth to this, I believe the American system of open and honest government is far more important, both in general and to the success of the mission. Many mistakes have been made in the war and many of them came from this administration ignoring alternative views, particularly from it's own State Department. It's messy and annoying, but the American system of government is based on openness. debate and dialog. It works.

That said, it works both ways. Some of the right's complaints about the left's complaints have been on the money. But not most. Most on the left have been very careful to support our troops and not repeat the mistakes made during the Vietnam war.¹

Now I certainly won't support the rhetoric of those extreme left wing wackos we hear about from time to time (though, of course, I'll defend their American right to say it), but it's vital our nation's civilian and military leaders listen to the criticisms from the left. They need to stop saying inflammatory stuff like Mattis' quote, "our God is bigger than their God", etc. It isn't because I care what they say, it's because people in the Middle East care. Once again, and I need to repeat this over and over again, the real fight is for the hearts and minds of moderate Islam. Right now we are losing that fight.² If all we do is push them into the radical fundamentalists' camp we have truly lost. We can't kill them all, as much "fun" as that may be.

For the record, this is what Republicans who push the hard line patriotic support of our troops and Commander In Chief say when it doesn't meet with their own political agenda. I remember hearing this stuff several years ago and easily googled it up, I'm sure anyone can find other, similar quotes. I got these from Salon:

"Once the bombing commenced, I think then [Slobodan] Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started," Nickles said at a news conference after appearing on Meet the Press. "The administration's campaign has been a disaster. ... [It] escalated a guerrilla warfare into a real war, and the real losers are the Kosovars and innocent civilians." On Fox News Sunday, DeLay blamed the ethnic cleansing on U.S. intervention. "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode," DeLay charged in a House floor speech replayed on Late Edition.
...
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning," Lott offered on Late Edition. "I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." Nickles called NATO's prewar peace proposal to the Serbs "a very arrogant agreement" that "really caused this thing to escalate."

I'm not complaining about this criticism, mind you. They were part of a healthy dialog, just like the one conservatives keep trying to discourage today.

¹ Think of it as hate the sin, love the sinner, if that helps. Nah, never mind, that just confuses me as well.

² The war is hurting us terribly on this front. On the other hand, a free and democratic Iraq will help us tremendously. Will the good stuff make up for the bad stuff? If I'd thought so I'd have supported the war, but we've already got most of the bad stuff. Let's see if we can get some good out of it now that we're there.

Parable Of The Beekeeper

2005-02-13T22:52:00.000-08:00

There once was a beekeeper who believed the ancient Tome of the Keepers. No word was questioned and no letter disobeyed. And so he lived his life.

The Tome of the Keepers said "all bees fly by the will of the Queen and by the will of the Queen they shall be lifted." And the keeper believed.

The man of science said it is not the will of the Queen, but the wing and the muscle and the lift that keep the bee afloat, but the keeper did not believe. Nor did the keeper's wife. Nor did the keeper's neighbor.

The man of science made very careful studies of bumblebee flight and came to the conclusion that bumblebees cannot fly at all. But they did fly, and the man of science could not explain.

The keeper exclaimed the Tome was righteous and the people believed. The man of science protested but the people would not let him continue to look for natural causes for natural events. The Tome explained all.

Now, it is known to all, the bee flies only by the will of the Queen. Never again did the man of science look for a natural cause and thus, he never found one.

And for all time the people forever explained gaps in their theories and understanding by claiming the supernatural, and there was peace, for the people learned the joy of just giving up.

The End

Shymmer

2005-02-11T17:03:00.000-08:00

For those paying attention to our recent eavesdropping on Maya Keyes' life, her friend Shymmer died today.

My candle burns at both ends; It will not last the night;
But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends -- it gives a lovely light!
Shymmer
Sunrise: 25 December 1984
Sunset: 11 February 2005
[[I heard the voice of Jesus say,
"Come unto me and rest"
Lay down, O weary one, lay down
Your head upon my breast
I came to Jesus as I was
So weary, worn, and sad
I found in Him a resting place,
And He has made me glad...]]

Puts everything else in perspective...

Dr. Dean

2005-02-10T22:47:00.000-08:00

It's interesting reading all the reactions to the likelihood Dean will be the new DNC chair: activist liberals rejoice, traditional Democrats shake in their boots, Republicans thank us, centrists think the choice is crazy, and on and on. The one think virtually everyone agrees on is this is a huge, Earth-shattering event; that this somehow changes everything. Everyone is wrong; Dean is simply a good, reasonable choice.

Dean was not my first choice, that would have been Rosenberg, but he was my second choice. I believe the two most obvious characteristics of Dean -- 1) he's already a hero and 2) he's already a villain -- basically cancel each other out. In fact, I'm fairly certain his ability to get all this extra attention will be a net positive. Dean has a reputation as a wild-eye, crazy, hard left liberal but in reality that's really a description of his followers more then Dean himself. During the primaries his followers were constantly reminding us that Dean has an A+ rating from the NRA and was considered by all as a centrist governor. The typical reply pointed out Dean was the worst of all worlds, further to the right than anyone but Lieberman while having the reputation of being a hard core leftist.

But we did always point out that while we didn't like Dean for president, we really like the idea of Dean for DNC. Well, here we are. And now his reputation should work to his advantage as people watching him on tv will expect someone far more radical than he really is.

The Democratic party is in serious need of reform and I believe among those competing for DNC only Rosenberg and Dean really understand that. Dean won't be as good as Rosenberg on these issues and has fewer good ideas for reform, but at least he understands. I'm still hoping, in fact, that Dean brings in Rosenberg as a deputy chair or some other capacity.

But mostly I think he'll be good at two of the more important DNC activities: raising money and getting more good Democrats to run for local offices across the country.

The most reasonable assessment of Chairman Dean I found is (surprisingly) over at NewDonkey, a centrist DLC blog. Here is what it has to say:

I did a post back in November wondering why he wanted the job. I also suggested that the DNC was pretty much an empty fortress where there wouldn't be any resistance to Dean-style ideas about netroots-based fundraising and organizing, or for that matter, a fighting partisan tone (out-Republican-bashing Terry McAuliffe would be a pretty tall order). And I continue to believe that those Deanies who think his chairmanship represents some sort of revolution are going to be disappointed by the warm welcome they will get over on South Capitol Street, where the only heads available to put on a pike will be those of the failed political consultants who have (I hope) received their last checks from the DNC.

But none of that really matters. The Doctor's campaign for the party chairmanship focused on the need to broaden the party's financial base, tap the activist energy so evident in 2004, and rebuild threadbare state party infrastructures nationwide. And he has consistently said he won't engage in policy or ideological fights that will get in the way of that task, usurp the policy-making role of elected officials, or disturb party unity.
...
The DNC's unique role is to deal with activists, money, mechanics, and party reform, and Howard Dean brings a strong resume and considerable enthusiasm to those tasks. Expanding the base, developing a winning message, and articulating a progressive reform agenda--those are tasks in which all Democrats must participate, and where the main impetus must come far from South Capitol Street, out there in the heartland and its electoral battlegrounds.

Bleeding Heart

2005-02-09T23:32:00.000-08:00

Man, I really am a bleeding heart liberal. Reading more of Maya Keyes' personal blog has really gotten to me. I'm really not that concerned about Maya herself, it's clear she is strong enough to get through all this. But others may not be so strong:

Shymmer is, to begin with, one of my best friends on earth. He is, as his boyfriend Shiva puts it, "one of those kids with starlight in his eyes - the world still surprises him, in the good ways." His first street name was Funshine, after the Care Bear; because he's one of those people who is always trying to make everyone around him happy, no matter what hell he's going through at the moment.
And he has been through a lot of it.
Shymmer was kicked out of his house a few years ago, the summer after his junior year in high school, because he is gay and his parents are conservative. Sounds familiar?
But unlike me, Shymmer's parents aren't famous, and he didn't have a huge online community supporting him. So Shymmer, for the past few years, has been actually out on the streets. He did manage to finish high school (like me also, he was Ivy-League accepted, but never made it to college - he was in my graduating year, 2003) but since then has been wandering. Any of you who deal with street kids at all will know at least somewhat what the streets can do to people - after a couple years it has certainly taken its toll on Shymm. He went from a bright cheerful kid with a potentially bright future to something of a wreck, having been beaten, raped, and otherwise abused during his time on the streets more than I like to think about. He ended up here where I am - in Chicago - on heroin and selling himself, until Shiva brought him back to DC and he cleaned up. But even off heroin and with Skyzombie's roof over his head, all the abuse is hard to get rid of, and emotionally he's just not been in a good place.
And there are so many more kids like him - For years a good number of my friends have been street kids I've known so many gay kids out on the streets who end up dead or on the streets forever. (I wrote a post about something like this over the summer...) They've been in situations like mine but didn't have thousands of people watching and ready to help them stand on their feet again.
So all this support I'm getting is overwhelming but... I haven't done anything to deserve this. It's not right that anyone should be in this situation, no; but I'm not the only one, there are thousands more and what help are they getting?
I suppose that more than anything this has just reminded me even more why Bria and I for so long have wanted to start a GLBT youth center; a place where queer homeless kids especially can find support - run by people who actually know what it's like to be in their position...
But, again, thank you all. You all are amazing. Just don't forget all the others out there like me...
...
Shymmer, who'd been staying with Skyzombie, had been doing really, really, really not well. Somehow its always more depressing when Shymmer, our own little Funshine Bear, is doing badly - Shymmer depressed is such a drastic contrast to Shymmer in his usual bouncy cheerful let's-go-make-the-world-sparkly natural state that when he gets in really bad condition it's frightening. But as Sky mentioned in his last post, Shymmer's been depressed, cutting, not eating again... the day before yesterday (I think. I'm losing track of days) Sky was going to take him down to the hospital because he'd starved himself back to an unhealthily low weight and we all (Shymmer included) thought that a stay in a psyche ward for a while would be preferable to starving himself to death. So they agreed that after Skyzombie finished teaching his last class of the day they'd take him in - except then, as I just found out, when Sky got back to his house Shymmer was gone. Either he or one of his alters decided that hospitalization wasn't gonna work for them, I guess, and it appears that he just took off and hit the streets again. So now we have one missing anorexic queer... everybody, please keep our Anjul in your prayers. He needs them, badly.

Thankfully, just tonight she posts "they found shymmer." By the time I got around to looking at tonight's post, reading backward through the past several, I found I really cared. She also made the following post a Kos

-I have been out to my parents for a while now, yes. While this caused a lot of tension and has often brought up the POSSIBILITY of this whole me-getting-cut-off business, the final straw in all this was not simply that I am queer but that I am queer and an activist. i.e., it was bad enough that I'm queer but so long as I was quiet about it that was okay.

-To whoever was going on about maybe this is because I'm a slacker who won't go to school or get a job: I had a job. That I was just fired from. By my dad. So it is true that I don't have a job - NOW.
And I am going to be going to Brown University in the fall, once I figure out how to finance that.

-It feels strangest of all to me that this is suddenly a big deal, because over the years I've had three good friends and known any number [of more] street kids who were, just like me, cut off by their families after coming out. Anyone who read my blog over a LONG period of time would know that for years now, long before anyone on the internet knew who I was, I have wanted to start a youth center to help GLBT kids and GLBT street kids, especially. At first I was really upset that this whole deal about me is becoming gossip again, but I just pray that it will make more people take notice of the THOUSANDS more like me who find themselves in this situation EVERY DAY.

In the long run, the number one thing we can do to help kids like this is create a society where parents don't feel the need to push these kids away. There will always be bad parents, of course, this problem does not need to be so common. This goal is not incompatible with Christianity, but it is incompatible with fundamentalism. How do we reject fundamentalism without causing the fundamentalists to feel persecuted? I'm not sure. That persecution complex always seems to be their greatest strength. I'm sure the solution involves love and providing an alternative story, say one centered around the teachings of Jesus instead of Deuteronomy. You'll notice from her writing Maya is an extremely faithful Christian.

Maya Marcel-Keyes

2005-02-09T16:41:00.000-08:00

Some time last summer I learned that Alan Keyes' daughter, Maya Marcel-Keyes, was gay. Apparently Alan just learned, or at least accepted, this a week ago. He kicked his daughter out onto the street. This makes me so sad, so disgusted, so.... I wish I was a better writer... From Maya's personal blog:

Sunday, January 30, 2005

{{--{mood}--{{but there's still tomorrow, forget the sorrow; and I can be on the last train home}}--{mood}--}}
...except the last train home has left without me
I tried to love you and I failed...
Well, it's happened. Finally and officially.
A couple days ago I got my official two-week warning that I have to be out of this apartment; so finally for real I'm getting cut off. I got no severance or anything like that from my sudden termination of employment (don't I have freedom of speech? the right to protest Bush without losing my job? Hehe... most people would think that working under a parent would be security but for me it's quite the opposite.) and so I definitely don't have anywhere near enough cash to find a new apartment; not even one room rented from someone anywhere. I've been searching craigslist but even places where I'd have enough to pay the first month's rent on some room I never have enough for the deposit as well, so so far I've had no luck at all finding a new home, since shelter requires money. Sad boo.
After all the arguments and tension over the years, I always hoped it would never actually get to this point, although I suppose given our vastly divergent political beliefs it was inevitable.
My A n j u l s say no, no, it was not inevitable at all and this should never have happened. They say that parents have some modicum of responsibility to their kids - at least so far as making sure they are not homeless and starving - especially if their kids have done nothing aside from thinking for themselves. They say that different political beliefs should not lead to parents kicking kids out of the house. They say most parents would be thrilled to have a child who doesn't smoke, have sex, do drugs, hardly drinks; more thrilled to have a child who additionally does well in school, is active on all sorts of extracurriculars, gets good grades, gets into the Ivy League; even more thrilled to have a child who on top of that goes regularly to church, spends free time mentoring kids and serving food to homeless people; even more thrilled to have a child to on top of that is not only politically aware but actively going out to try and fight for the causes she believes in, considering the political apathy of most teenagers. They say that if all the above didn't cause parents to be thanking God every day for the child they were blessed with, that they certainly would be after the child puts off college for a year (wait, no, for ANOTHER year, since said child already deferred one year to go teach in India) to go support her father in his work. They say that I'm a good daughter, that I changed around my whole plans just because I thought it would be nicer for my dad if after the end of working all the time on the campaign trail he could come back to someone who loves him rather than an empty house. They say that it should be a source of pride, not of shame, for my parents that I'm so passionate about my beliefs, and work for what I believe in; even if they are not the beliefs my parents hold. They say that the only possible cause for shame anywhere in the whole situation is in the fact that after all this I am being cut off, jobless, soon to be homeless, and that although I have intelligence and motivation I won't be able to go to Brown after all because I have no money.
So my Anjuls say.
My parents say otherwise.
{{--{spinning}--{{Lostprophets - Last Train Home}}--{spinning}--}}

The pain reading that is almost unbearable, imagine the pain writing it.

I know not all conservatives are like this, Dick Cheney seems to deal with it better, but still... this is where the path of hate leads.

(Via the guy who quit blogging, Kos, Oliver Willis and Maya's identity, which isn't obvious from the site itself, confirmed with this followup post.)

Brave Iranian Blogger

2005-02-09T11:48:00.000-08:00

From the L.A. Times:

TEHRAN — "Excuse me, Miss, but here in my hand I have a warrant for your arrest," said a middle-aged man with a few days' growth of beard. "Please do not make any noise as you walk calmly to the Mercedes parked at the corner."
...
I was taken to a room down a long corridor and told to sit down. A fat hand with an agate stone ring set an interrogation form in front of me. Then he began asking about my Web log, which has hyperlinks on it to Western feminist groups.

"Do you accept the charges?" the interrogator asked.

"What charges?"

"That you have written things in your Web log that go against the Islamic system and that encourage people to topple the system," he said. "You are inviting corrupt American liberalism to rule Iran."

"I've tried to write my ideas and opinions in my Web log and to communicate with others in Farsi all over the world," I said.

He was displeased.
...
Over the days that followed, I confessed to many things, including having had sex with my boyfriend, who has his own Web log. The admission filled me with guilt, both for having to discuss such intimate details and for having betrayed him. He is now complicit in the crime of extramarital sex.

I remained in prison for 36 days. Now I am awaiting trial. On my release I was reminded, "Be thankful to God that we arrested you. If you had been detained by the intelligence department of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, they would surely have beaten you. Here you were our guest."

Before I departed I was politely asked to fill out a form seeking suggestions for improving conditions in the jail.

Democratic Freedom

2005-02-08T22:42:00.000-08:00

I added Logan Ferree's blog Democratic Freedom to the blogroll, which declares it is "Building the bridge between liberals and libertarians within the Democratic Party." I haven't read enough to see if he falls for the same trap most libertarians fall into: the fundamental belief that only government offers a threat to our liberties.

Conservatives Versus IDers

2005-02-08T12:10:00.000-08:00

This was good to see, from The Corner (via Kevin Drum):

INTELLIGENT DESIGN ROUND-UP [John Derbyshire]
Just a round-up of points from the ID folder.

First, a general remark. I like a good knock-down argument as much as the next person, but I must say, ID-ers are low-grade opponents, at least if a bulk of my e-mails are any indication. They are still banging away with the arguments I first heard when the whole thing first surfaced 10-15 yrs ago. "What use is half an eye?" "The odds against this are a trillion to one!" etc. etc. There is nothing new here. I understand why biologists get angry and frustrated with ID-ers. All the ID arguments have been patiently refuted many times over. The ID-ers response is to come back with... the same arguments.

Anyway, here are a few of the commonest things I hear.
...

Go read the whole thing.

Those promoting Intelligent Design are an interesting lot. I've been meaning to write about the evolution-creationism spectrum and what various people believe, but one of the interesting things is IDers don't seem to be promoting anything in particular. Near as I can tell, they just look at evolutionary theory and criticize it and they've come up with a serious of somewhat sophisticated arguments to do this, but they don't promote any particular theory of their own. If you draw a line, put the pure Biblical creationists on one side and the pure Godless evolutionists on the other, filling out all the shades in between, IDers aren't even on the line. ID is a methodology, not an ideology; a tactic, not a belief or theory.

By the way, Kevin states (referring to this):

For those who haven't followed this issue, Behe is referring to the fact that IDers accept the idea of macroevolution — that one animal can evolve from another — but not the existence of microevolution. Behe, for example, argues that some of machinery deep within the cell is too complex to have evolved by random mutation and natural selection.

Kevin needs to be careful, while he gives the accepted definition of macroevolution, he uses a reasonable but unconventional definition of microevolution. Microevolution usually refers to evolution that occurs within a species, something even the hardcore creationists accept these days. Though, some creationists have stopped using the word, preferring to focus on loss/gain of information and evolution within kind. (Something else I've been meaning to write about -- I need to give up sleep altogether).

Boxing Rice

2005-02-07T01:05:00.000-08:00

In his editorial The Boxer Metaphor, Victor Hanson makes the following claim:

Boxer protested, "Well you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war," noting proudly that she was among the minority of senators who dissented. Then Boxer proclaimed of the professed reason to go to war: "It was WMD, period."

Boxer's statement was simply not true. Read the joint congressional declaration approved on Oct. 11, 2002, by Sen. Boxer's colleagues, whose leaders had access to the same intelligence as did the administration.

I've certainly seen Boxer go over the deep end before, but I didn't think she would make a mistake quite this large. I checked the actual transcript of Boxer's comments to see did make this mistake, but with qualification:

Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.

Ok, Boxer admits she didn't read the actual resolution (bad, but not really necessary for a 'no' vote, she didn't want war), but she did make the statement. Not good, but not quite as stupid or dishonest as I feared. Hanson himself was fairly disingenuous bringing up a point made in mid conversation that Boxer admitted she didn't really know much about.

This is the kind of arguing (Boxer) and punditry (Hanson) that just drives me nutty. It's all spin with no point and does nothing to help the dialog or get to the point, it just villanizes the opposition. Boxer's greater point, of course, is true. The selling point of the war was WMD, period. But the official resolution had every reason and excuse they could think of, almost including the kitchen sink, though certainly it emphasized WMDs:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

That's just a small chunk, there were plenty of other whereases. However, the words "democracy", "freedom", "liberty" and "vote" do not appear in the resolution. And of course, most of these reasons have been disproved; no WMDs, no harboring of al Qaida terrorists, no 9/11 connections, etc.

One last thought: how many Americans who support this president and think the war was worth it based purely on the recent Iraqi elections remember that back in 1997 Iran had open elections? I'm guessing not many. Yes, the Iranian president is subservient to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Islamic law, but the elections were not meaningless. At this exact moment in time I would consider Iran more of a democracy than Iraq, but if things shake out well in Iraq over the next year or so that should change. But this does offer a sobering perspective, does it not?

UPDATE: Hammertime is right in the comments, I misread Boxer's statement. That will be the last time I try to defend Boxer. Actually, it was the first time as well; I won't let it happen again. Ironically, I have a much greater respect for Rice's intelligence, which means I'm more likely to call Rice a liar and Boxer an idiot, all else being equal.

Patriotism and Nationalism

2005-02-06T01:32:00.000-08:00

Matt, once again, writes what I've been meaning to write for a long time. Please go read Patriotism and Nationalism, I agree with it one hundred percent. (Well, except the part about New York, clearly they are just full of themselves and the Best Coast could kick the Least Coast's ass any day!!) Oh, and I really agree about the Republicans treating what they call patriotism the same way they treat sports. That's not patriatism, that's nationalism.

The nationalist doesn't just have a special concern for his country. He has a kind of irrational attitude toward it. Like how Red Sox fans will scream -- perfectly sincerely -- "Yankees suck!" even when the Yankees, in fact, are a very skilled baseball team. But sports fans don't take an attitude of rational scrutiny toward their favorite team and its historical adversary. It would be contrary to the spirit of fandom. Now of course you can turn to the Red Sox fan and say, "actually, the Yankees have won all these baseball games, they're a very good team" and he won't say you're wrong. He's not an idiot, or blind to the facts. But the facts are beside the point. The nationalist, similarly, isn't unaware of his country's problems. He just doesn't really care. It's besides the point. The patriot feels a deep sense of shame when he finds out about Abu Ghraib and associated wrongdoings. "This is my country and look what's becoming of us." The nationalist hastens to note that the Syrians are worse, the French are hypocrites, and the leftists are only complaining about this because they didn't like the war on the first place so can't we move on please it was only a few bad apples and whatever atrocities may have happened on Guadalcanal hardly shows World War Two was a bad idea so let's shut up and move on why do you care so much about protecting the rights of terrorists anyway.

It's an attitude that's harmless enough, on its own terms. Life would be dull without irrational attachment to sports teams. Irrational attachment to city, neighborhood, state, peculiar folkways, etc. lends coherence to the personality. I think relatively few of us would want to move to Singapore, teach at a university there, and raise our kids in postmodern East Asia, even if in the course of things it seemed to suggest itself as the rational course of action. But competition in sports is friendly and bounded by rules. Except for the occassional riot after a fan throws a cup at a player's head, no real harm is done and a good time is had by all. The disdain of the New Yorker for Washington, Boston, or the airheads of the west coast is just a part of life, like the Texas pride of my roommates. In the international sphere, though, people get hurt. We have a tendency to settle our differences with bombs and bullets and torture. Sometimes, this really is the way to go. I'm no pacifist. It's a Hobbesian jungle out there and sometimes you've got to fight, and you've always got to be ready to fight. But when mistakes are made the consequences are, shall we say, rather severe. Corpses and missing limbs and so forth. It's the sort of thing you want to be applying a rational scrutiny to. A scrutiny shaped by a special love for one's own country, sure. But not the kind of love that blinds.

Patriotism, not nationalism. Though, yes, the fact that liberals tend not to be nationalists in a country where most people are holds us back. To most Americans, what John Kerry did in those Senate hearings after coming back from the war was very distasteful. Not because anyone really thinks Vietnam was a fantastic war in which no atrocities were committed, but just because even so nationalists don't think such things should be done. Dragging our country's name through the mud while the troops are in the field. Not very "rah, rah," that. It's a real problem.

Go read the whole thing.

Lies

2005-02-03T17:17:00.000-08:00

In the comments, in reference to You Do Not Own Their Courage, it was stated:

We never claimed to own it...but too many on the other side doubted it existed, and those of us who said it did have difficulty not saying, "I told you so."

But Bush never said we should invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. We never heard great speeches on freedom, democracy and giving the people in Iraq the chance to vote. What we were told was Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that we knew he was working on nuclear weapons, that he was giving these weapons to the terrorists, that if we didn't strike immediately we might see a mushroom cloud on American soil. Heck, and before that we were told the vote to authorize war was a vote to get weapon inspectors back in Iraq so we might be able to avoid war.

If this war was all about freeing some people on the other side of the world from a dictator and giving those people a chance to vote, great. Then why Iraq? Why not, say, the continent of Africa? Or one of dozens of other dictatorships around the world. Hell, why not Cuba? That would be popular in Florida. Don't tell us you "told us so", you said no such thing. This is rewriting history. In case any one forgets, real history shows there were no weapons of mass destruction and no Al Qaeda links.

I'd be interested to see the evidence of "lying", aside from statements proved wrong later. Lying involves an intent to deceive and a knowledge that the statement is not true. If I change my mind and become an evolutionist, was I lying when I said evolution isn't true? Or was I just making the best call based upon the info I had?

There's actually a fun little site where you can search a database for conservative lies. (I'm sure there's one for liberal lies out there somewhere, but I didn't look for one.) Select the person and the topic and out pops a bunch of lies and the conflicting truth, almost always with links to the transcripts and news stories.

I'll post a few quotes at the end, but really, the details hardly matter. We all know we can cherry pick quotes from politicians, compare those quotes to some news source and make them look like liars. I bet most of us realize virtually all of them lie from time to time, or at least stretch the truth as they see convenient. I'm an extremely honest person, but sometimes I'll read something I wrote and notice it implies something I really didn't mean to imply. So while these quotes are good examples of lying, they really don't tell the big picture and why I think "lie" is the correct word to use about the lead-up to war.

Even the staunchest hawk must realize the Bush administration was in full sales mode before the war. They went to great lengths and great depths to justify the upcoming war to congress and the American people while at the same time claiming that war wasn't inevitable and could still be avoided. Every shred of evidence, no matter how unsupported, no matter how many in the intelligence community thought it meaningless, was waved in front of us as proof of the need for war. Now, you may think such a full court press was necessary and justified, but please don't call it honest, and you may think those that spun all this information were doing it with the best of intentions, but please don't think they were looking for a fair debate of all the available data. They spun absolutely everything to sell this unpopular war -- and it was unpopular until the day we fired the first shot and everyone rallied around the troops -- and honesty was not their biggest concern. When it suit them, they lied.

And the gutless Democrats rolled over. And the so called "liberal media" ate it up. This was before Air America and before I knew about blogs. Back then I could only find two voices in all of TV Land, two talking heads that actually questioned the president: Jon Stewart and Wesley Clark. Everyone else, everyone just played along unquestioningly.

Anyway, here are some quotes of what I would call lies. Perhaps some people have a loser definition of honesty than I have, but I call them lies:

Topic:  Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker:  Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date:  9/10/2002

Quote/Claim:
“We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.” [Source: Telegraph]

Fact:
“We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

Reference  Reference

Topic:  Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker:  Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date:  9/8/2002

Quote/Claim:
"[The tubes] are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." [Source: CNN]

Fact:
"Ms. Rice's staff had been told [in 2001] that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons…The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets." - New York Times, 10/3/04

Reference  Reference

Topic:  Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker:  Bush, George - President

Date:  10/7/2002

Quote/Claim:
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
According to The Washington Post, Robert Boyd, the U.S. Air Force's senior intelligence analyst, has concluded that evidence uncovered in Iraq confirms the Air Force's prewar assessment that Iraq had been developing unmanned aerial vehicles (or drones) to fly reconnaissance missions, not to deliver WMDs. - Washington Post, 9/27/03

Reference  Reference  Reference

Topic:  Iraq - Pre-Invasion

Speaker:  Bush, George - President

Date:  10/22/2003

Quote/Claim:
"I made it clear that a [diplomatic] process had gone on way before I made the decision to use military force.” [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
According to Bush’s State Department Director of Policy and Planning Richard Haas, the decision to go to war had been made by July of 2002 – 8 months before the invasion. When asked whether there was a particular moment when he realized war in Iraq was definite, Haas said, “The moment was the first week of July (2002), when I had a meeting with Condi…She said, essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath.” - New Yorker, 3/31/03

Time reported in May (2002) that in late March of 2002 Vice President Dick Cheney told Senators “The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq...The only question was when." - Time, 5/6/02
Reference  Reference

Topic:  Iraq - Pre-Invasion

Speaker:  Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date:  4/18/2004

Quote/Claim:
"Resources were not taken from Afghanistan" [Source: CBS Face the Nation transcript]

Fact:
"In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.
The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered." - USA Today, 3/28/04

Reference  Reference

Topic:  Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

Speaker:  Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date:  9/7/2003

Quote/Claim:
"And there was an Ansar al-Islam, which appears also to try to be operating in Iraq. So yes, the al Qaeda link was there." [Source: Fox News Sunday transcript]

Fact:
Ansar al-Islam was based in the Kurdish area of Iraq beyond Saddam Hussein's control. - Waxman Report

Reference   Reference

That previous one is among my 'favorite' ever. Ansar al-Islam was in a the northern no-fly zone, quasi under U.S. control. Much of the link to Al Qaeda was due to Abu Musab Zarqawi. Bush had the opportunity to take out Zarqawi, but choose not to do so. In a very real way, there is a stronger case to be made for an American/Al Qaeda relationship than any with Iraq. (Not really, of course, but it gives you an idea of how sketchy the information was, yet it was promoted as solid fact.)

Topic:  Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

Speaker:  Cheney, Dick - Vice President

Date:  10/9/2003

Quote/Claim:
"[Hussein] also had an established relationship to al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases and making conventional bombs." [Source: Boston Globe]

Fact:
"The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.” - NY Times, 6/27/03

"Nearly a year after U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq, no evidence has turned up to verify allegations of Saddam's links with al-Qaida, and several key parts of the administration's case have either proved false or seem increasingly doubtful. Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league." - Knight-Ridder, 3/02/04

Reference

And for good measure, something slightly more recent...

Topic:  Iraq - Al Qaeda Links

Speaker:  Cheney, Dick - Vice President

Date:  10/5/2004

Quote/Claim:
"The senator's got his fact wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." [Source: Debate transcript]

Fact:
"I think it's not surprising that people make that connection [between Saddam and 9/11]." - Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03

"[It's] been pretty well confirmed, that he [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." - Vice President Cheney, 12/9/01

"Now [in Iraq] we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03
Reference  Reference  Reference

Lunchtime Listening

2005-02-03T11:31:00.000-08:00

NPR

General Wesley Clark

[ Listen ]

In his book, Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire (Public Affairs), new in paperback, four-star General Clark explores what he sees as mistakes that were made in the war in Iraq, from faulty pre-war planning to failure to fight hard enough for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi civilian population. Moreover, he questions whether attacking Iraq was essential for American security and stresses that a new approach to winning the peace in Iraq is urgently needed.

You Do Not Own Their Courage

2005-02-02T12:30:00.000-08:00

This is worth repeating verbatim, from Charles Pierce via Atrios.

You do not own their courage.

The people who stood in line Sunday did not stand in line to make Americans feel good about themselves.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line to justify lies about Saddam and al-Qaeda, so you don't own their courage, Stephen Hayes. They did not stand in line to justify lies about weapons of mass destruction, or to justify the artful dodginess of Ahmad Chalabi, so you don't own their courage, Judith Miller. They did not stand in line to provide pretty pictures for vapid suits to fawn over, so you don't own their courage, Howard Fineman, and neither do you, Chris Matthews.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line in order to justify the dereliction of a kept press. They did not stand in line to make right the wrongs born out of laziness, cowardice, and the easy acceptance of casual lying. They did not stand in line for anyone's grand designs. They did not stand in line to play pawns in anyone's great game, so you don't own their courage, you guys in the PNAC gallery.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line to provide American dilettantes with easy rhetorical weapons, so you don't own their courage, Glenn Reynolds, with your cornpone McCarran act out of the bowels of a great university that deserves a helluva lot better than your sorry hide. They did not stand in line to be the instruments of tawdry vilification and triumphal hooting from bloghound commandos. They did not stand in line to become useful cudgels for cheap American political thuggery, so you don't own their courage, Freeper Nation.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line to justify a thousand mistakes that have led to more than a thousand American bodies. They did not stand in line for the purpose of being a national hypnotic for a nation not even their own. They did not stand in line for being the last casus belli standing. They did not stand in line on behalf of people's book deals, TV spots, honorarium checks, or tinpot celebrity. They did not stand in line to be anyone's talking points.

You do not own their courage.

I want to be proven wrong about Iraq. I want the good stuff like last weekend's vote to outweigh all the bad stuff. But just as the existence of bad stuff doesn't probe the war wrong, the existence of good stuff doesn't prove the war correct.

Programming Languages

2005-02-01T20:29:00.000-08:00

You'll have to be a computer geek to find these funny, but here is a quick summery of various computer languages with several goofy quotes.

I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiences.

APL, in which you can write a program to simulate shuffling a deck of cards and then dealing them out to several players in four characters, none of which appear on a standard keyboard.

It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.

BASIC is to computer languages what Roman numerals are to arithmetic.

C: A language that combines all the elegance and power of assembly language with all the readability and maintainability of assembly language.

... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs.

C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog

The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense.

If you learn the "Forth way" "correctly", you will grok in fullness procedural programming, without getting hung up in the irrelevant incidentals of syntax.

Consistently separating words by spaces became a general custom about the tenth century A.D., and lasted until about 1957, when FORTRAN abandoned the practice.

If a variable is not declared, it is implicitly given a type based on its first letter (I to N being integers, the rest floats), which led to the famous story of losing a spacecraft.

The primary purpose of the DATA statement is to give names to constants; instead of referring to PI as 3.141592653589793 at every appearance, the variable PI can be given that value with a DATA statement and used instead of the longer form of the constant. This also simplifies modifying the program, should the value of PI change.
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox computers

If you learn Lisp correctly, you can grok all programming styles with it: procedural, OO, predicate, functional, pure or full of side-effects. Recursion will be your friend, function references your allies, you will truly know what a closure is, and that an argument stack is actually a performance hack. You will see that the most elegant way to solve a problem is to create a custom language, solve the generic problem, and have your specific one fall out as a special case. You will learn to truly separate intent from the bare metal, and you will finally understand the two deepest secrets, which are really the same secret, which we tell all, but so few understand, that code and data are the same thing, but organize your data and your code will follow.

Python is executable pseudocode. Perl is executable line noise.

"How many Prolog programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?"
"No."

Lunchtime Reading

2005-02-01T13:57:00.000-08:00

"Today's Fiscal Policy is Unsustainable," claims the newest GAO report

Simply put, our nation’s fiscal policy is on an unsustainable course. As long-term budget simulations by GAO, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and others show, over the long term we face a large and growing structural deficit due primarily to known demographic trends and rising health care costs. Continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our national security. Our current path also will increasingly constrain our ability to address emerging and unexpected budgetary needs.

~~Privatization~~ ~~Private accounts~~ Personal accounts ~~transitional costs~~ prepaying may be ~~trillions of dollars~~ nothing worth talking about.

Should Bush publicly stand up for the rights of Jordanians to criticize America? Matt thinks so.

Science Versus Norse Mythology

2005-02-01T02:02:00.000-08:00

Ok, this is funny...

From Pharyngula, which also features the best gimmick on the net, Pirate Pharyngula. Arrr!

Dr. Dobson

2005-01-31T23:19:00.000-08:00

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit and has entries on almost everything. As time goes by I've been amazed how many google searches end up at Wikipedia. Now the blogger who goes by the name Hammertime and I have had many conversations over the past month or two; we disagree on virtually everything, but we get along reasonably well because we've convinced each other our hearts are in the right place (even if he is a terribly misguided conservative enslaved to tradition, unable to see the value in loving, caring couples different than himself). Anyway, Hammertime is a big Dr. James Dobson fan so I thought I'd point out Dobson has a page over at Wikipedia he might want to edit. Here is what it says:

Dobson advocates the spanking of children from 15-18 months to eight years old. According to Dobson, "pain is a marvelous purifier." (Dare to Discipline, p.6) He argues that "it is not necessary to beat the child into submission; a little bit of pain goes a long way for a young child. However, the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely." (Ibid., p.7.)

In The Strong-Willed Child (p.73), Dobson writes: "Some strong-willed children absolutely demand to be spanked, and their wishes should be granted." As for the magnitude of the spanking, he argues that "two or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks with a switch are usually sufficient to emphasize the point, 'You must obey me.'" (The Strong-Willed Child, pp. 53-4.)

Dobson directly connects parental authority to social authority: "By learning to yield to the loving authority...of his parents, a child learns to submit to other forms of authority which will confront him later in his life -- his teachers, school principal, police, neighbors and employers." (The Strong-Willed Child, p. 235.)

He frequently portrays the child as the natural enemy of the parent and emphasizes that it is necessary to punish the child to uphold parental authority. "When you are defiantly challenged, win decisively." (Dare to Discipline, p. 36.)

In The Strong-Willed Child, Dobson draws a strong analogy between child rearing and dog rearing. He tells a story in which the family dog refuses to leave his resting place on the lid of the toilet seat. According to Dobson, a "vicious fight" between him and the dog resulted in which he "fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt [sic]." He concludes that "just as surely as a dog will occasionally challenge the authority of his leaders, so will a little child--only more so." (emphasis Dobson)

To deal with crying, Dobson recommends: "Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining, and the change can be recognized in the tone and intensity of his voice. I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears."

Anti-spanking groups have criticized Dobson's views as highly simplistic and dangerous to children.

Other than family.org itself, I believe all the links are to anti-Dobson sites. I have no idea if these quotes are accurate, in context or genuine examples Dobson's view on raising children. If Hammertime or anyone else wants to write a rebuttal, I'll link to it and quote it here.

UPDATE: Hammertime's rebuttal:

As I am at work, D2D is not with me, so I stopped by the library...it doesn't even have a page 6 with text on it. Or a page 7 with text, for that matter. I read the first two chapters and couldn't find those, either. I'll check my edition at home, which is updated.

The last comment has no reference - likely another fake.

I have read "The Strong Willed Child" and would not characterize it as ever portraying the child as the enemy of the parent, ever. Nor does "win decisively" mean "hit the child". An example is when my child argues about a restriction, I increase it. The child is not spanked, and he loses, and therefore learns that continued resistance to authority has negative consequences. Perhaps you think I should teach him to argue until he is blue in the face - insted I provide him with a known boundary that he tends to not cross.

He does get to voice his opinion on the issue, once. When he has said his piece, we acknowledge it and make the final decision

Free Market, Free Trade, Free Thought

2005-01-31T18:03:00.000-08:00

Robert Wright at the NY Times articulates what I've been thinking for a long time, but could never quite put my finger on well enough to describe. Basically, Bush doesn't have faith in the power of free markets, free trade and democracy. He talks about it, but he thinks it is something that must be delivered by the might of the sword, a gift from the powerful elite to the little people.

Critics on the left and right warned against grounding foreign policy in such naïve optimism (a world without tyrants?) and such unbounded faith.

But the problem with the speech is actually the opposite. Mr. Bush has too little hope, and too little faith. He underestimates the impetus behind freedom and so doesn't see how powerfully it imparts a "visible direction" to history. This lack of faith helps explain some of his biggest foreign policy failures and suggests that there are more to come.

Oddly, the underlying problem is that this Republican president doesn't appreciate free markets. Mr. Bush doesn't see how capitalism helps drive history toward freedom via an algorithm that for all we know is divinely designed and is in any event awesomely elegant. Namely: Capitalism's pre-eminence as a wealth generator means that every tyrant has to either embrace free markets or fall slowly into economic oblivion; but for markets to work, citizens need access to information technology and the freedom to use it - and that means having political power.
...
Give history some guidance, but resist the flattering delusion that you're its pilot. Don't take military and economic weapons off the table, but appreciate how sparingly you can use them when the architect of history is on your side. Have a little faith.

Digby chimes in with:

There was a time, lo these many years ago (back in the 90's) when most people understood that globalization was a huge transition with lots of unintended consequences we need to be aware of and deal with, but it was inevitable and also held out a huge promise of progress for freedom, liberty and deomcracy and all that gooey good stuff our Preznit loves to talk about. The thinking went that capitalism held the keys to liberation and that while we were embarking on a somewhat unknown track, we had faith that our economic and political systems would win out as long as we were engaged.

Then along came 9/11 and "changed everything." The PNAC neocon crowd, who had always dissented from that argument, held sway with their belief that the US had to expand its influence through the use of hard power and force the gooey good stuff because otherwise it wouldn't happen.

They did not understand that it's our "idea" that is the compelling thing, not our awesome military and economic might, which exists not to spread freedom but to protect it. They have faith in their own ideology and their own power, but they have no faith in what this country stands for. Their reliance on things like torture bears that out. That is the fundamental error.

For a free trade liberal like myself the frustration with Bush has almost been unbearable. This Project put together to insure a New American Century, in my opinion, is insuring the opposite. For those that don't know about PNAC, here is the web site. Here is the Statement of Principles written by the group back in 1997; see if you recognize any of the members. Here is the letter on Iraq they sent to Clinton back in 1998; see how much 9/11 "changed everything" in their world view. Not much.

Basically, these guys are a bunch of paranoid cowards who think the world is gonna get'um unless they shoot first. To them, 9/11 confirmed their worst nightmares. But they have no faith in ordinary people, only the all powerful state, which is why they just can't get their minds around the fact 9/11 was caused by a few fanatics unconnected to any state power. It also explains why they don't trust the power of open markets and free trade to promote liberty and bring down tyrants. American conservatives usually believe in all this stuff, after all it is largely the liberal American heritage of the Enlightenment they are conserving. Perhaps this is the difference between a conservative and a neoconservative.

Election Goes On the 'Benefit' side

2005-01-31T11:16:00.000-08:00

I opposed the invasion of Iraq for the most heartless of reasons; when looking at the costs and benefits of the war I thought the costs greatly outweighed the benefits. So far I believe history shows me correct, Bin Laden is now a hero in the Arab and Muslim worlds, the Middle East is less stable, our military has been decimated (we have virtually no ability to respond right now), our strong power has demonstrated its weakness and our soft power largely dissipated into the wind.

But make no mistake, when comparing the costs and benifits, a free and democratic Iraq weighed heavily on the 'benefit' side of the ledger. Of course, we don't have that yet, but yesterday's election was a fantastic step in that direction. Best of all, it gives us one last honeymoon period to get the people of Iraq back on our side; let's hope Bush uses this honeymoon to the utmost advantage, not in this country but in theirs.

I've wanted Bush to prove me wrong about Iraq and so far he has failed in spades. But most of the 'costs' have already been paid, let's see if we can start filling out that 'benefit' side.

The Problem With Blogging

2005-01-31T08:45:00.000-08:00

Me: Lately I've been looking into the evolution versus creation debate, it's kind of interesting....

Friend: Yea, I know...

Me: Oh, yea, of course you do...

Evolution Of New Species Witnessed; Proves Creationism

2005-01-31T01:16:00.000-08:00

I've often heard creationists say no one has seen one species arise from another. I've always assumed this was technically true because the fossil record only shows points on a graph, while there will always be at least a little bit of guess work connecting the dots. I imagine it is nearly impossible to differentiate between a direct ancestor and, say, a great aunt.

However, it turns out there are at least two directly observed cases where one species evolved into another right in front of our eyes:

A laboratory population of Nereis acuminata evolved to a new species unable to breed with the parent species.
A natural population of bird-biting Culex pipiens mosquitoes trapped in a London tunnel evolved into a rat and human biting species, unable to breed with the parent species.

Now that first link is to the Defender's Guide, an evolutionist site, but the second is a link to Answers In Genesis, a young Earth creationist site. Why does a creationist site promote this directly observed example of evolution in action? It is because they believe the world is only a few thousand years old and, more to the point, they believe in the literal story of Noah's flood. However, they did the math and realized there wasn't enough room on the ark to save two of each species. That's a problem, so it would seem. But they realized the Bible doesn't say Noah collected two of each species, it says he collected two of each kind. How do they get from kind to species? You guest it, evolution! For example, "an original dog/wolf kind on Noah’s Ark [gives] rise to wolves, dingoes, coyotes, etc."

No, really. I'm not making this up. That's what it says. Go click on the link yourself, if you don't believe me.

UPDATE: From the comments:

If we are going to be selective in our quoting (which we both do!), we should be less obvious. The link you use for the evidence of evolution (actually evidence of speciation) has a link to the very Answers in Genesis you quote - which states clearly that "Evolution hasn't made any new species" is a BAD argument to attempt to use.

Sorry if I left the wrong impression. Yes, AIG says the species argument is a BAD argument and shouldn't be use. However, I still hear it from time to time, like from Paul over at Wizbang! The AIG argument is based on "loss of information", which I'll write about some time in the future.

Is This Real?

2005-01-31T01:10:00.000-08:00

I assume this is special effects; if not, I'm impressed.

Looking Mostly Good So Far

2005-01-29T23:01:00.000-08:00

At the time I write this it looks like the Iraqi elections are looking good so far. There has been some violence but not as overwhelming as I feared and people appear to be voting. Let's hope these keeps up throughout the day. It looks like the biggest problem won't be low voter turnout overall, but low Sunni turnout.

Personally, I would prefer regional elections for local representatives. I think that would have gone a long way of preventing any kind of 'discredited' election due to the Sunnis' refusal to participate. I also believe local representative elections could have been held over a year ago, even before the hand-over of sovereignty to oversee the ~~occupation~~provisional government.

To get a feel for how election day will go and where Iraqi public opinion stands, see Zogby's recent poll best summarized by Juan Cole:

Sunni Arabs who say they will vote on Sunday: 9%
Sunni Arabs who say they definitely will not vote on Sunday: 76%
Shiites who say they likely or definitely will vote: 80%
Kurds who say they likely or definitely will vote: 56%

Sunni Arabs who want the US out of Iraq now or very soon: 82%
Shiites who want the US out of Iraq now or very soon: 69%

Sunni Arabs who believe US will hurt Iraq over next 5 years: 62%
Shiites who believe US will hurt Iraq over next five years: 49%

Shiites who want to hold elections on Jan. 30: 84%
Kurds who want to hold elections on Jan. 30: 64%

Sunni Arabs who want to postpone elections: 62%

Sunni Arabs who consider guerrilla resistance against the Americans legitimate: 53%

Iraqis who would support a religious government: 33%

Again, this was a Zogby poll, so keep that in mind. Still, shift the numbers by 10% and it still paints roughly the same picture. Iraq's want us out, but they still need us, whether they want us or not. Somehow we need to pull out gracefully without letting the place collapse under its own weight. I wish I knew how to do that; I don't. I'm not sure anyone does.