Time to stretch a bit. The kids are all busy; playing, doing homework, watching TV, whatever. You've worked all day, came home, cleaned house, made dinner, cleaned the kitchen, and now you are ready for your time. You sit down in your chair with your book that you're right in the middle of and begin to read. Instantly, all activity in the house ceases and a line of petitioners forms at your chair. Every child has just remembered something important about their day that they simply must share with you. You sort through their triumphs, tradegies, wins, lossess, needs, wants and desires, and slowly the line diminishes, until you are alone again with your book. You lower your eyes to the page, and get swept away.
It doesn't matter where. The old west, outer space, the ocean, the mountains, places you've seen, places you've seen only through closed eyes at one in the morning. New places, different places, different times, where your life is different, no regrets, no confusions, no messy areas, just neat little lines of words which fire your imagination to create things of wonder.
She clears her throat, delicately, letting you know she's still there. You missed one. One more request to fill. She's your little girl, so you lower the book, and she begins to tell you a Dickensian tale of sorrow and treachery and battles fought and won, until she finally gets to her point. She needs money for lunch tomorrow.
You hand her the change from your pocket, and, satisfied that you have done your duty, prepare to resume traipsing the world from the comfort of your recliner.
She clears her throat again. You ease your eyes up from the book, trying to show her that you are really wanting to read this one page, or maybe two, but she persists, and begins to explain all about her day, the boy she met, and the one she likes, and the girl she doesn't like, and how her friend made her feel silly, and whether she should go to the dance. You nod in the right places as her voice fades into the background, satisfied that you are doing your job, listening to her talk, but all the while wondering when you can get back to your book. Eventually she trails off, running out of things to say, and you mumble some vague reassurances, that people do like her, and things are fine, and of course she's doing well. She says OK, then starts to wander off.
You start to sink back into your book, pulling it around you, shutting out the messy world and locking yourself in with the rigid prose that sets your mind free to roam.
"Daddy?" she asks.
You slam down the book, glare over at her, annoyed at the continuing interruptions. Can't she see you want a little peace?
"What is it now?"
The hurt is bigger than her face, then anger flits across her face.
"Never mind!"
Instantly guilt consumes you. All she wanted was a little of your time, a little attention from the guy who hung the moon and stars, and you wanted to read a book instead. What kind of monster are you? You heartless bastard.
You soften your voice and ask again what she wanted, but the damage is done. Her feelings are hurt and there's a wedge between you that is your fault. She starts to go away, not crying even though she wants to, and that's the worst part, because you know she hurts, but she doesn't want to bother you any more.
You go after her, and catch her arm, and go to one knee, so she can look into your eyes and tell her you're sorry. She can see that you mean it and her smile comes back faster than it faded, and she clings to your neck, and you hold her for a minute, revelling in the easy forgiveness of a child. You ask her what it was she wanted to ask, and she says she forgot.
You growl good naturedly, swing her upside down and tease her about interfering with your reading, and get into a tickle fight that lasts until bedtime. The book lies forgotten on the table. It will still be there tomorrow, or the next day, and someday soon she won't be. And you realize that you don't really need a book to fire your imagination to create something wonderful. You've done it for real.
I see your true colors shining through Like this is a surprise or something? Bill Clinton lies again.
He said it would cost America $US2.5 billion ($A4.87 billion) to meet UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's request for an extra $US10 billion ($A19.47 billion) to fight AIDS and other infections diseases."For us, you know what that is?" he asked the $1,100-a-head charity dinner in Melbourne for the Microsurgery Foundation.
"Two-and-a-half months of the Afghan war, and about one tenth of one per cent of the federal budget.
"That's it.
"There are 40 million AIDS cases a day and if we don't do something about it, there will be 100 million AIDS cases a day."
OK, let's do a little fact checking. From Avert:
Worldwide AIDS stats as of December 2001
People infected with HIV in 2001 Total 5 Million
................................................Adults 4.3 Million
................................................Women 1.8 Million
................................................Children 15 years 800,000
No. of people living with HIV/AIDS Total 40 Million
..................................................Adults 37.2 Million
..................................................Women 17.6 Million
..................................................Children <15 years 2.7 Million
Ahhh. Now we see. 40 million living with AIDS today. Of course, that doesn't scare people enough.
Let's see what other garbage he spewed:
In a direct reference to the Howard government's woes, Mr Clinton also warned Australia needed to pull its weight in addressing global warming or the refugee crisis would get worse."If the world warms in the next 50 years as it has done in the last 10, ...agricultural production will be disrupted across the globe," he said.
"You'll have literally millions upon millions of food refugees, leading to more violence, more disruption and more boatloads of refugees that you will have to face."
Considering that the newest evidence shows that the troposphere has actually cooled over the last decade, and that the best climate models we have require an increase in tropospheric temperature to drive their doomsday predictions, I think it is safe to call this another lie.
Or is the "smartest president we've ever had" just a moron?
Hmmmm. Tricky The fellow behind Libertarian Rant enjoyed my bit about Star Trek characters as politicians. He is yearning for more though.
Just for you:
Bob Dole................Data. His lack of emotion cost him any chance at command
Checkov.................Pat Buchanon. Makes lots of noise. Screams well.
Q..........................Ross Perot. Virtually limitless power, yet always getting tripped up by idiosyncratic behaviors
The Borg Queen......Patricia Ireland. My apologies to the borg queen for this comparison
Riker......................Dick Cheney Capable commander in his own right, but loyal to the boss.
Deanna Troi............Elizabeth Dole. Great at projecting warmth and empathy. Bad at picking men.
Captain Sisko.........Colin Powell. Go ahead. Piss him off.
You know something? I have way too much free time....
I'm curious about something In this story from Fox about the rioting in India, why do I have to scroll down over half the page before I find out why the Hindus are rioting?
Sounds a lot like the Rodney King riots all over to me. A bunch of thugs taking the opportunity to kill and destroy.
Listening to the news at lunch, I heard that there is an Air India plane on its way to New York which may be carying a man on the BBI's Most Wanted Terrorist watch list. It's now 5:30, and I haven't heard anything else.
How do you keep a news junkie in suspence?
Story at 11.
Aarrrgghhhhhh!
UPDATE The whole thing was a false alarm. And I only had to wait until 2130.
That's Amore I'm something of a traditionalist. I still believe in love, and that marriage is a union of two people, not just a social contract. My definition of love runs closely to what Robert Heinlein said in
'Love' is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.
Our Dr. Feelgoods now characterize that state as a social disease called co-dependence.
They tell us that we must remain separate from our marriage and our spouse, that we must retain our autonomy. They tell us that depending on our mate is bad, because it reduces our ability to fend for ourselves. They tell us that we must be ready to jump ship at a moment's instant, because there are no guarantees, and people change. And we follow their advice, because they are the experts, right?
And because we follow their advice,and refuse to commit, and refuse to depend on our mate, we fulfill their prophecy. We grow apart; we lose our connections. The ties that we form are never strengthened, never become vital.We hold our mate at arm's length, and as long as things go well, we are all right. The fire may die, we may lose the passionate connection, but we are comfortable, and secure in the knowledge that we are still independent. Then the storm comes, and when we need those roots, those ties, they fail us. We are torn apart, because we really don't have all that much to lose. After all, we were almost alone in the first place.
But love can be so much more. A true commitment of the heart and mind without hesitation or reservation creates a union which carries more strength than both of the two possess alone. Knowing that there is someone who you can rely on to be there for you in victory or defeat for you is a tremendous source of courage, and will allow you to face down any challenge. Challenges that would destroy the 'modern' marriage can be overcome by a true commitment.
An embrace is always stronger than a handshake.
So why do we settle for this pale imitation? Is it from fear of getting hurt? Are we afraid that if we truly commit, we may get hurt by our mate, or by fate? I think so. I think we try to minimize pain by minimizing our emotional exposure. The trouble with that is we minimize our joy as well. We pass up on so much because we are afraid we may get hurt. The lesson we need to learn is that the joy is always greater than the pain. Quoting another science fiction author, Spider Robinson:
Sorrow shared is reduced; happiness shared is multiplied.
Yes, I'm feeling a little sentimental today, but I'm sure it will pass....
What's up with UPS?I ordered a some merchandise and had it shipped via UPS. The order was shipped from three separate locations. I checked the tracking code to see where they were, and two of them were scheduled for delivery today. I checked back a few minutes ago, to see if they'd been delivered, and saw that they had not, and an exception put in.
I checked further and saw that the driver had noted a need for an apartment number.
I live in a house. There are no apartments nearby.
Now there are two houses and two mobile homes on my driveway, so I could understand some confusion, so I made sure to put large numbers on my house, to minimize confusion.
It wasn't enough.
Here's the sad part. Remember I said I had packages coming from three places? One of them was successfully delivered on Monday.
By UPS.
A new link sightseeing in Plato's Cave joins the permalink section with the following timess entry:
This weekend's activities included sitting on a tree stump by the shore of Lake Tahoe. Lesson learned: Sap can be sticky for quite a long time.
True wisdom cannot be gained without experience.
If you don't read the Daily Bleat, this is what you are missing
Yesterday, for example, I redid the fridge. Tossed out the elderly vegetables, cast out the suspicious chicken, wiped down the shelves, replenished the stocks of ale from the garage. The disorder of the fridge is inevitable, and there’s nothing you can do about except clean it out before the stuff in the back attains consciousness and unionizes the lunchmeats. But before I go on the weekly shopping expedition I like to edit the fridge down to active duty personnel. I also performed minor realignment of the cupboard, which is something over which I can exercise a small amount of control. Two months ago I arranged everything by frequency of use and genre, and the fragile peace remains in effect to this day. (This aspect of my personality both thrills and frightens my wife, since I was a domestic slob when she met me, and I’ve now vaulted over her in terms of household order.)
Welcome to the Machine Part II According to this story in the Chicago Trib, which I found on The Daily Pundit simply standing around may become a crime.
The city has designated about 90 so-called "hot spots," areas deemed troubled by gangs, drugs and violence. The list, which is complied by police and community leaders, is kept secret by the city. It is reviewed quarterly."The only time under this ordinance that anyone can be arrested is if they disobey the officer's order to move on," Rosenthal said.
Folks, this isn't a game show; this is the real world. Now, if it were a crime scene, or private property, or you were commiting a crime, ie disturbing the peace, obstructing access, etc, I can accept that the police have the right to tell you to move along. But here we have a city designating secret spots, which may change quarterly, subject to no public review, where the cops can tell you to get lost, and you must comply, or face arrest. If you don't know whether the spot you are on is one of the secret spots, how will you know whether or not the officer is within his rights? Obviously, you can't. This has the effect of giving the police the right to disperse any crowd, anywhere for any reason.
A new permanent link I just discovered that through an oversite, I failed to provide a permanent link to Quasipundit. I have corrected that oversight. They provide a lively discussion of topical events, as well as a comprehensive overview of both traditional pundits, and the everchanging blogosphere.
Little Jimmy left alone.... The American prowler notes this about Jim Jeffords:
INDEPENDENCE MISERY
Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords has identified his party affiliation as "Independent" since jumping from the Republican Party last year. But since he's the only one of his kind in the Senate, who to hang out with during campaign season? "He offered to campaign for Democrats," says a staffer for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "And while we appreciate the offer, there haven't been many takers."Apparently Democrats have discovered what should have been obvious when Jeffords was a Republican. "He's got a reputation for being high maintenance," says the DSCC source. "Whenever [Majority Leader] Tom Daschle or [Whip] Harry Reid hear we could send Jeffords out on the road for Democrats, they just roll their eyes and shake their heads."
Poor Jimmy is learning what happens to all prostitutes after their looks go south on them. I hope he's not counting on the Vermont governor's job either.
Welcome to the Machine The AP has a story out about a new computer chip that can be implanted under your skin. The chip would be your identity card, a personal tracking device, carry your medical records, or any other functions the maker designs.
For airports, nuclear power plants and other high security facilities, the immediate benefits could be a closer-to-foolproof security system. But privacy advocates warn the chip could lead to encroachments on civil liberties.The implant technology is another case of science fiction evolving into fact. Those who have long advanced the idea of implant chips say it could someday mean no more easy-to-counterfeit ID cards nor dozing security guards.
Just a computer chip - about the size of a grain of rice - that would be difficult to remove and tough to mimic.
Without further ado, Pink Floyd:
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
Where have you been? It's alright, we know where you've been.
You've been in the pipeline, filling in time,
provided with toys and 'Scouting for Boys'.
You bought a guitar to punish your ma,
And you didn't like school, and you know you're nobody's fool,
So welcome to the machine.Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
What did you dream? It's alright we told you what to dream.
You dreamed of a big star.
He played a mean guitar.
And he always ate in the Steak Bar.
He loved to drive in his Jaguar.
So welcome to the machine.
They're here now. According to this story in Monday's Washington Post, Islamic schools teaching intolerance are locateed right here in America.
Eleventh-graders at the elite Islamic Saudi Academy in Northern Virginia study energy and matter in physics, write out differential equations in precalculus and read stories about slavery and the Puritans in English.Then they file into their Islamic studies class, where the textbooks tell them the Day of Judgment can't come until Jesus Christ returns to Earth, breaks the cross and converts everyone to Islam, and until Muslims start attacking Jews.
One again, our 'friends', the Saudis.
"We want it to be a place where they don't have to assimilate, where they can practice their religion. It's like any other religious school," Zeiter said. "We teach them the history and good values and what it takes to be a good Muslim."Still, Zeiter said she takes pains to present balanced lessons to students, piecing together a curriculum from books published both in the United States and overseas.
When she feels she must use material in a popular Pakistani textbook, she said, she makes photocopies of pages she needs and never uses those calling Christian beliefs "nonsense" or portraying Jews as treacherous people who financially "oppress" others. Yahiya Emerick, the author of "What Islam Is All About," said he will soon release a new edition for U.S. audiences that eliminates the tendentious parts.
If you have to censor a text book, why continue to use it?
I'm not going to pull any more quotes from the article, read it for yourself. I'll just say this. If fundamentalist Christian school was teaching the type of hatred and intolerance that these Arab schools are teaching, at best, it would be closed down within a week. At worst, they might get a visit from Reno's Rangers along about 2 am one night.
Hello Pot? This is Mr Kettle. Fox reports that Aaron Sorkin is apologizing to Tom Brokaw for remarks he made in New Yorker magazine.
Sorkin blasted Brokaw in this week's New Yorker magazine, saying that "The White House pumped up the President's schedule to show him being much busier and more engaged then he is, and Tom Brokaw let it happen - the show was a valentine to Bush."
Of course, had Aaron actually watched the show, he would remember Brokaw making that exact observation as the show began. Or maybe he did watch it, but just can't remember.
I know that if Sorkin had a chance to film a show about the inner workings of the White House, he wouldn't take any dramatic licences at all, and would tell it like it is. No romanticising of the president, no idealized picture of the people on the inside, just the simple unvarnished truth.
Yeah, right.
So that's what happened! Here is debka's real strength, as far as I can tell. While their predictions quite often fall flat, their investigation and analysis are usually on the mark. In this story, Debka notes the reason for Arafat's decision to participate in tri-lateral peace talks with Israel and the US.
The Palestinian leader complained bitterly about the Israeli justice minister, the usually mild Meir Sheetreet, who told an early morning Hebrew radio broadcast that if things carried on this way, he could not rule out Israel’s military reoccupation of Palestinian cities. Solana [head of the EU] agreed gloomily that this prospect was on the cards. Arafat at that point asked the European official to inform the Americans that he would be sending Palestinian officers to attend the trilateral US-Israel-Palestinian security commission, so that it could be convened Tuesday night, February 26. This was a reversal of the boycott of the forum he ordered, two days earlier, on Sunday, February 24, after the Israeli security cabinet declined to release him from virtual house arrest in Ramallah.
More interesting is the reason for Solana's presence in the first place. According to Debka, Arafat spent the payroll for the PA on the escalation of terror attacks in Israel. When payday arrived, he begged funds from the EU, who sent him 30 million to cover the payroll. Only when he arrived in Israel did Solana discover the origins of the shortfall.
Allied rivals Elizabeth Dole is getting some fund raising help from her former rival, President Bush. Nothing surprising there, but buried in this story is an interesting paragraph.
Dole is trying to combat accusations of carpetbagging. Although born and reared in North Carolina, she has spent most of her adult life in Washington, and was registered to vote in Kansas — the state husband represented in the Senate — until October.
Hmmm. First the republicans accuse Hillary Clinton of carbetbagging, then use the same tactic with Elizabeth Dole, while the democrats cry "carpetbagger!"
Hypocrisy in our politicians? Say it ain't so!
Slow day for a blog, but a very busy one for me. I just have time for one little bit before bedtime. Glenn Reynolds referred to his imitator as "the bearded Spock." This started me to wondering, "Which Star Trek characters best represent politicians of today?"
I think it would have to be something like this.....
Al Gore............................Spock. Logical, unemotional, wooden as puppet with no strings, shows passion only when forced.
James Carville...................Kahn. Highly intelligent and overly dramatic enemy of George Bush.
Alan Greenspan................Scotty. Keeps the engines running, ignoring the antics of the idiot at the controls.
Hilary Clinton....................the shape-shifting, salt-sucking, life stealing critter responsible for several deaths.
Dan Quayle......................a Tribble. Enough said.
James Traficant................an Andoran. He already has the hairpiece. All he needs is blue skin.
George Stephanopholis.....Yeoman Rand. In love with the boss, but unable to do anything about it.
Jimmy Carter....................Sarek. Highly intelligent and a great ambassador.
Bill Clinton........................Who but the greatest intergalactic con man himself, Harry Mudd.
Sen. Fred Thompson.........McCoy. A plain spoken country boy with iron clad integrity and a heart a mile wide.
George Bush the elder.......Captain Christopher Pike. Almost but not quite up to the job of commanding the nation.
George W. Bush...............Sulu. Just getting started but may eventually eclipse the man himself.
Ronald Reagan.................Captain James T Kirk. To hell with the Prime Directive! We have to do what is right!
Alright fellow bloggers, it's your turn.
Well, that's it for today folks, unless something earth-shattering occurs, in which case there won't be anything left to talk about.....
So I guess that is it.
Why I rarely go to the movies anymore James Lileks Hits the nail right on the head, even through an influenza ridden household.
There’s another element to those crappy movies, as well - the notion that good people are really bad people. Goodness is a mask. Somehow this got expanded and given wider currency - if goodness is a mask for some, then goodness might be a mask for all. Goodness itself is suspicious. If you saw Buddy Ebsen smiling in a 1957 movie, you’d think: nice guy. If you see Buddy Ebsen grinning in a 1971 film called “Salem’s Bride” you vote him most likely to be wearing a black robe and chanting Latin backwards by the picture’s end.I can’t quite put my finger on it, but it has to do with the replacement of goodness with coolness. In the best old movies people were Good, or they were Bad, or an interesting combination of the two that resolved one way or the other by the movie’s end. (That’s one of the reasons Casablanca was so good - the Good-Good character, Victor Lazlo, was boring, and the Bad-Bad character, Herr General Fritz Uberbraten, or whatever he was called, was just there for hisses. Everyone else was mixed. Good-Bad Cap’t Renauld became good; we all know that Bad-Good Ugarte would have stayed bad. Ilsa had done a bad thing - she left Rick - but for a good reason! Etc.) But that’s been replaced by Coolness - a corrosive element that values smirky skepticism above certainty and belief.
It's the difference between John McClain and Mickey and Mallory Knox.
What we're all about Andrew Sullivan gets it right.
Then I discovered Blogger. No, it's not a new expletive. It's a simple web technology, based on a single website called - yes - Blogger.com. The word comes from the expression "web-log," which simply means a live, real-time, online personal diary. Blogger - pioneered and still run by one man, Evan Williams - makes that completely easy. Within minutes, you can have a website and post to the universe any stray, brilliant or sublimely stupid thought that comes into your mind. Blogger even provides a handy, idiot-proof rubric for a simple site. And all this is provided for free. It was, I realized two years ago, the nascent Napster of the journalism industry. Just as Napster by-passed the record companies and brought music to people with barely any mediation, so Blogger by-passed established magazines, newspapers, editors and proprietors, and allowed direct peer-to-peer journalism to flourish.
You can read the resthere, and you should.
No, I'm not making a profit; but I am having a ball!
Immanual Kant was a real pissant... Courtesy of Andrew Dodge comes a selector to define the philosopher you may be most in line with. My list is below.
1. Kant (100%) 2. Sartre (81%) 3. Rand (77%) 4. Bentham (76%) 5. Mill (69%) 6. Aquinas (65%) 7. Plato (62%) 8. Stoics (62%) 9. Spinoza (61%) 10. Hume (57%) 11. Aristotle (50%) 12. Augustine (49%) 13. Nietzsche (48%) 14. Prescriptivism (45%) 15. Epicureans (41%) 16. Cynics (29%) 17. Hobbes (24%) 18. Noddings (22%) 19. Ockham (18%)
The Prowler strikes again! This little gem in from The American Prowler
BOXER SHORTS
California Sen. Barbara Boxer was promising reporters a hot scoop last Friday about Enron's relationship with the Bush administration, only to end up look like the girl who cried wolf.For several days Boxer and her staff had promising Hill reporters documents from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that would have documented meetings and contacts between FERC members and Enron from August 2000 through June 2001.
"They said the documents would show that those contacts spiked after the Clinton administration left office," says one financial reporter covering Capitol Hill. "They thought it was going to be a smoking gun, and really oversold it."
In fact, the meeting logs indicated almost the exact opposite of what Boxer had been selling. While Enron meetings did continue with the Bush administration, Clinton-appointed staff and commissioners were wined and dined much more heavily before the Bush people came in. And even then, it appears the FERC actions were above board. "When they went out with lobbyists, the FERC folks picked up their part of the bill," says the reporter.
How did Dan, Peter, and Tom miss this one?
Daniel Pearl, A sign of things to come? This article in The Idler by John LeBoutillier tells us why the murder of Daniel Pearl is a cause for greater concern than we might think.
It signals a new stage of this certain-to-be long conflict with fundamentalist Islam. We need to recognize the enemy. It is a strain of thought that happily kills - and almost wants to be killed itself."We know your weakness."
These chilling words were spoken 21 years ago by the North Vietnamese Ambassador to Thailand when he was asked about US POW's still being held alive in Southeast Asia, long after the war had ended.
"Your wives and mothers and daughters," he continued, "want their men home."
In other words, capturing and holding Americans is a very powerful weapon to use against the United States precisely because we value life above all else.
The Islamic fundamentalists who captured Danny Pearl are slightly different from Hanoi.
These enemies of America executed Pearl on videotape to send a strong message: the next time they kidnap someone we will know for certain they will kill him or her. Thus we are backed into a corner. Either we give in or that American is as good as dead.
Read the rest of his article.
Like I said earlier, we need to make it very clear that taking an American life, particularly a non-combatant, is the absolute worst thing you want to do.
An unbiased press? In the latest article from the Yates trial, I read the following:
"Do you remember her making a statement, 'After thinking about my options, I decided drowning would be the best way to end their life'?" assistant district attorney Kaylynn Williford asked.Yates said "something about drowning, that drowning was the way," Ferguson replied.
Ferguson testified Yates told her she thought about killing her children for at least three months and thought about it the night before the children were drowned.
Other testimony this week is expected to include doctors who treated Yates before the killings.
Did you catch it? I don't know if it was Pam Easton's paraphrasing, or Dr. Melissa Ferguson's testimony, but the quote shifts from the active to passive voice when discussing how Yates drowned her children. Check this sentence again:
Ferguson testified [active] Yates told her she thought [active] about killing her children for at least three months and thought [active] about it the night before the children were drowned. [passive]
What kind of garbage is this? If you want to share your opinions, get a blog like the rest of us. Don't peddle your propaganda and call it reporting.
Wooohooo! I am a professional now! Don't worry; I'm not going to quit my day job. At this rate, I'll have to post for 2 years before I can go to the movies. At a matinee. Three years if I want popcorn.
But it is still pretty cool!
By special request A loyal reader (Hi Mom!) has requested that I do a piece on capital punishment.
It's interesting that she asked that question because my thoughts have recently changed 180 degrees. I used to be a supporter of the death penalty. There are some crimes so heinous and horrible that the only possible response is to kill the perpetrator. I can think of several right off the bat.
I don't worry that innocent people might get caught up and executed by mistake. That argument works for any sentence; which would be worse, to die innocent of crime, or to live the rest of your life in prison as an innocent man? Should we outlaw life sentences on that basis? Of course not. We build every possible appeal we can into the system, and it must be working, because we haven't had a documented case of an innocent man being executed yet. We've had several close shaves, and there may be one or two that we haven't heard of, or been able to prove.
But, how many lives have we lost by not sentencing these animals to death? How many additional lives have they been able to destroy, because of our compassion? The numbers game can be played either way, but is ultimately meaningless because you can't put a number to the worth of a life. Is the man who is mistakenly executed more innocent than the victim of a murderer released on parole? Both are dead based on an error of the system. How can you distinguish the two? Do you go by quantity? Two lives are worth more than one? I don't think so.
So, two of the most common, rational arguments against the death penalty fail. So why do I oppose it?
I have two issues with the death penalty. First, I don't think the state should be in the business of deciding who lives and who dies. That's more power than I feel comfortable giving up. Second, I don't like the toll it takes on the people responsible for carrying out the execution. Unless you are a complete sociopath, taking a life changes you. No matter how deserving of death the animal may be, to kill in cold blood would place a terrible burden on the executioner. If it didn't, he would be just as bad as the monster he is executing, only he is sanctioned by the state.
"When you dance with the devil, the devil doesn't change; the devil changes you."
I believe this is true, but would still be willing and able to pull the trigger, throw the switch, or pop the needle myself, and sleep like a baby that night. I don't like that part of me, and don't trust it; I sure as hell don't want to encourage it in myself, or in my government.
They should be horsewhipped. She'd worked very hard to get Swan ready for the show, fed her a special diet, hired the best trainers, kept her under constant discipline and training. She took her from show to show, always striving to do better, to get Swan to place higher. She was very demanding, but She only wanted the best for Her little prize.
Swan lived for Her approval, and would do anything to get it, but She doled out praise even less frequently than the treats She used to reward good behavior, or success at shows. Finally, the big day came, the biggest show to date. Swan was tired and scared, but determined not to let Her down. And finally, after all of the training, the sacrifice, the demands, Swan won Best in Show.
Swan is a five year old girl in a beauty pageant.
Her parents should be horsewhipped.
The stomach churning story is detailed on HBO America Undercover. They pitch it as humorous on the website. Don't believe it.
On the drive to work today I was listening to NPR, when Amy Quinton profiled the Charlotte NC school system's plan to end busing and allow parents the opportunity to pick which school their children attend. Oh the horror! What caught my attention was how Ms. Quinton marvelled at allowing parents to decide where their children should go to school, like this was some radical new idea. I have a basic problem with that sentence, by the way. How in the world did we allow the government to take away that right to begin with?
Not to sound like a broken record or anything, but this is the direct result of Lee's surrender at Appomatox.(Yes, I just tied the failings of our educational system to the War Between the States. What will I do for an encore?)
The state of education A little while ago, I posted this story on education. Michael Pearson (mutecypher-at-earthlink.net) wrote an excellent response which made several good points. He says:
...I certainly would agree that as a country we should do a better job of education. But I think that often times we fail to take into account the cultural/societal flower that our forebears have planted that makes us such a creative, vibrant nation. There is a part of me that says we should be sure that whatever reforms we make in our schools, we don't kill our native, American form of intelligence by educating it into a European dessication.
I don't think that vouchers run any risk of doing that, but much other reform does concern me. The weekly drumbeat about self-esteem that comes from my daughter's school - forgetting that unearned self-esteem is nearly the defining feature of a criminal mind. The moronic whole language method of teaching reading. The unexamined assumption that more government involvement (non local) is a necessary part of the solution. Those things strike me as some of the potential poisons under consideration.As an aside, I realize that some pundits and diplomats in Western Europe and the Middle East think we are the opposite of both things I am discussing - uneducated and stupid. They are the product of systems that provides an education lacking in a true, real world appreciation of the tradeoffs involved in action. One unstated premise in Neil's description is that education has a static aspect to it (facts don't change) while intelligence has a more active aspect (dealing with a complex world). Hence, the existence of the unintelligent educated pundit.
Mike has hit on one of my favorite themes; the difference between 'book smart' and 'street smart.' I deal with engineers all of the time, and am disturbed by the lack of practical knowledge they have. Many mechanical engineers don't even have a basic familiarity with mechanics tools, which shows when they design access covers, or calibration adjustments that are inaccessible, unless a special tool is created. The ability to process information, to gather and evaluate data, and to apply that information in a real world environment is crucial in everyday life.
The problem is that our schools aren't even giving our kids the basic tools they need to carry out these functions. Math knowledge is weak, which inhibits analysis of data, english skills are weak, which inhibits the ability to communicate knowledge effectively, and historical knowledge is practically non-existent, which denies the long term perspective needed to understand where we are and where we are headed. I think we can strengthen our curriculum significantly without our schools becoming arid wastelands of facts, with no soul.
Mike goes on to give some interesting ideas on directions for education reform:
- There's the old joke that college deans are supposed to tell. You have to be good to the A students, since they come back to be professors. You have to be good to B students, since they send their kids to the same college they attended. You have to be good to C students, since they become rich and give large grants to the college. Somehow, the last portion of the joke seems particularly American to me. Those students do get an education, but they are not wholly devoted to the process. Their minds end up sharpened in a way that pays the most dividends in the material world.
- How much do we want reform to be national - meaning the federal government directs - and how much do we want it to be local? With a national orientation, we really can standardize on the things that we should all know to be Americans. Should every 10th grader be able to recite the Declaration of Independence? Should every sixth grader be able to give a five sentence summary of events at Little Round Top? Can you possibly imagine a federal agency doing a good job of defining such things before the end of the universe?
- What is the state of our trade schools? It probably varies from trade to trade. College is not the appropriate goal for every 18 year old, but more training than is given in high school is valuable for many. Trade schools are private, I don't even know how well regulated they are. What lessons can be learned from them? Some folks have suggested that we allow non-college bound students to leave high school at 16 and attend trade schools. Do those become publicly funded? I don't really have a feel for these schools, but I think some scrutiny here can give us all some good information.
This last is one I'm really interested in. Right now, the only place to go for a good trades education is the military, or a union shop with a good apprenticeship training, or an overpriced, for-profit trade school like ITT. This is a disgrace. Let's fae it, not every kid needs or wants a college education. We spend so much time trying to get every kid ready for college that we wind up with a group of young adults who are prepped for college AND NOTHING ELSE! Vo-tech is not a bad word, although you would think it is when at high school.
I know a little about this. As I said earlier, I went to a college prep school. After washing out of college (A minor disagreement with my professors. I figured as long as I passed the tests, I didn't have to go to class. They disagreed.) I wound up working in a convenience store. I had no other skills. Oh, I could have sold vacuum cleaners door to door, a job which really sucks(sorry, couldn't resist), but I really had no saleable skills. I wound up going into the Navy (getting robbed at gunpoint for the $50 in the till has a way of bringing perspective to your life. I highly recommend it if you are having trouble finding your way in life) where I received technical training in electronics and nuclear reactor operations. (There's another comforting thought for you, convenience store night clerk to nuclear reactor operator in five easy lessons! What a country!)
Finally, Mike is interested in other comments on his ideas. You can e-mail him directly at the address above, or send your comments to me, and I'll publish them here.
Good Morning! In response to a reader who noticed that my archives were not accessible, I've spent the last few minutes (ok hours) trying to get my archives functioning. I believe they are functional now, so life is good. My weekend was very busy, installing a new drill press, and a new computer. The drill press is wonderful, and so is the computer, except for the modem, which won't dial. It's always something.
Time for a break Short posting day, but I have to go pick up a new drill press for my woodshop, then my new computer. I'll post tonight, if I get the thing hooked up in time.
Great minds, and all that Wiliam Sulik commented on Sarah Hughes performance. He links to the judges scorecards.
I know as I watched Slutskya get ready to skate that NBC flashed a graphic that showed Kwan in first, Sarah Hughes in second, and Cohen in third. I couldn't begin to figure out how Sarah would get the gold she clearly deserved. Scott hamilton did say that it was possible, but they obviously don't use the old math where 1+1=2. In any case, the outcome was as it should be. The best skater of this years Olympics walked away with the gold.
Anybody remember The Next Karate Kid? Terminator 3 will feature a female Terminatrix shades of the Borg Queen. (I watch way to many movies!)
I'm betting the female Terminator will be based on the gynoids of Sorayama.
Now here's a shocker! Russia may pull out of the closing cremonies.
This wouldn't have anything to do with their abysmal medal count, would it?
Irina Slutskya didn't make her triple triple, and she bobbled the landing on another triple. Her moves were mechanical, and she didn't skate to her strength. She still performed well enough to beat Michelle Kwan, who fell during her short program. Sarah Hughes skated a nearly flawles program, and deserved the gold.
Give it up, Victor, this isn't basketball, and you can't put more seconds back on the clock.
A judge said she was manipulated. The IOC discounted her, which resulted in a tie. You kids kept their gold, which, based purely on performance, they didn't deserve.
I heard about this last night. The reporter, Daniel Pearl is dead.
``I AM A JEW''Pearl's death was formally announced late Thursday night.
His body has not been found and it is unclear exactly when and where he was executed.
But in a account of Pearl's last moments, the Pakistani official, who asked not to be identified, said Pearl's last words uttered on camera before his killing were that he was a Jew and his father was a Jew.
``I have been told that the last words uttered by Pearl in the videotape, immediately before his throat was slit, were 'Yes I am a Jew and my father is a Jew','' the official said.
From The Untouchables:
Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of your men to the hospital, and you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago Way......"
We need to send a message that harming an American citizen is the worst idea you could ever have.
My dad owned a business that used to be located on Central Street in the Old City, before the place was bought up and renovated. Just a few doors down was a tackle and bait shop run by a man by the name of Jerry. I never did know his last name. He kept to himself most of the time, but was friendly when you got around him.
But Jerry had a look in his eyes that let you know he was capable of anything, that there were no limits to what he would do if he felt like it. He wasn't a man you wanted to have mad at you.
He was talking to my dad one night, and told him that he used to be a bouncer in a biker bar. These weren't Gold Wings.
"One night," he said, "a group got a little too rowdy, and I had to throw them out of the place. They took it personally, and when I left later that night, their club jumped me, stabbed me, shot me, and left me for dead."
Jerry was in the hospital for several weeks recovering. When he got back out, he didn't go back to work in the bar, but set up just outside it. Over the next year, each and every member of the club that tried to kill him died. They were shot off of their motorcycles, cables were stretched across the road to knock them off of their bikes, some were found stabbed in alleys, but all were dead.
Did Jerry get them all? Probably not, being in a motorcycle gang can be a dangerous life, but no other biker ever messed with him again.
Americans all have a little of Jerry inside of us. We cover it up with smiles, and polite conversation, but push us too far, and Jerry is right there, grinning in our eyes, and ready to cut loose. Seems like it might be time to remind some people of that.
Ethics pt 3 I just completed my third essay on ethics. The conclusion is excerpted below, and the full text is here along with the first 2 installments. Commetns are welcome at the email address to the left.
Altruism, self sacrifice, compassion, patriotism. These are the qualities that raise us from the rest of the animal kingdom. They all involve being able to see beyond our own interest, beyond the interest of our family to the interests of our nation, and maybe soon, our species. This new perspective, unprecedented in nature, demands a new ethic, one which goes beyond "To the victor, goes the spoils."
OK, I get it now. Social commentary, 20 hits a day. Jokes, 700 hits a day. All right then:
A guy walks into a bar.
"Ouch, who put that there?"
Thank you, I'll be here all week.
Time to call it a night Thanks to all of you for stopping by.
Hope to see you again. If you have any comments on what you've read, e mail me at the address to the left, and we'll talk about it.
Taking his cues from Todd Beamer Jessica Wehrman, writing for Scripps-Howard tells about a new course to combat fear of flying.
When Don Detrich boarded an airplane a few weeks after Sept. 11, he expected to get some guidance from the airline on how to handle any dangers that might arise during the flight. But no help was offered."I did a little research to see if the airlines or government were planning to do that and the answer was no," he said.
Months later, Detrich's company, Flight Watch America of Sacramento, Calif., was training fearful potential passengers how to handle air rage, hijacking, emergency landings and medical problems.
Leave it to the private sector to come up with an airplane protection scheme that will work.
Most of the negative comments in the article dealt with overzealous passengers going too far. It seems to me that given the proper training, that possibility would actually be minimized.
10 Signs you've blogged too much
Update Will Vehrs of Quasipundit gave me some new additions to the list, centering on a certain blogger whose endowments have been the subject of much discussion lately
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse I remember the Tony Martin case when Britain convicted and incarcerated for life a homeowner who shot two burglars in his home killing one of them. That was bad enough, but now, courtesy of Samizdata comes this story of a man who was held for two days, and is facing potential criminal charges for stabbing to death a man who broke into his house, put a knife to his wife's throut and demanded money.
John Lambert, 58, of Spalding, Lincs, is understood to have been at home watching television with his wife when Darren Taylor, 29, and another man allegedly broke in and confronted them.One of the robbers is believed to have held a 12-in knife to Mr Lambert's wife's throat and demanded £5,000. It is thought that in the ensuing struggle Taylor, of Market Deeping, Lincs, was stabbed to death.
Hey England, if you want to know why y'all suck when it comes down to a fight, it's because you are systematically cutting the balls off of any one of your citizens with the gumption to avoid being a victim.
To John Lambert, and any of his country men who share his courage, I say Well Done!
UPDATE:
It seems I have inadvertantly struck a nerve with our friends over the pond. I received this e-mail from Team Samizdata just a few moments ago:
Rich,
Britain did not loose *any* of its many wars in the 20th century.
Suck when it comes down to a fight? I don't think so.The Samizdata Team
My reply:
Youch! I must have hit a nerve. I hereby apologize to all the nice Brits I offended in my ire over the gross actions I was commenting on.In my own defense, I did congratulate all who shared John Lambert's courage.
I erred in public, I apologize in public.
NPR means... No Potential Revenue? This article in the American Prowler on the attempt of NPR to go all private reveals what most of us already know.
But the NPR bigwigs got quite a shock from their meetings: "No one thought they could do it. They were told NPR offered literally nothing marketable beyond their current nonprofit audience and sponsors. That says something about the kind of programming they are producing," says the radio producer.
Even more amusing is NPR's reason for trying to go public. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has directed them to be less biased in their reporting.
"There are several CPB board members who clearly are antagonistic toward the current NPR programming approach," says a senior NPR producer for several of its news shows. "[The NPR honchos] are hearing that in return for federal funding, CPB wants 'fair' airing of all sides of an issue, shows that feature equal numbers of liberals and conservatives. These people aren't going to change their programs just because their bosses want them to. That's why they are talking to outside money men."
I nominateKathleen Parker for Undersecretary of State in charge of condoms and their use.
Powell -- because of his natural diplomacy and easy rapport with all ages and races -- may be just the right person to bridge the gap between those who want to hand out condoms with Kiddie Meals and those who seem to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that humans are perfectible.In that case, Powell didn't go far enough. Once he decided to discuss condoms, here's what he should have said:
"The best defense against disease and pregnancy is abstinence. I'd like to talk about that for a minute. I'm not naive, and I understand the power of sex. I also know that some of you, regardless of what I believe about the importance of postponing sex for marriage, are going to ignore me. Therefore, if you're already sexually active, I urge you to use condoms as minimal protection against disease and unwanted pregnancy.
Read the rest yourself.
How many times do we have to find evidence that the Saudis are deeply involved in terrorism before we admit the truth?
SARAJEVO, Bosnia-Herzegovina — NATO authorities who raided a Saudi aid agency last fall found computer files containing photographs of terrorist targets and street maps of Washington with government buildings marked, a senior U.S. official disclosed Thursday.
The October raid of the Sarajevo office of the Saudi High Commissioner for Aid to Bosnia also netted a computer program explaining how to use crop duster aircraft to spread pesticide, and materials used to make fake U.S. State Department identification badges and credit cards, the official told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Are we supposed to think this is just another coincidence?
Putting N'sync into orbit Lance Bass from N'Sync wants to be the next space tourist.(insert your own joke here)
Can we hope for a one way flight?
Gimme $500 on the Bandit MGM is releasing a couple of movies for download over the internet. They want to discover if hackers can break the encryption which prevent the movies from being copied and only allow them to be played for 24 hours.
Along with Paul Williams, my money is with the bad guys...
He's Back! According to this story by the Associated Press, Al Gore is back on the campaign trail from his home in Arlington VA.
So much for mending fences with Tennessee, eh Al?
Hitler was charming too...Reading this story
At a banquet later on Thursday, Jiang serenaded his guests with the Italian classic ``O Sole Mio'' and danced with three leading U.S. ladies in a display of hospitality unthinkable last year.``He was kicking up his heels and singing songs,'' said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. ``It really was just a delightful touch.''
Jiang danced with Laura Bush, Condoleeza Rice and the wife of U.S. ambassador Clark Randt as the People's Liberation Army band played such American favorites as ``The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You,'' ``Moon River,'' and other tunes.
These are the issues that need exposure, and they are buried towards the end of this piece.
If I want puffery, I'll buy People
I have daughters.... A reader sent me the following rules, which I think are perfectly appropriate and reasonable.
Rule Two:
You do not touch my daughter in front of me. You may glance at her, so long as you do not peer at anything below her neck. If you cannot keep your eyes or hands off of my daughter's body, I will remove them.
Rule Three:
I am aware that it is considered fashionable for boys of your age to wear their trousers so loosely that they appear to be falling off their hips. Please don't take this as an insult, but you and all of your friends are complete idiots. Still, I want to be fair and open minded about this issue, so I propose this compromise: You may come to the door with your underwear showing and your pants ten sizes too big, and I will not object. However, in order to ensure that your clothes do not, in fact, come off during the course of your date with my daughter, I will take my electric nail gun and fasten your trousers securely in place to your waist.
Rule Four:
I'm sure you've been told that in today's world, sex without utilizing a "barrier method" of some kind can kill you. Let me elaborate, when it comes to sex, I am the barrier, and I will kill you.
Rule Five:
It is usually understood that in order for us to get to know each other, we should talk about sports, politics, and other issues of the day. Please do not do this. The only information I require from you is an indication of when you expect to have my daughter safely back at my house, and the only word I need from you on this subject is "early."
Rule Six:
I have no doubt you are a popular fellow, with many opportunities to date other girls. This is fine with me as long as it is okay with my daughter. Otherwise, once you have gone out with my little girl, you will continue to date no one but her until she is finished with you. If you make her cry, I will make you cry.
Rule Seven:
As you stand in my front hallway, waiting for my daughter to appear, and more than an hour goes by, do not sigh and fidget. If you want to be on time for the movie, you should not be dating. My daughter is putting on her makeup, a process that can take longer than painting the Golden Gate Bridge. Instead of just standing there, why don't you do something useful, like changing the oil in my car?
Rule Eight:
The following places are not appropriate for a date with my daughter:
Rule Nine:
Do not lie to me. I may appear to be a potbellied, balding, middle-aged, dimwitted has-been. But on issues relating to my daughter, I am the all-knowing, merciless god of your universe. If I ask you where you are going and with whom, you have one chance to tell me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I have a shotgun, a shovel, and five acres behind the house. Do not trifle with me.
Rule Ten:
Be afraid. Be very afraid. It takes very little for me to mistake the sound of your car in the driveway for a chopper coming in over a rice paddy near Hanoi. When my Agent Orange starts acting up, the voices in my head frequently tell me to clean the guns as I wait for you to bring my daughter home. As soon as you pull into the driveway you should exit your car with both hands in plain sight. Speak the perimeter password, announce in a clear voice that you have brought my daughter home safely and early, then return to your car - there is no need for you to come inside. The camouflaged face at the window is mine.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch A couple of weeks ago, I entered a discussion of the origins of the Civil War. Both William Sulik and Douglas Turnbull took me to task for claiming that slavery was not the proximate cause of the war. Doug's commentary can be found here, while William's can be found here.
I made a mistake in terminology in making my point, and need to clarify. (Notice I slickly avoid using the words, 'I was wrong?' This is a skill which must be mastered if you wish to survive in punditry)
One of my tasks at work is to perform root cause analyses for incidents and accidents which occur during the performance of a job. If I look at the War Between the States as such an incident, it is apparent that the proximate cause was the election of Abraham Lincoln, who was seen by the South as beholding to abolitionist groups. This represented a threat to the economy of the Southern States, which were already being pressed by the tariff and tax policies, which favored the indutrialized Northern states. Therefore, the threat of forced abolition was indeed a contributing cause to secession, and the war which followed.
However, in accident analysis, the proximate and contributing causes are secondary to the root cause. Correcting either of the first two will not prevent further accidents, although it may mask them. You have to address the root cause. In the case of secession, the root cause was the continuing battle between State Sovereignty vs. the role of the Federal government. This conflict was the dominant force shaping the first one hundred years of our history. We have to remember that secession was a concept adopted by the Southern states, and actually originated in New England, and for similar reasons, although in this case tariffs, not slavery, was the main issue.
It is easy to make the case that the War between the States was actually a war fought between the States and the growing power of the Federal government. Since the end of the war, it is clear that the Federal government is increasing it's power at the expense of the states, to the point where Seward's comment after Appomatox, "State's rights are dead," has come true.
And another Ken Goldstein, of The Illustrated Donkey has a very informative and entertaining blog, originating just up the road from me.....in New Jersey.
I travelled through New Jersey on my way home after being stationed in Ballston Spa NY. I had heard all about how dirty is was, and how the people were rude and unfriendly. Being from the south, I figured I shouldn't even stop there, but should drive straight through.
Fate had other plans for me though, and my car broke down on the Turnpike right in front of the toll booth in Paramus. I hae to tell you that if you are going to break down, directly in front of a toll booth is the place to do it.
The tow truck was there within 3 minutes, had me jacked up, lashed down and on our way. The driver took my car to his shop, where they discovered I had a bad alternator. The manager told me it would take 2 days to get the alternator and fix my car.
I told him I had planned on seeing NYC anyway, so that wasn't going to be too much of a problem. The manager then took me in his car to a nearby motel, and got them to charge me the local's rate. He then showed me where the bus stop was to go into the city, and told me to call him for a ride back to the shop when I was ready to go on.
I stayed maybe 20 minutes from the Port Authority terminal, in a decent hotel, for about $45 a night for 3 nights. I paid no parking fees, and they only charged me $120 for the tow and the repairs. I figure breaking down on the turnpike saved me about $300.
Don't let anybody tell you anything about the people from New Jersey. In my experience, they're just as nice as people anywhere else, and will go out of their way for somebody in a fix.
The Jersey cops, on the other hand, well, that's another story.
A new favorite. If you check the links section, you will find I've added a new one. I just started reading James Lilek' blog The Bleat and it is a definite keeper. Check out this bit about a radical U of Cal professor:
She regarded all marriages as oppressive to women and bad for children, since they acculturate children to accept marriage as a viable concept for organizing society. We’re not talking about making marriages more equal - who could argue? - no, we’re talking about abolishing marriage entirely. How this would be accomplished, I didn’t hear - as part of my daily regimen of wife-oppression, I had to run upstairs and change the baby’s diaper while making supper, and I was a bit distracted.
As the father of six, I can attest to his authenticity.
"Bitch" about covers it. As noted by William Quick, apparently, Elizabeth Wurtzel (Prozac Nation, Bitch)is annoyed by the inconvenience of 9/11.
"I just felt, like, everyone was overreacting," Wurtzel told a Canadian journalist last week about her experience being near Ground Zero on Sept 11. "People were going on about it. That part really annoyed me."
I hear she has a movie coming out soon. Maybe she should ask Robert Altman about the wisdom of "annoying" your audience.
Cloning pets and kids Charles Murtaugh writes in this piece from the National Review Online that
What the copycat news made me realize is that if given the chance, I probably would have cloned Gina. And in this realization is the silver lining for those of us opposed to human cloning: The very harmlessness of cloning pets throws into sharp relief the evils of cloning children.
He makes the point that since pets are property, cloning them is OK, but since children are not property, cloning them is not OK.
He goes on to say that:
A cloned child, made rather than begotten, is a pet: His or her "breed" picked out for its "unique characteristics" just as a border collie is chosen for its intelligence and a poodle because it doesn't shed much hair.
Does his distaste for a "made" child extend to the eradication of genetic defects through prenatal gene therapy? These potential therapies are applications of the same techniques as cloning. Is a child whose spina bifida is repaired prior to development a "pet?" How about a neonate with sickle cell anemia? Does one genetic repair make him or her a "made" child?
OK, so maybe Charles is willing to make an exception for therapeutic purposes. How about more frivoluos purposes?
The techniques used to repair genetic defects could also be used for selection of specific traits; hair color, eye color, athletic ability, intelligence, shedding(baldness), etc. All of the sudden, we are back to his "pet" analogy, with children being made to order.
Murtaugh's argument would seem to rule out all genetic engineering, which begs the question, if genetic engineering results in a child who is less than human, then why are we pursuing it at all?
His argument fails because it is based on a false premise, that cloning a creature makes it property. Whether a creature is property or autonomous is a function of what it is, not how it was made. The process of selecting for certain characteristics will not lessen a child's humanity, whether done over generations of breeding, ie evolution, or in one generation with the biochemical equivalent of a scalpel. This is what may prevent us from travelling the "slippery slope" that most foes of genetic engineering fear. If humanity comes from what you are, rather than where you come from, or how you were made, then many of the ethical considerations vanish.
So why not just say that and get it over with? Simple. The statement above recognizes an essential humanity inherent in a prenate. I don't need to go into what that would entail for the pro-choice crowd.
In order to avoid recognizing a simple truth, folks will continue to perform feats of logical prestidigitation rivalling that of Oolon Colluphid
Pardon me buddy, but do you have the time? I'm surprised we haven't heard that the world will end at this time.
For one minute Wednesday night, time will stand on its head and we will be in perfect chronological symmetry.
The time and date will read the same backward as forward in the Gregorian calendar....
"A mirror day like this is a good opportunity for reflecting," said Mark Saltveit, editor of The Palindromist magazine.
Palindromes are strings of numbers, words or sentences that read the same backward or forward.
Wednesday evening, the time, day, month and year will align: 8:02 p.m., Feb. 20, 2002.
By the pricking of my thumbs...Something wicked this way comes.
more information on the Palestinian attack from Ha'aretz and an interesting proposal from an unusual source.
This week, Abdullah surprised again. In an interview with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, Abdullah spoke of a draft speech he has prepared for the upcoming Arab summit in which he would propose full normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a full withdrawal from the territories.
Would the Arabs really keep this promise if Israel withdrew to her boundaries prior to the 1967 Six Days War?
Would the Israelis be willing to trust the Arabs?
Would either side accept peacekeepers to enforce the agreement?
One little rabbit in this hat that the article fails to mention is that Abdullah also requires that Israel recognize the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. This is an issue that Israel cannot afford to budge on, and Abdullah knows it.
Sounds to me like another worthless offer, similar to the ones Arafat has been offering for decades now.
Listening to the radio this morning, I heard Hallerin Hill, the local talk radio titan, ask an interesting question.
"Should gay couples or singles be allowed to adopt children?"
Here are my thoughts.
First, homosexuality is abnormal. This is not a religious conviction or a moral judgment, but a statement of fact. The primary function of the sex drive is to facilitate repoduction. When that drive manifests in such a way as to hinder successful reproduction, then it is functionally abnormal.
I know that the 'official' position of psychiatrists is that homosexuality is no longer considered an abnormal psychological condition, but that change in designation was based more on political and pragmatic factors than on science. The sex drive is so integral to our psychological makeup that once it has formed, it cannot be altered without a tremendous effort. The question became whether that effort was warranted. As society became more accepting of homosexuality and the stigma lessened, we reached a point where the treatment caused more trouble than the problem.
OK, homosexuality is an abnormal expression of sexuality.
So what?
The more gay men there are out there, the more women there are available to turn me down for a date next friday. That is the extent of homosexuality's impact on my life.
So, should gays be allowed to marry? Certainly! They are persons and have every right to enter into a civil contract if they want to. Now churches should not be pressured to perform the ceremony, or recognize the couples as married if it is against their beliefs. It's a wall, not a one way street.
Should gays be allowed to serve in the military? Sure!
While I was in the Navy, we had a kid on board who turned out to be gay. I don't think anybody knew he was gay, and I never heard any rumors one way or the other. He was a good watchstander who did his job well, was friendly and well liked.
He was caught in the showers with a partner, and was off the ship within 48 hours.
We were sorry to see him go, but at the same time, knew that he had to go. Not because he was gay, but because he broke discipline. There were rules, and he broke them. Had he told us he was gay, I am relatively certain that 80%of us in the department wouldn't have cared.
My point is that the mere presence of homosexuals in the military is nowhere near as disruptive as it is portrayed to be. There are issues that have to be addressed, but they are mainly issues of personal responsibility. They don't allow men and women to have sex while aboard ship, although it does happen, and the same rules should apply to homosexuals as well.
Should gays be able to adopt children? Yes.
The only question that should apply is this: Which causes more damage to a child; to be shuffled around between orphanages and foster homes, or to be raised by a gay couple?
I don't know the answer to that question. Being bounced around is certainly traumatic and can be punishing to the child, but we also have to consider the impact on the child's sexual development of being raised by a sexually abnormal parent. My gut tells me that a home with two loving parents, regardless of their sexual orientation, has to be a better place than a foster home or an orphanage.
The SupremeCourt pt2 They are hearing a case on school vouchers today. Apparently in Cleveland, where the case originated, the vast majority of the slots are in religious schools. Opponents of the program say that this amounts to government subsidizing of religious instruction.
I have a few problems with these people.
As a practical matter, a national voucher program could sound the death sentence on public education. Opponents are telling the truth when they say that once the good students are skimmed off, the public schools will be left with the worst students, and less money. Unfortunately, this is going to happen anyway. Public education stopped being about the kids a generation ago. While spending on education has increased, actual monies spent on students has decreased. More and more of the school budget is taken up with administrative costs, and other overhead. As a result, the quality of education has dropped off dramatically.
I graduated from one of the local private schools, the Webb School of Knoxville. Webb is a college prep school, and there is an increased emphasis on academics there, while maintaining a full spectrum of extra-curricular activities. The required courses were demanding, and exceeded the public school requirements. I am certain that the education I received there was significantly better than what most kids get through public schools. I know that it is possible to receive every bit as thorough an education in a public school as at Webb, but the difference is at Webb, you can't help but get it. At a public school, you have to search it out.
But, when it came time for me to send my kids to school, I went to an open house at Webb. They had a series of letters written by exchange students who had spent a year at Webb, after they had returned home. They were primarily from European countries; if I remember correctly, Denmark and germany were two. The letters struck me as they all contained variations on the same comment. "I chose to participate in the exchange program to experience a different culture. Even though I was behind my other classmates when I returned, it was worth the trip."
Think about that. A private college prep school, one of the best in the region, and these kids were behind their classmates when they returned to their public schools in Europe.
This battle is already over, folks. Public education has become ensnared in politics, and is gone. Let's do what we can to get our kids out of this mess, before we lose an entire generation.
The Supreme Court decided yesterday that it is OK for our kids to grade each others homework.
America is officially senile!
How in the hell did this get to the Supreme Court? We just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over grading HOMEWORK!
Surely our lawyers and our courts have mush weightier issues to deal with.
Who says the Olympics are boring? Certainly not Victoria Liljenquist, who is quoted predicting a UFO flyby sometime today.
"The Brotherhood of Light will make their presence known on Thursday, February 21 over the Olympic city," said Victoria Liljenquist of Phoenix, Arizona.Since she arrived in Utah a week ago Liljenquist has been talking with scores of reporters -- and anyone else who will listen -- about her prediction of a friendly fly-by of space travelers.
"I pinned them down -- between noon and 5 p.m.," said Liljenquist.
Darn, I'll be at work.
I've added a PayPal button to the left over there, not because I expect to be paid for this, but because if one of you is moved to do so (yeah, right) I wanted to make it easy for you. I've also paid to remove the ad above, more to support Blogger than anything else.
Ain't I a prince?
Shameful This piece of trash appeared in the Washington Post, and refers to a memo writen by Ralph Reed
"We are a loyal member of your team and are prepared to do whatever fits your strategic plan," Reed wrote in an Oct. 23, 2000, memo obtained by The Washington Post."In public policy," he wrote, "it matters less who has the best arguments and more who gets heard -- and by whom."
No comment needed.
And there was much rejoicing! (yea)Shots Across the Bow will soon be faster, smarter, funnier, and all around wonderful.
Why?
I'm finally upgrading my computer. From a P1 @133Mhz to an AMD XP @1.8Ghz From 14.4k to 56k modem. From 2G to 60G hard drive.
WooHoo!
Darwin and ethics pt2 Ananda Gupta responded to my critique in an e-mail. I got his permission to post portions of his response here, as he makes a very good case for his point of view. Fortunately, I make a better case for mine!*grin*
Ananda "Morality flows from spirituality" appears to be an unargued premise of yours (not that I have a problem with all unargued premises, see below). It is up to you to show that this is a real dilemma, that biology and spirituality are the only possible bases for moral knowledge. Of course I deny that it is a real dilemma. I believe there are moral truths and moral facts, in the same sense that there are mathematical truths and mathematical facts. Yet mathematical facts do not depend for their plausibility or coherence on the existence of a god. In particular, I think that certain moral statements ("it's wrong to torture children for fun", to take an obvious example) are self-evidently true, and therefore do not depend on interpretation of divine will, biological observation, or anything else.
While I certainly agree it is wrong to torture small children for fun (it should only be done for profit), this position is not axiomatic, but is based on biological necessity. Any species which recklessly wastes its young is destined for extinction, so there is a biological imperative which lies behind "women and children first!"
You say you believe that there are moral truths and equate those truths to mathematical facts. Unfortunately these moral truths are, without exception, either based on biological necessity or cultural biases.
Here is my challenge to you. Present one moral truth which does not arise from biological necessity, and is universal in scope, applying to all cultures throughout history. Even your example of torturing children falls short of this test, as unwanted children have been tortured, enslaved, and killed in many cultures.
Ananda And, of course, evolution as it is taught today does not deny spirituality. To the extent that religious figures make scientific claims (such as that Jesus had no mortal father), science has something to say, but in terms of purely spiritual claims (such as that Jesus died to redeem our sins), no branch of science will pass judgment. Lots of people believe in God and also believe that evolutionary theory is true.
Science, particularly biology, assumes that naturally occurring processes can explain everything about our world, and that 'supernatural' events, ie 'creation', are not required. My position is that if we are nothing more than highly evolved animals, and there is no spiritual presence, then all behaviors must spring from biological origins. There is no other option available. We are either natural or supernatural. In the first case, our ability to reason comes only from the way our brain is constructed, the way it processes information, which was shaped by natural selection. Therefore any 'higher truths' we come up with are constructed on that same basis, and subject to the same limitations. In the second case, our thought processes are not limited by our animal instincts, as they are also influenced by some supernatural presence. The problem here is that once we allow for the existence of a supernatural presence, we have aboandoned our basic assumptions about science.
Ananda Note that if natural selection is not a complete explanation for the evolution of man, the conditional above does not establish that there is a higher power (that would be the fallacy of affirming the consequent -- in variable form, it would be: a implies b, b, therefore a)....That doesn't stop people from asserting it, though, when what they really mean is: "If natural selection is not a complete explanation for the evolution of man, then either there is a higher power, or there's another part of the explanation unrelated to a higher power that we haven't discovered yet, or it's all just a great mystery so we might as well say there's a God who designed us all and call it quits."
And excluding your last sentence, this is my position. Finding flaws in current theory does not mean I reflexively embrace creationism, although I am faced with that charge more often than not. As you point out, disproof of one statement is not proof of its opposite.
Rich If there are behaviors in the human animal which cannot be explained through the evolutionary process, then that indicates that another process, one independent of biology, is at work. This places the entire foundation of modern biology at risk.>Ananda I would say it puts the entire foundation of sociobiology, or evolutionary psychology, at risk. Not the same thing at all. What you are saying is something like "If there are astronomical phenomena not explained by Einstein's theory of relativity, then that indicates something else is at work, and all of physics is at risk." But of course all of physics is not at risk; just that sector of theoretical physics that holds to Einstein's theory of relativity (as opposed to, say, the Copenhagen interpretation, or of some other theories altogether). Note that I am not equating evolutionary theory with relativity theory -- evolutionary theory is far more grounded and well-supported. Rather I am comparing evolutionary psychology, a field whose claims are much more controversial, with relativity.
If psychology is not based upon biology, then what is it based on? Psychology started as an observation of behaviors, with an attempt to find the origins of those behaviors in life experiences. Once again, I am back to my quandry: If our identity, our self awareness, is nothing more than the product of our biology, then our psychology must also be a product of our biology, and therefore subject to the actions of natural selection, which means that our behaviors are subject to the same evolutionary pressures as our genetics are.
Ananda Just because people disagree about the answer to a question doesn't mean there isn't one. And moral questions get resolved.
Moral questions do get resolved, but most often at the point of a sword. The 'higher' truth is determined by the group with the most power, the ultimate expression of Darwinism. It's hard to base moral absolutes on the exercise of power.
My companion page, Strafing Runs has a couple of essays on this very point, if anybody is interested in reading more.
My thanks to Ananda for a very stimulating exchange.
A little levityThree little boys were concerned because they couldn't get anyone to play with them. They decided it was because they had not been baptized and didn't go to Sunday School. They went to the nearest church, but only the janitor was there. One said, "We need to be baptized because no one will come out and play with us. Will you baptize us?" "Sure," said the janitor. He took them into the bathroom and dunked their heads in the toilet bowl, one at a time. Then he said, "Now go out and play."
When they got outside, dripping wet, one of them asked, "What religion
do you think we are?"
The oldest one said, "We're not Katlick, because they pour the water on you.
We're not Bablist because they dunk your whole body in it. We're not
Methdiss because they just sprinkle you."
The littlest one said, "Didn't you smell that water?"
"Yes. What do you think that means?"
"That means we're Pisscopalians."
And so we end another broadcast day. God, I love this stuff. If only I could get paid for it!*grin*
Pulp fiction my ass! From Samizdata comes the following quote:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.Sir Alex Frazer Tytler
I first came across this idea in a pulp science fiction novel by Robert Heinlein that my teachers said would rot my brain, cause me to waste my god given talents, and cause hair to grow on my palms.
So they got one out of three right!*grin*
Darwin and Ethics This little puppy is right up my alley! The ubiquitous Glenn Reynolds links to an argument by Ananda Gupta which critiques a piece by Benjamin Wiker in NRO (all these links!) which reviews the PBS show Monkey Trial. His critique is off base because he fails to see the contradiction inherent in Darwin's own defense of the quotes he claims are taken out of context. This could get confusing, but I'll try to keep things organized.
My first problem is that he accuses Wiker of quoting Darwin out of context to support his thesis. In truth, as Wiker's article makes very clear, the author of the textbook which John Scopes used to teach evolution, George William Hunter is the source of the ideas he finds abhorrant. Wiker then provides quotes from The Descent of Man to corroborate Hunter's ideas, and show how they derive directly from Darwin.
Ananda's first example:
"The 'most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.'"Darwin does say that. In the next sentence, he says:
"Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, etc., than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense."
OK, so Darwin tried to tone down the implications, but let's look a little closer. If natural selection provides the basis for the social instincts, and those socal instincts provide the basis for the moral sense, then natural selection does provide the ultimate proving ground for our moral sense. If that sense provides us with a fitness edge, then we will survive and prosper. If not, we will fail.
Second, Darwin never took the full implications of his theories to heart. Religion has no foundation in a world derived strictly from natural selection. Darwin assumes that there are qualities which separate man from the animals, that 'highest part' which is not amenable to natural selection. What he fails to examine is how behaviors which are readily shown to be contra-survival actually provide a net benefit.
Ananda's next example:
"'We civilized men,' Darwin declared, 'do our utmost to check the [natural] process of elimination [by natural selection]; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.'"In the very next paragraph of the Descent of Man, Darwin says:
"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."
So, in other words, if we were to act according to our baser desires and neglect the helpless for eugenic purposes, we would be "deteriorating" the "noblest part of our nature."
Again, Darwin provides a moral argument for ignoring the dictates of natural selection without providing ANY sound biological foundation. Again, he wants to have his cake and eat it too. We are just animals, but we are other than animals. He never explains the contradiction, and neither does Ananda.
This contradiction is at the heart of Wiker's review of the movie, and the book which Scopes used to teach evolution. It is interesting that Ananda omits discussion of the most damning Of Wiker's Darwin citations:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [that is, the ones which look most like the savages in structure] . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope…the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
Go ahead, place that into a favorable context.
Ananda's diatribe only examines part of the story, and rejects truths which he finds unpalatable. Darwinism is a racist philosophy at its very roots, and trying to extirpate the racism only leads to the contradictions I've demonstrated above. If evolution through natural selection is the only biological mechanism at work, then racism is the natural state of man. On the other hand, viewing natural selection as a partial theory gives us the ability to determine why co-operative modes of evolution also work. As Darwin himself noted, even though we breed badly, we still thrive. It is evident that evolution has a driver to compliment natural selection. Instead of railing at people who expose the short comings of natural selection, our time would be better spent trying to understand and codify this other driver.
UPDATE In the first publishing of this piece, I referred to Ananda as 'she' when in fact I have just been informed that Ananda is a male name. I apologize for the error.
And they are our friends? Continuing on a theme here, this story exposes the Saudi idea of justice.
Strange bedfellows This article from the Manila Times provides more glimmers of a potential link between Islamic fundamentalists and Timothy McVeigh.
Although Philippine authorities advised American authorities of the alliance between the Abu Sayyaf, Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida, and American neo-nazis, the US appeared to ignore the warnings; until Sept. 11. ......
But even before that, in 1993, when the Abu Sayyaf was in its infancy, the same group met with Nichols and another American—believed to have been executed Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh—at a Dole labeling plant near General Santos City.
Another article published in the Indianapolis Star gives further detail on possible connections.
If there was a legitimate connection between the Oklahoma City bombing and Al Qaida, then things are even worse than they appear. On the other hand, how many home grown neo-nazis really rejoiced, seeing the Pentagon and the WTC trashed? My guess is that the enormity of the act alienated all but the most hard core members, and has limited whatever co-operation previously existed.
Crossroads I had no use for Kid Rock. I don't like his music, and I'm not a fan of hip-hop.
But I just watched a show on CMT (Country Music Television for the uninitiated) which featured Kid Rock performing onstage with Hank Williams Jr, and I have to say that young man is an outstanding musician.
Where most so-called 'artists' have only one sound, the real musicians master them all. They find the rythym beneath the beat, the melody behind the notes, and the song behind the words. It doesn't matter whether the genre is pop, rock, funk, country, or bluegrass. A musician always finds the song and lets it sing. An even better musician finds himself within the song, and lets that sing as well.
Kid Rock has that talent. He sang Hank's songs and made them his own, without compromising the emotions of the originals. He transcended the barriers of hip hop and country, and gave a performance which was true to both, because it was true to his heart.
I still don't like his music, but he is one hell of a musician.
At last! I've found somebody who agrees with Glenn Reynolds on the 'slippery slope' argument!
Dressed in white and with his hair swept up in a small knot, Rael said fears of the human cloning producing "a monster" or "Frankenstein" were unfounded because faulty cells would be discarded in the Clonaid process.
What can I say in the face of such expertise?*grin*
How the mighty have fallen! The British Navy, once the most feared and respected force on the seas, can't even find their way to the right beach.
I guess the sun has set after all.
Big Brother....and then some Richard Eaton has developed software that will record every keystroke, every e-mail, activate your webcam, send all this information to a remote monitor, all without your knowledge or consent, and for the low low price of $99. And he claims to be a privacy advocate.
What's the value of 30 pieces of silver when adjusted for inflation?
Campaign Finance Deform David Broder has a good article in the Boston Globe on the details of the Campaign Finance reform bill being considered in the Senate.
My biggest concern comes from the bill's limitations on issue ads prior to primaries and elections. This is an incredibly broad prohibition which could effectively silence grass roots organizations. I don't see how this provision could get past the first Amendment considerations.
The Trial of Russell Yates is about to begin. Russell Yates has stood by his wife throughout the whole affair. He has staunchly defended her in public, and in the press. He has refused to condemn her, and advertises for her defense fund on a website he created to show pictures of his children. As the trial gets underway, I wonder if her other defenders will stand by him as faithfully.
There are already rumblings within feminist organizations that the murders were actually Russell's fault, and that he was a domineering and abusive husband.
Patricia Ireland has instructed us that Yates was, like other victimized American women, "imprisoned at home with their children."
While feminists have been stepping forward to suggest that all stay-at-home mothers live perched on the edge of child murder, no one seems to have noted the culpability of the father in this tragedy. Who would continue to have children with a woman who goes crazier with each birth? Even if he did not suspect his wife of being capable of murder, what conscientious father would leave a suicidal woman alone with his five children? Suppose she had cut her throat in front of them? (She had tried.) If these were anyone's children but his own, wouldn't he be found at least civilly liable for reckless endangerment?LA Daily News
more fromOliverWillis.com
Russell Yates: Accomplice to Murder I think the Andrea Yates story is a fairly harsh condemnation of an extreme Christian culture in which the woman submits completely to the husband and becomes little more than a baby factory.Russell Yates is trying to spin this story as a condemnation of her psychiatric care, and while I'm sure their is some culpability there I think