Karl Rove wrote an interesting piece about Sen. McCain's character in the Wall Street Journal that's worth a read: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120951606847454685.html?mod=fpa_editors_picks
I think McCain would be a decent president, by the way, which is why I think we're bound to see an improvement in affairs after next January. Obama, McCain -- even Clinton, God forbid -- can't help but be an improvement over Worst President In U.S. History (TM) . I think Obama has the potential to be a better-than-average president, but my main motivation for preferring him is a strong belief that a complete repudiation of Bushism is needed and Obama represents the biggest "Anti-Bush."
Interestingly enough, as Andrew Sullivan notes, Rove makes the point that McCain's great character is revealed by his reaction to being tortured by the Vietnamese. Oh, and by the way, one of the tortures they used was Stress Positions, which WE NOW RESERVE THE RIGHT TO USE AS WELL. I guess Rove forgot to stay "on message."
Rove (with emphasis from me):
Another McCain story, somewhat better known, is about the Vietnamese practice of torturing him by tying his head between his ankles with his arms behind him, and then leaving him for hours. The torture so badly busted up his shoulders that to this day Mr. McCain can't raise his arms over his head.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Made In China
This one is rich.
Apparently the "Free Tibet" flags that have been showing up at various protests were made in China!
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/8739
Apparently the "Free Tibet" flags that have been showing up at various protests were made in China!
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/8739
Discriminating against atheist soldiers
Details here: http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_04_27-2008_05_03.shtml#1209389017
But the thumbnail sketch is that an atheist soldier organized a meeting of freethinkers. A self-described "Christian" officer came, berated the participants and threatened the organizer with UCMJ action and a bar to re-enlistment. The soldier subsequently experienced negative personnel actions and has filed a lawsuit.
Perhaps unsurprisingly one of the first posters on the Volokh blog defended the officer's actions on unit cohesion grounds.
First, it should be clear that under military regulations it was the officer's conduct that was out of bounds, but it may be a sign of how widespread the problem of improper religious influence in the military is becoming that there's no indication that the officer's superiors took action against his improper conduct.
But setting aside that larger issue for the moment, I think it's simply amazing to me that Christians of this particular flavor and their defenders are so profoundly blind to the purpose behind these rules and how they benefit from them.
I mean, following their unit cohesion arguments to their conclusion would require that every unit be segregated into like-minded coreligionists. Indeed, it would require an unending series of dividing, defining and discriminating that would destroy the very cohesion it seeks to enhance. Would squads of Jews be comfortable relying on fire support from an artillery battery of white supremacists? Would a flight of jet fighters flown by Orthodox Jews provide enthusiastic cover for a bomber group of Mormons? Would a destroyer manned by supply-side Republicans risk itself escorting an ammunition ship "womanned" by card-carrying members of NOW?
Any trip down such a road would be incompatible with the army of a republic. The sniper in Saving Private Ryan prayed as he slaughtered (presumably Christian) German soldiers without apparently bothering the sensibilities of his Catholic and Jewish squad mates in the slightest. Saving Private Ryan trafficked in cliches, of course, but the cliche reflects a set of values. The stereotypical U.S. rifle squad of war movies, whether set in World War II, Vietnam or Iraq reflects the diversity of America.
And further, the religionists seem also profoundly ignorant of history and what it shows are the consequences of their philosophy.
Hey, idiots, it's been tried before.
What makes them assume that it will be their brand of faith that gets to be on top? Do they really want the Wiccans to decide what the communal values will be? The Scientologists? The Catholics? How about Wahabbists? Hey, maybe even the freaking Atheists will be the dominant belief system!
Oh, what? "Our faith will be the top one because it's God's and true!"
Well, brain-in-a-rock, in case you haven't noticed, God doesn't seem to see any reason why his believers shouldn't experience some persecution now and then.
Mt:5:11: Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Mt:10:18: And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
Mk:13:9: But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
As a matter of fact, being oppressed seems to be good for faith-building. It's the fat and free who can most easily live their lives thinking they don't need God.
So the Good Major who thought he had the right to browbeat the E-4 over his lack of religious belief should ponder how he'd like it if some Mormon general officer came down and tried to impress upon him how "helpful" it would be for the major's career if he would just read the Book of Mormon before his next officer evaluation report was due.
But the thumbnail sketch is that an atheist soldier organized a meeting of freethinkers. A self-described "Christian" officer came, berated the participants and threatened the organizer with UCMJ action and a bar to re-enlistment. The soldier subsequently experienced negative personnel actions and has filed a lawsuit.
Perhaps unsurprisingly one of the first posters on the Volokh blog defended the officer's actions on unit cohesion grounds.
First, it should be clear that under military regulations it was the officer's conduct that was out of bounds, but it may be a sign of how widespread the problem of improper religious influence in the military is becoming that there's no indication that the officer's superiors took action against his improper conduct.
But setting aside that larger issue for the moment, I think it's simply amazing to me that Christians of this particular flavor and their defenders are so profoundly blind to the purpose behind these rules and how they benefit from them.
I mean, following their unit cohesion arguments to their conclusion would require that every unit be segregated into like-minded coreligionists. Indeed, it would require an unending series of dividing, defining and discriminating that would destroy the very cohesion it seeks to enhance. Would squads of Jews be comfortable relying on fire support from an artillery battery of white supremacists? Would a flight of jet fighters flown by Orthodox Jews provide enthusiastic cover for a bomber group of Mormons? Would a destroyer manned by supply-side Republicans risk itself escorting an ammunition ship "womanned" by card-carrying members of NOW?
Any trip down such a road would be incompatible with the army of a republic. The sniper in Saving Private Ryan prayed as he slaughtered (presumably Christian) German soldiers without apparently bothering the sensibilities of his Catholic and Jewish squad mates in the slightest. Saving Private Ryan trafficked in cliches, of course, but the cliche reflects a set of values. The stereotypical U.S. rifle squad of war movies, whether set in World War II, Vietnam or Iraq reflects the diversity of America.
And further, the religionists seem also profoundly ignorant of history and what it shows are the consequences of their philosophy.
Hey, idiots, it's been tried before.
What makes them assume that it will be their brand of faith that gets to be on top? Do they really want the Wiccans to decide what the communal values will be? The Scientologists? The Catholics? How about Wahabbists? Hey, maybe even the freaking Atheists will be the dominant belief system!
Oh, what? "Our faith will be the top one because it's God's and true!"
Well, brain-in-a-rock, in case you haven't noticed, God doesn't seem to see any reason why his believers shouldn't experience some persecution now and then.
Mt:5:11: Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Mt:10:18: And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
Mk:13:9: But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
As a matter of fact, being oppressed seems to be good for faith-building. It's the fat and free who can most easily live their lives thinking they don't need God.
So the Good Major who thought he had the right to browbeat the E-4 over his lack of religious belief should ponder how he'd like it if some Mormon general officer came down and tried to impress upon him how "helpful" it would be for the major's career if he would just read the Book of Mormon before his next officer evaluation report was due.
Are we a non-Geneva state now?
Andrew Sullivan asks: Is the U.S. a non-Geneva state?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/is-the-us-now-a.html#more
I think the U.S, has de facto withdrawn from the Geneva conventions and stands in great danger of very negative consequences down the road unless the next president takes firm steps to right the ship.
One interesting feature in Sullivan's site is a poll on the question.50 percent of the respondents say the US is now a non0Geneva state, the rest say it still is or are not sure. There's also a state-by-state breakdown. Only a handful of states show a majority believing the US still is a Geneva state. Notable states where the majority of respondents still believe the US has not managed to remove itself from Geneva despite torturing people are New Hampshire, Alaska and Texas.
Now obviously this is not a scientific poll and can't be taken as a definitive statement on how people in Texas, or anyplace else feel about the question, but it's still interesting to see the sorts of places where a large number of people can still buy into the Bush viewpoint.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/is-the-us-now-a.html#more
I think the U.S, has de facto withdrawn from the Geneva conventions and stands in great danger of very negative consequences down the road unless the next president takes firm steps to right the ship.
One interesting feature in Sullivan's site is a poll on the question.50 percent of the respondents say the US is now a non0Geneva state, the rest say it still is or are not sure. There's also a state-by-state breakdown. Only a handful of states show a majority believing the US still is a Geneva state. Notable states where the majority of respondents still believe the US has not managed to remove itself from Geneva despite torturing people are New Hampshire, Alaska and Texas.
Now obviously this is not a scientific poll and can't be taken as a definitive statement on how people in Texas, or anyplace else feel about the question, but it's still interesting to see the sorts of places where a large number of people can still buy into the Bush viewpoint.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Almost extinct? Implications for SETI
According to some recent research, modern humans may have been close to extinction 70,000 years ago, reduced to a few as 2,000 individuals.
See http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D908GE800&show_article=1
for details.
There's a lot to chew on here, but one thing I think this illustrates is that the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) may be up against longer odds than may be supposed at first glance.
I think it will turn out that life is pretty common in the universe. Indeed, given the right conditions, it's probably an inevitable natural process.
What is not inevitable is that "intelligent" life will involve. And especially the peculiar kind of intelligence that will result in a "civilization" that might leave detectable traces for outside observers.
This news suggests that Earth came within a hairs-breadth of losing the one species it spawned in 6 billion years capable of such a civilization in a drought 70,000 years ago. Had those few thousand individuals been a little less lucky than they actually were, Earth would, right now, still be thinly populated with roving bands of primitive hominids and some marine mammals with reasonable intelligence but no "civilization." That state of affairs had already lasted many millions of years and could last millions more without change. There's no reason to think that Neanderthals or Homo Erectus populations already existing would have made the same cultural leaps that Homo Sapiens managed since the near-extinction event. There's quite a bit of mystery involved even in the Homo Sapiens cultural explosion that started about 30,000 years ago, and if we ever understand that it may turn out that it turned on some fairly subtle development that was no sure thing, either.
My point is that, while life is common, and "intelligent" life not exceedingly rare, "civilized" life (not meant in any pejorative sense at all) may be very rare indeed. The universe is so vast I think it would be presumptuous to declare that it has happened only once (here) and no where else. But I don't think it's off the mark to suggest that it happens so rarely that the civilizations are too far apart in space and time to ever make contact.
See http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D908GE800&show_article=1
for details.
There's a lot to chew on here, but one thing I think this illustrates is that the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) may be up against longer odds than may be supposed at first glance.
I think it will turn out that life is pretty common in the universe. Indeed, given the right conditions, it's probably an inevitable natural process.
What is not inevitable is that "intelligent" life will involve. And especially the peculiar kind of intelligence that will result in a "civilization" that might leave detectable traces for outside observers.
This news suggests that Earth came within a hairs-breadth of losing the one species it spawned in 6 billion years capable of such a civilization in a drought 70,000 years ago. Had those few thousand individuals been a little less lucky than they actually were, Earth would, right now, still be thinly populated with roving bands of primitive hominids and some marine mammals with reasonable intelligence but no "civilization." That state of affairs had already lasted many millions of years and could last millions more without change. There's no reason to think that Neanderthals or Homo Erectus populations already existing would have made the same cultural leaps that Homo Sapiens managed since the near-extinction event. There's quite a bit of mystery involved even in the Homo Sapiens cultural explosion that started about 30,000 years ago, and if we ever understand that it may turn out that it turned on some fairly subtle development that was no sure thing, either.
My point is that, while life is common, and "intelligent" life not exceedingly rare, "civilized" life (not meant in any pejorative sense at all) may be very rare indeed. The universe is so vast I think it would be presumptuous to declare that it has happened only once (here) and no where else. But I don't think it's off the mark to suggest that it happens so rarely that the civilizations are too far apart in space and time to ever make contact.
Bell shooters acquitted
The details are here: http://wcbstv.com/local/sean.bell.verdict.2.708321.html
I really have to say I expected little else.
Under the current circumstances it's virtually impossible to hold police officers responsible for recklessly killing civilians, especially if those civilians are male minorities.
Now, there's no doubt that modern policing situations can be very stressful and split-second decisions can mean life or death for the police officers and members of the public. There are some ruthless and deranged killers out there. And the majority of the time most police officers react with commendable restraint. I know that I. personally, do not have the temperament needed to deal with the assholes cops routinely have to interact with.
But, there's also a real problem here when police officers, to whom we give the literal power of life and death and are armed by the state and have the power of the state behind them, are not held accountable for acting with due regard for the public's safety. Policing is different from war, where overwhelming force is expected an necessary. In police work there always has to be a balance struck between safety and necessary force. We don't expect jaywalkers to be Tasered, handcuffed and billy clubbed just because it might be safer for the police officer that way.
Right now it is perfectly rational for male minority civilians to be very wary of the police. The fact of the matter is that you can be simply minding your business, entering your own home and gunned down by police officers so long as they think you are a threat, regardless of what you were doing. (Diallo) So far, the only time police seem to be held accountable is when their abusive conduct is egregious and conducted outside a street situation. (Louiama).
Sean Bell and his friends do not appear to be blameless. They could have acted with more sense. But he's dead, isn't he? So he faced consequences for his recklessness. But the 50-shot fusillade from police was not censured here. And therefore we will see it again.
I really have to say I expected little else.
Under the current circumstances it's virtually impossible to hold police officers responsible for recklessly killing civilians, especially if those civilians are male minorities.
Now, there's no doubt that modern policing situations can be very stressful and split-second decisions can mean life or death for the police officers and members of the public. There are some ruthless and deranged killers out there. And the majority of the time most police officers react with commendable restraint. I know that I. personally, do not have the temperament needed to deal with the assholes cops routinely have to interact with.
But, there's also a real problem here when police officers, to whom we give the literal power of life and death and are armed by the state and have the power of the state behind them, are not held accountable for acting with due regard for the public's safety. Policing is different from war, where overwhelming force is expected an necessary. In police work there always has to be a balance struck between safety and necessary force. We don't expect jaywalkers to be Tasered, handcuffed and billy clubbed just because it might be safer for the police officer that way.
Right now it is perfectly rational for male minority civilians to be very wary of the police. The fact of the matter is that you can be simply minding your business, entering your own home and gunned down by police officers so long as they think you are a threat, regardless of what you were doing. (Diallo) So far, the only time police seem to be held accountable is when their abusive conduct is egregious and conducted outside a street situation. (Louiama).
Sean Bell and his friends do not appear to be blameless. They could have acted with more sense. But he's dead, isn't he? So he faced consequences for his recklessness. But the 50-shot fusillade from police was not censured here. And therefore we will see it again.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
