Munich, Part 2

So, despite my lengthy post below, I have not yet exhausted my thoughts on the subject of violence and the mushy thinking that accompanies discussions of it. Now, as I noted below, my recent ruminations on this topic have been prompted by movie reviews of Munich. And, admittedly, movie reviews are not exactly a sophisticated realm of socio-political discussion. Most of things I have read in these review echo arguments that I have heard again and again elsewhere.

First, to return to the topic of revenge in Munich. One thing that bothers me about the discussion surrounding this movie is that revenge is discussed absent the concept of alternatives and the fact that Israel was de facto at war with its enemies. In war, killing one's enemies is not considered to be morally problematic. So why are the killings in Munich presented as morally troubling "revenge" killings? They are no more revenge than the Allied invasion of Normandy was "revenge" for the Fall of France. Also, what was the alternative? Revenge is considered wrong in law-abiding societies because it substitutes extra-judicial killing for the legal process. But there was no real chance to apprehend and try those behind the Munich massacre. (Besides, when Israel apprehended and tried Adolf Eichmann for his role in the Holocaust, it was widely criticized for its methods. In fact, some argued Israel should have just killed Eichmann instead of proceeding with a show trial.)

Second, one oftens hears complaints about the use of the word "evil" to describe terrorists, murderers, psychopaths, genocidaires and other assorted folk. This word does not lead us to better understand these people. Perhaps not. But here is the definition of evil. It applies. And to not use the word displays, to me, a greater lack of understanding. It is to refuse to call a spade a spade, and then to pat yourself on the back for doing so. It is ignorance masquerading as sophistication. Those who shoot, hack, or starve to death innocent people are evil. This does not, it is true, reveal the nature of there malevolence, nor their motives. But it does pass moral judgment on the killers, and that is, unto itself, useful. The greatest problem with discussing genocide is not that we are too quick to call the perpetrators evil, it is that we are too slow to. And that tardiness in identifying evil leads to tardiness in combatting it.

Munich

So yesterday I read my first review of Munich, the new Steven Spielberg movie about Israel's counterterrorism operation against the Black September terrorists who massacred the Israeli Olympic team in 1972. And my conclusion is this: movie reviewers shouldn't write about politics. Now, granted, this review was in The Onion, but still. The review was peppered with several of the grating tropes that populate commentary on the Middle East by people who don't know much about the subject.

The movie concerns the psychological and moral toll taken on the Israeli agents who carry out the killings, which is certainly an improvement over standard action movies where heroes kill without any remorse or second thoughts. It also has the important benefit of being true to the real story, and true to what we know about soldiers in general. However, the implication that reviewers have drawn from the movie (which I think is Spielberg's intention, given his comments elsewhere) is that basically, the movie shows the futility and immorality of vengeance. They note the uselessness of the "cycle of violence" and the "tit for tat" that characterize politics in the Middle East.

The frustrating thing about these terms is that they are both condenscending (to both the Israelis and the Palestinians) and largely meaningless. First of all, the "cycle of violence" is condemned loudly and often by all manner of commentators, but almost always with the implied solution that Israel should not retaliate against Palestinian atrocities. That is, Israel should step forward and put morality first. Rarely if ever are the Palestinians the ones encouraged to break the cycle. This is insulting to both sides. It seems to imply that the Palestinians are incabable of moral reasoning, and therefore cannot be expected to restrain themselves. It likewise holds the Israelis to a higher morality - they should countenance atrocities in the name of the peace process.

Furthermore, the "cycle of violence" seems to imply that A commits an atrocity, and then B commits an atrocity, and then A, and then B ..., as if all atrocities and all violent acts are equal. This is simply not the case. Some acts, such as the Munich massacre, are on such a scale (whether in terms of lives lost or the callousness of the act) that they cannot simply be brushed aside and lightly forgiven or ignored. And this goes both ways - when it appeared in 2000 that the Israeli army had deliberately gunned down a child, Muhammed al Durah, this was an act which went beyond the day-to-day violence and tragedy in the Middle East. The Palestinians could not simply forgive this crime (or alleged crime, as it now seems that the event may have not occurred as originally reported). In these situations, a response is necessary, and the response is necessarily violent.

But too often, these responses are dismissed as simply "vengeance," meant to imply that there is no other purpose than killing the killers to get even. But this is not true. Counterterrorism is concerned with killing the killers because that prevents them from striking again, because it puts them on the defensive, because it holds the individuals responsible accountable, because it achieves the strategic end of not giving in to terrorism. It short, there are a number of good reasons to kill those who have attacked you, especially when the attack is brazen and indiscriminate. Vengeance this is not, it is strategy, it is politics.

Finally, critics of the "cycle of violence" fall back on one last argument - what has 50 years of violence achieved? Well, Israel has survived. It has maintained and even expanded its borders. It is prosperous and modern. It is democratic. It has given the Jewish people a homeland. In short, 50 years of violence has accomplished a great deal. This is not to say that peace would not have been preferable. But peace was never really a choice. Instead, Israel has made hard choices, and they have included several mistakes. But to dismiss out-of-hand what has been remarkably successful strategy is simply unfair.

Power Grab

So the President thinks that he has the right to operate domestic spying operations without warrants? Huh. There are a million good articles written on this subject already, so I'm not going to bother linking to any. Go to any political or news site and you'll find a dozen or two.

But what really strikes me about this is what a completely audacious power grab this was by the President, and how it is exactly the sort of Executive Branch overreach that the Founders feared. Basically, the President felt that the existing laws passed by Congress did not grant him the power he needed, and that they hampered him by requiring that he obtain warrants from the Judicial Branch. So what did he do? He simply decided to go ahead and take the power he wanted regardless of the checks on his power imposed by the other two branches of government. And, most disturbingly, he did so in complete secrecy, such that no one would have even known about it without the skillful reporting of the New York Times.

Think about this, the President has claimed (based on laughably ridiculous Constitutional arguments) that he may do whatever he wants if he feels that it is within his power. And he feels almost no need to justify or explain his actions. That's exactly how our system is not supposed to work. And it is entirely consistent with other Bush Administration moves to increase the power and reduce the transparency of the Executive Branch. The actual substance of the policy is irrelevant.

Musical Frankenstein

So I found a link to an cool song creation site. (Note that you have to disable pop-up blocking.) Anyway, you just enter some words, and it creates a track using clips from famous songs. It doesn't matter what you enter - you could even enter this post.

Lazy Reviewers

So the other day I was reading a review of Wilco's Kicking Television and the reviewer was talking about how Wilco had gone through several different incarnations. True enough. But then he referred to the band during the Summerteeth period as being "Beach Boys knock-offs" or something like that. And here's the thing - using harmonies does not make a band like the Beach Boys. But you would never know it by reading music reviews. Every band that harmonizes is compared to the Beach Boys (melodic songs earns you a Beatles comparison, literate singer-songwriters are hailed as Dylan).

Anyway, I realize that writing music reviews is difficult - as Elvis Costello (among others) said "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." But still, be a little original. Try to write without constant comparisons to other bands, because no two bands truly sound alike. Or at least admit that a band is a mixture of different elements from different influences. And try to avoid comparisons to the biggest acts in history. Wilco never sounded like the Beach Boys. Elliott Smith never sounded like the Beatles. Conor Oberst is not the next Dylan (subscription required).

Murderdeathkill, Part II

As an update to my previous post, I hereby request that my faithful reader(s) [Hold on, lemme count. Let's see ... 1 .... That's it? Shit.] submit their plan(s) for their own murders. Remember, nothing banal. The plan must be fiendish in its intricacies.

Murderdeathkill

So obviously, everyone in the world has thought about how they're likely to die, how they'd like to die, what the worst way to die would be, etc.

But today, I was thinking about what would be the most effective way for someone else to murder me. Now, I suppose the most effective way would be to drop an atomic bomb directly on me or something like that. But I'm thinking of something more elegant than that.

And what I came up with is this: poisoned pretzels.

I love pretzels, and I pretty much can't not eat them if they're around. Even if I knew that they were poisoned, I'd probably still eat them.

Now, thing is, I'm also very sensitive to how my pretzels taste. So my murderer should either use something that won't effect the favor and/or will kill instantly. I'd recommend iocaine powder (odorless, tasteless, dissolves instantly in liquid, and is among the more deadly poisons known to man).

Also, my murderer should be careful to pick a type of pretzel that I'm fond of, just in case I'm being a bit picky that day, or I'm not that hungry. None of this Rold Gold shit. The pretzels must have the correct crunchiness, saltiness, density, and dryness. Of course, I'm not going to give my exact preferences in all of these categories, because that would make things too easy for my potential murderer. I mean, I'm already providing him/her with a plan, does he/she really expect me to fill in all the details, too? If so, you are one lazy murderer.

Anyway, in conclusion, poison some good pretzels and you'll probably get me. Or just find yourself an atomic bomb. Either way.

Random Hatred

So, we all know that random hatred of perfect strangers for irrational reasons is morally-upright and socially acceptable, right? Right. But what happens when the person you irrationally hate is also someone you admire? Such is my dilemma.

I give you A.C. "Carl" Newman, front-man of the New Pornographers, one of my current favorite bands. He writes brilliantly catchy, and yet off-beat, songs which combine disparate elements from across the rock spectrum into music that no one with good taste could dislike.

And yet ... I get the feeling that I hate him.

It all started when Annie and I went to see the New Pornographers at an in-store appearance at Amoeba in San Francisco. The set was short and messy, but fun. But Newman's stage banter was a bit much, y'know? He asked the crowd to recommend burrito places, and then proceeded to rattle off the names of several burrito places in the Mission. Who does he think he is?

Then there's this interview. Read it. Go ahead. It's riddled with smug I'm-the-front-man-of-a-critical-darling-band quips. Where? What are are you, lazy? Read it yourself. They're in there! I swear!

Oh, and also? He's Canadian! Yes, Canadian. He even admits it!

And finally, there's this picture. Look at it. Can you possibly come to any other conclusion than that he's an asshole? If you can, you're dead to me.

To recap:
1) Burritos
2) Interview
3) Canadian
R) Picture

What's that? My arguments don't make sense? That's why they're irrational! Haven't you been paying attention?

So, in conclusion, buy A.C. "Carl" Newman's music. It will make your life better. But while you do, curse his very existence. This I command!

Cheap Shot of the Week

It's a good thing that the French don't have the problems of racial animus, incompetent governance, and intractable social issues like us poor benighted Americans.

Perhaps the Awesome-est Thing Ever

Try this.

Overstatement of the Week

Oh, by the way, I'm elated that the A's didn't hire Orel Hershiser's '88 Dodger-ass to be their manager. I couldn't stand the thought of raising a child in a world as perverse as that.

A Brief Foray into Indie Music Criticism

Heart + Sleeve = Death Cab for Cutie

Heart + Sleeve + Drum Machine = The Postal Service

Pain and Baseball

Ah, so it finally happened again. The zombie corpse of Kirk Gibson has arisen from a traffic and smog filled L.A. cemetary to haunt baseball once more, this time coming in the form of Albert Pujols.

I watched the conclusion of Game 5 the other night, and it was the kind of drama that makes baseball (and sports in general) so exciting. You can't sit there and say "Eh, seen it before" or "Oh, this plot is soooooo predictable." There is no plot. Just the sight of David Ecksteins slapping a ball into leftfield with two strikes and two outs. In Houston, I'm sure it looked more like the wheels coming off a big-rig at 80 mph. Then the walk to Edmonds. The big-rig is now jack-knifing. And then Pujols hit the gigantic-est homerun I have seen since Jose Canseco's moon-shot in the Skydome during the '89 ALCS. The big-rig is now engulfed in flames, rolling end-over-end, crushing all in its path.

And the stadium went silent.

And somewhere in Houston, a 9-year-old's childhood ended. Replaced with the pain and suffering that come with your team's failure on an epic scale. It's one thing to be bad year-in and year-out. But to get so close and then to fail so spectacularly can mean only one thing: God hates you. Not dislikes. Hates.

And I know. I can still vividly remember the arc of that ball off of Kirk Gibson's bat. I can remember my little 9-year-old heart hoping and praying that it would land harmlessly in Canseco's glove. But instead, it landed 20 rows up in the rightfield bleachers. And the A's lost the Series right there and then. There was no coming back. And it continued to haunt them - even their win the next year was tainted by the earthquake and Gibson.

Gibson!!!

They haulted that motherfucker out the ICU and put him right onto the field, didn't they? He was on crutches, bandaged head-to-toe, barely able to lift his arms. His homerun can be explained only by steroids, bionics, and a corked bat. I can't be the only one who remembers his bat exploding in a shower of cork and superballs, can I? Others remember the spent syringes falling from his pockets as he rounded second base, right? I mean, I shit you not, the man had to be rebooted at home plate.

That's who we got beat by. So I totally understand, Astros fans, if you're sitting around thinking "Best hitter in the game, sure, but you mean we got beat by a guy named Poo Holes? What the fuck?"

ACLU and Communists

So a few weeks ago, Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy had a series of posts (one, two, three, and four) about the ACLU's famous decision to expel Communists from the organization. What struck me in particular about these posts is that they mirror an argument we once had in my family regarding that decision.

Both of my parents had worked at the ACLU, and one day on a long car ride we somehow came around to the topic of the expulsion of Communists from the organization. My mom maintained that it was hypocritical of a civil liberties organization to expel members based on political beliefs - the equivalence of McCarthyism. My dad and I both argued that it was perfectly proper to remove people who didn't, after all, believe in civil liberties.

Volokh's first post makes much the same point as my dad and I did (and it should be noted that Volokh was born in the Soviet Union, so he certainly has more first-hand experience with Communism in the actual, rather than theoretical, form).

However, reading further, I learned a number of things about the ACLU and it's Communist ties that I had not been aware of at the time of our initial argument (and perhaps not my parents, either).

First, the ACLU decision came in 1940, when the Soviet Union (and, by extension, all Communist Parties and their card-carrying members) was allied with Nazi Germany. This was also just a few years removed from the bloodiest purges in Soviet history. In other words, the danger of Communism, so often exaggerated, was very real at the time of this decision.

Second, the ACLU expulsion of Communists also extended to anyone who believed in a "totalitarian" ideology (i.e., Nazis and Klansmen, as well as Communists). So this was not just an internal purge aimed at left-wingers, it was an attempt to make clear that the organization was firmly opposed to totalitarian suppression of civil liberties, no matter what the rationale.

Third, Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, was himself an admirer of Communism and the Soviet Union, and even went as far as to defend the suppression of civil liberties in the Soviet Union in the name of expanding and nuturing Communism.

I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties.

In other words, the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union did not (at least in 1934) believe in the good of civil liberties for their own sake, but only as a means to an end. And that end was the triumph of "workers rule." Only after the Nazi-Soviet alliance did Baldwin turn against the Communists.

Given this, I have to say that not only was the ACLU's decision to expel Communists correct, it probably saved the organization as we know it. Had the ACLU continued to be dominated by Communists, it likely would have been utterly discredited by switching to pro-fascism in 1939 and then anti-fascism in 1941 (as all loyal Communists did). The coming of the Cold War would likely have been the death knell of the organization.

But instead, it decided in 1940 to reaffirm civil liberties as its primary goal (and as an end unto themselves) and has thus been an important defender of the Bill of Rights for the last several decades (despite the slings and arrows of many conservatives, such as the first President Bush).

Soccer

So, I'm curious, why is it that Americans are often depicted as unsophisticated and provincial because they don't like soccer? Because, the way I see it, soccer is a remarkably unsophisticated and provincial sport.

The sport itself is probably the least complicated major team sport out there - essentially two teams kicking a ball back and forth, each trying to get the ball in the other's goal while defending their own. Now, I know there are a bunch of rules, but the fact is that an alien (of the little green variety) could probably sit down at a soccer match and figure out the basics of the game pretty swiftly. Compared to baseball or American football, which are ridiculously complicated, understanding soccer is child's play. Which, after all, is a big reason why the sport is so popular - anyone can play it, you can play it anywhere, and there's little learning curve. But that doesn't explain why Americans are unsophisticated for not liking it. If anything, it's the rest of the world that's unsophisticated for not loving baseball (or cricket).

But I think the real argument is just that Americans stubbornly refuse to embrace a sport that everyone else likes, and this is taken as further evidence of our arrogant nature (right up there with vetoing the Kyoto Accords). This, however, ignores that fact that soccer is hardly a sport that brings the world together. If anything, it tears people apart - soccer fans are notoriously nationalistic and provincial, not to mention thuggish. Are American sports fans terribly civilized? No, but at least we rarely see riots between fans from different places. "Hooligan" is thankfully not a word often associated with baseball fans.

I Rove You

So the President has appointed Karl Rove to head reconstruction of the the Gulf Coast?

Huh?

Has this President learned literally nothing from the past couple weeks? Karl Rove is a political operative, advisor, and fixer. He is not (repeat - not) an expert in reconstruction. And as we learned from the Michael Brown debacle, having your crony in charge of something reeeeeaaaaaly important is a terrible idea.

This administration never fails to impress me with the massive disconnect between its rhetoric and it's actions. High oratory mixed with stunning incompetence.

Definition of the Day

codify (cohd' i fie), -ied, -ing, -ies, tr.v. 1. to turn someone or something into a fish; Bob has lived in a fish tank since he was codified

Intelligently Designed Film

So now some conservatives are arguing that March of the Penguins is, at it's heart, a conservative film that demonstrates the validity of Intelligent Design.

Let me pause for a second while I cry "Bullshit!"

Yes, the film does demonstrate the wonders of penguin monogomy, which allows for the division-of-labor necessary to allow their young to survive. But to claim that this is relevant to human relationships is ridiculous, unless you also believe that we have something to learn from elephant seals, who manage to reproduce through violent polygamy - they engage in brutal combat to win the right to copulate with the entire harem of females in the group.

These conservatives also claim that the fact they these penguins manage to survive in the one of the harshest environments on Earth is proof that they must have been designed by a creator. But as the (conservative) columnist George Will points out:

If an Intelligent Designer designed nature, why did it decide to make breeding so tedious for those penguins?

Their success at breeding in such a seeming impossible environment is much better explained by evolution. The Antarctic was an open niche which these penguins evolved to exploit.

Finally, shouldn't it bother these conservatives that they are noticing such similarities between people and penguins? Doesn't a large portion of the resistance to evolutionary theory come from the fact that people are disgusted by the implication that people evolved from "lower" animals, thus violating the idea of man being created in God's image? If people and penguins are so similar as to invite comparisons, doesn't that show a good likelihood that we share a common descent or at least a common mechanism for the creation of our species?

Bring Me the Head of Michael Brown!

Andrew Sullivan has called on bloggers to try to bring about the resignation or firing of Michael Brown, the head of FEMA, and so I am here to do my part. In my previous post, I said that we should wait until the crisis passed to start pointing fingers, but the more I read, and the more I think about it, people need to be fired now, if only to reassure the public that the administration is aware of just how colossal of a failure this is. I say "people need to be fired," because I'm seeing Sullivan and raising him one - Michael Chertoff ought to go to. True, the mess at DHS isn't entirely his fault, but he's the leader and so he has to go. And, after further investigation, I'm sure there are a number of mid-level people at FEMA and DHS who ought to be removed as well.

In addition, I think that George Bush owes the people of Louisiana and Mississippi (and indeed all of the American people) an apology for the poor showing of the government. Why? Because he's the President, and so the buck stops with him. He's the one who appointed Brown and Chertoff. He's the one who presided over the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. So it's his job to find out what went wrong, to fix it, and to hold those responsible accountable for their failures.

Now, some people might object that this is all just partisan politics at it's worst, capitalizing on a national tragedy. No, defending the administration at this point is the partisan thing to do. Calling for the resignation of incompentent bureaucrats is simply demanding accountability from government - the only way we can possibility expect things to be better next time. We have to change the institutional culture at FEMA, and we need to do it immediately.

Finally, please check out Andrew Sullivan, John Marshall, Slate, Constructive Interference, CNN, and any number of other websites that are doing an excellent job covering this crisis.

Katrina

Sorry I haven't posted in a couple weeks. Last week we were on vacation, and this week I've been consumed by trying to keep up with the coverage of the unfolding disaster in New Orleans.

A lot has been said already by people a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than me, so I'd suggest reading your favorite news sites and political blogs if you're looking for in-depth analysis.

Meanwhile, a few thoughts:

1) The most important lesson from this catastrophe is that, in the four years since 9/11, we have not learned anything about dealing with urban disasters. We are unable to completely evacuate a city and maintain order, despite the fact that we had several days warning of this hurricane, and despite the fact that scenarios of this sort had been predicted for years. If, god forbid, an earthquake or nuclear/chemical/biological attack were to strike a major U.S. city without warning, we would likely see the New Orleans disaster unfold again, except on larger scale.

2) A lot of attention has been paid to the looting and disorder, but I think far more serious is simply the lack of basic necessities of life - water, food, ice, basic medical supplies, etc. It is unconscionable that the children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the infirm should have to go without water or necessary medication for days at a time. People should not die of thirst in this country, ever.

3) A few people have implied or stated that if the people of New Orleans had been more prepared - with emergency supplies - or had just followed orders and evacuated when the call went out, this could have all been avoided. This completely misses the point that the people still in the city are those in poverty, who did not have the means to escape or prepare in advance. An emergency kit full of water, food, batteries, etc. which have to be kept fresh is a luxury poor people cannot afford. It's also of little practical use when your entire house is underwater. As for evacuation, these are people without cars or without money for gas. Believe it or not, some people actually rely on public transportation to get around.

The lesson is that government, whether local, state, or federal, has to step in and help those who cannot help themselves. This is not simply a matter of individual sacrifice and bravery by police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, and soldiers. Someone at the top has to plan this in advance. The free market can't evacuate a city - the government has to do that. Disaster planning and preparation is right up there with maintaining law & order as one of the very most basic functions of government. And this week in New Orleans, government on all levels has failed at both of those basic tasks.

4) Finally, I'm not looking to blame anyone in particular. This is a profound problem that cuts across both parties and all levels of government. But right now, the Republicans control the Federal Government, so they have to accept that they will get a lot of heat, and that the proper response is to fix the problem rather than making excuses or deflecting blame. None of the Federal officials involved have come across looking good. Once this passes, heads should roll.

Anyway, at this point I'm just not hopeful that anyone really has a handle on this situation and knows how to move ahead. For the residents of New Orleans, your nation has failed you in your time of need, and I only hope that things can somehow be made right.

Intelligent Design, Equal Time

I just got a call from the FCC indicating that my blog is showing a pervasive bias against Intelligent Design, and so in deference to the "equal time" rule, I must write a post in favor of Intelligent Design.
Here it is:

According to evolutionists, plants, animals, and humans are well-adapted to their environments and ecological niches by the process of slight mutations over time which favor certain individuals and thus increase their odds of producing offspring who also possess the favorable mutation.

However, there is a fundamental flaw in this theory, which is that all living creatures have full and functional organs. If change comes gradually, we would expect to see Nowhere in nature do you find an creature with a partial heart or half an eye. SUch a structure would be a hindrance to the animal, not an aid, and so certainly wouldn't lead to that individual having more children, as evolutionists predict.

So, where do these organs come from, if not gradual change? Perhaps sudden change? But this seems highly unlikely. The odds that evolution could produce by change a fully developed and functional organ is infinitesimal. We need only look at nature to see this. In thousands of years of human history, there is no record of, say, a dog being born able to walk upright, or a horse born able to grow antlers.

Since evolution cannot explain these changes as either sudden or gradual, we must return to our original assumption, that animals are particularly well-suited to their environments. Sharks have perfect gills and fins. Cheetahs have legs suited to incredible speed. Humans have highly sophisticated brains capable of thought and speech. Since these organs did not arise by chance, they must have arisen by design. Each species was granted by the designer with attributes suiting its environment.

Who, then, is this designer? Given the immense complexities of life, which even humans, the smartest moral creatures on our planet, cannot understand, this designer must be God, the only omnipotent and omniscient being known to exist. The fact that evolutionists deny this conclusion is a testament only to the blind spots that are inherent in secular science.

Intelligent Design Update

In case you missed them, people have posted some very interesting comments to my remarks about Intelligent Design. I have responded at some length.

Coca-Cola Fortune

So, as you may or may not know, an ancestor of mine, John Stith Pemberton (not quite sure how he's related, but that's not important), invented the recipe for Coca-Cola. This is a neat little anecdote, interesting to tell at parties and such. Inevitably, however, someone asks "If your ancestor invented Coke, how come you're not rich?" Well, turns out that he sold it for a only a few hundred bucks. Being not-rich because of this, I've always resented his lack of business acumen a bit.

However, the other night we were watching Antiques Roadshow and this guy brought on a picture of his great-grandfather (or was it great-great?), Asa Candler, and explained that this ancestor of his was the founder of the Coca-Cola Company. The picture turned out to be worth only a couple hundred bucks. But he got the same question I always do "If your ancestor founded Coke, how come you're not rich?" Well, turns out that great-grandpa Coke was a philanthropist, and gave away the fortune.

So, turns out that I don't have to be as bitter about my ancestor's lack of business acumen. No one ended up rich from Coke, after all (except, probably, the other shareholders in the corporation, but nevermind that). Huzzah!

Cindy Sheehan

So I had been feeling pretty sympathetic towards Cindy Sheehan, the mother who lost her son in Iraq and is now camped out near President Bush's ranch, especially given the abuse heaped on her by right-wingers (most egregious was Michelle Malkin, who presumed to know better than Sheehan how her dead son would feel about the protest).

However, it turns out that Ms. Sheehan has a subscription to Blame the Jews Quarterly. Her objection to the war is that it was planned by neo-cons (Jews!) for the benefit of Israel (Jews, Jews, Jews!). It's entirely possible that Ms. Sheehan is not anti-Semitic, nor is she opposed to the state of Israel, nor does she even realize that her statements could be interpreted as anti-Semitic. But her theory is complete garbage. It's just a retread of the classic "enemy-within" view of the Jews - you can't trust them because their loyalty isn't to the country, but only to other Jews.

As long as she stands by the theory, my sympathy for her will extend only to her personal lost, not to her political agenda.

UPDATE: There is significant debate (scroll down to read the comments) as to whether or not Sheehan actually wrote the letter about neo-cons and Israel that Christopher Hitchens has attributed to her. If she did not write it, I retract my judgment about her theory of the war.

+6

In an update to yesterday's post, my net total of boxes indexed for the week was 6. At this rate, I'll be caught up by Christmas.

Intelligent Design, Part Two

If Intelligent Design is so obviously wrong, then what is there to debate? Why did I say that this is not a cut-and-dried issue?

Well, the fact is that just because one side is right doesn't end a debate much of the time. People cling to their faith, beliefs, ideologies, superstitions, etc. against all reason. What we have here is two sides talking right past each other. One embraces reason and one embraces faith, and never the twain shall meet. And evidence increasingly shows that there is little overlap between the two camps. That is, there is almost no room for a middle ground.

So what? Well, here's the bad news - the correct side, the side with all of the evidence, the ones on the correct side of history, my side! - are losing. At least in this country. We're a minority. And unlike other issues (relatively uncontroversial things like gay marriage and stem-cell research), we're not making headway. Why? That pesky talking-past-each-other problem.

Now, I know what many (most?) educated liberals will say - the American people are just too stupid to believe anything other than religion, and to understand something like evolution. This is just further proof that liberals are smarter. A couple problems with that, though. First, support for evolution is far higher in Britain, for instance, but I have never seen any evidence that the British people are any smarter than Americans. Second, support for evolution may have much to do with level of education, but unless liberals want to play the part of the elitists that conservatives already think we are, we'd really better not argue that only educated people are smart. Third, religiosity and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. Many of the greatest minds of history have been very religious.

Finally, and most importantly, no matter what, we still have to share a country with the religious right. That is why I try (though I don't always succeed) to maintain a civil and respective dialogue with conservatives.

Evolution, however, challenges religion in a way that, say, gravity and progressive taxation do not. And I don't know how, in the long term, we can win this fight without escalating the culture wars and further playing into the victimology of the religious right. In the short term, however, we have to fight to keep evolution in the classrooms.

Intelligent Design, Part One

I wrote out a long post on Intelligent Design, which I have decided to split into two parts. Here's the first part:

What is to be done about Intelligent Design, the newest flat-earthism masquerading as science? To liberals and conservatives alike, the answers might seem obvious, but I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as each would like.

First, let me dispense with the obvious: Intelligent Design has absolutely no place in science classrooms, in public or private school. Period. It is not a scientific theory. It is not a theory at all. It is simply the latest faith-based appeal to Biblical literalism.

The arguments of conservatives that it is a legitimate theory that should be taught alongside evolution (in order to expose children to competing viewpoints) are both laughable and sad. These are the same arguments that conservatives deride when it comes to things like history, sociology, and politics. Furthermore, we already had this debate! When evolution was first introduced in the late 1700s, it was wildly unpopular and criticized by most educated people, until 1859, when Darwin came along with a theory so elegant and airtight that it became accepted as fact. Since then, further work has only strengthened the theory, not weakened it. So there is literally nothing to debate anymore (except for the details of the theory). Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, so there is no need to debunk it. For true-believers, it cannot be debunk. For the rest of us, it's just plain bunk.

Second, thought this may seem to be merely another salvo in the culture wars, this is more than an academic debate. The triumph of ID in schools would inevitably lead to a decline in the quality of American science teaching, specifically in biology, a field that underpins modern medicine, including stem-cell research, cloning, and gene therapies. If Americans do not lead these fields, someone else will (already the Koreans, Italians, and others are taking the lead in cloning).

History shows that voluntarily declining to pursue valuable technologies can have devastating effects for nations. In the 15th Century, the Chinese led the world in naval technology, but gave it up right as the European nations (with far inferior ships) ventured out in the Age of Exploration. Similarly, in the 17th Century, the Japanese led the world in the production of firearms. BUt they gave it up in deference to the Samurai class. Ships and firearms, of course, were the two of the prime technologies that led to the nations of Europe controlling the entire world. China and Japan were reduced to a shadow of their former selves, under European domination (from which Japan emerged only once it embraced Western knowledge and technology). This sort of fate is clearly a worst-case scenario, but we truly can't afford to be complacent about science education.

-1

One of my duties here at work is to index the contents of new boxes before they are sent to storage. Lately, there have been a ton of boxes coming down for me (actually, they don't "come" down - I go to the secretaries and pick them up, and they're often very heavy).

Anyway, I thought I had made some progress, as I got 26 of the 90 boxes indexed so far this week. But then, guess how many new boxes I had to pick up today? 27. It's like I'm just treading water.

And the best part of all is that I've already been warned that it's only going to get worse.

Winning the Race

So I'm hardly an expert on African-American history or culture, but I was struck by three separate articles that I saw this morning.

First, the rapper 50 Cent is in a dispute because he apparently stole his name from a gangster who "terrorized the streets of Brooklyn in the 1980s." Noting that admired the gangster and took his name as a tribute, 50 Cent has promised "to pay for a memorial to the late gangster in honor of his violent ideologies." Um, is this sick or what? Why should a gangster be a role-model whose identity you should want to usurp? And why should his family be indignant? If my son/father/brother/cousin was a notorious gangster, I'd like to think that I'd be ashamed of him, not proud.

Second, police in Berkeley, CA have arrested the men they believe murdered a rookie police officer in 1970. The officer was the first Asian-American ever hired by the Berkely Police Department. The motive for the murder? To prove to the local Black Panther group that they were tough enough to join. Again, this is disgusting. I understand that relations in the 1960s between police and African-American were tense, to say the least, but what happened to Officer Tsukamoto was cold-blooded murder, nothing more. That people to this day speak of the Black Panthers as if they were some sort of high-minded social organization is ludicrous (the professor at Oakes College who ran the community service program was a former Black Panther).

Third is an article that makes me far more hopeful, an op-ed written by John McWhorter in this morning's New York Times. McWhorter is one of my favorite writers, and this article shows why, extolling the virtues of the African-American community, rather than its pathologies. McWhorter argues, convincingly I think, that the silent majority of African-Americans agree with him and Bill Cosby and others, as evidenced by the fact that the majority of Blacks now strive for and achieve the same middle-class life as other Americans. But the popular culture perception lags far behind, viewing most Blacks as ghetto gangsters, and celebrating that culture. I think this is starting to shift, thanks in part to people like McWhorter.

UPDATE: Berkeley police don't have enough evidence to charge the men arrested for the murder of Officer Tsukamoto. But my point about many Blank Panthers being little more than cold-blooded murderers stands.

Love Savage

Dan Savage is guest-blogging for Andrew Sullivan this week. Most excellent.

Friday = Silly Day?

I just sent my boss an email that, among other things, gave instructions on what to do in the event that I become trapped under the enormous pile of files that is currently on my desk.

Hustle

So I've apparently been reading a lot of ESPN.com lately. Anyway, here's a good article about hustlers and slackers in sports that manages to criticize slackers without blaming it on how "kids these days" don't work hard, etc. The author, I think accurately, points out that most athletes nowadays probably work much harder than the old-timers, which just makes the slackers easier to spot.

Say It Ain't So, Raffy

So, what to do about Rafael Palmeiro? (Aside from the obvious answer - stick him on a rocket ship into the sun, erase all records of his existence, and pretend this never happened.)

Thing is, I've always had a soft spot for Palmeiro. Partly because of his sweet swing, partly because he's got a cool name (he does), partly because he has been a consistent excellent and feared hitter for the last decade plus, and partly because he always seemed like and underdog. I mean, take for instance the fact that until he got that 3,000th hit, there were still people saying that he didn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Hey, it's not supposed to be a Hall for the flashy and famous players, it's supposed to be a Hall for the great players. And Palmeiro certainly is one. Or take his Viagra ads - I mean, that's not the type of endorsement a top-flight superstar does. But that's why I liked Palmeiro - superstar stats without the superstar bullshit.

But, oops. It was all/mostly/partly/slightly steroid-enhanced. How much? We'll never know. But this certainly changes some things. First, apparently the MLB drug enforcement procedures work better than expected. Second, the MLB drug penalties are woefully inadequate (10-day suspension? that's pathetic). Third, Palmeiro is no longer an underdog. Fourth, he's also no longer a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Fifth, he's maybe not a Hall of Famer at all.

It's that last one that's the real kicker. Thing is, I don't know the answer. On the one hand, Palmeiro played in an era when steroids were rampant. He probably didn't do anything that several other future Hall of Famers (McGwire, Bonds, Sosa) and other stars (Canseco, Caminiti, Giambi) didn't do. He just got caught. And, unlike Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose, Palmeiro hasn't been banned for life, so he should be eligible for the Hall. On the other hand, eligible for the Hall and inducted into the Hall are two different things. Since we can never know how many of those hits and home runs weren't earned, how can we judge his career against others?

The Ring

More (more!) on Paris Hilton and her ginormous engagement ring (for which she has nothing but my undying pity):

HILTON WEIGHED DOWN BY RING

Celebrity socialite Paris Hilton is regretting picking out such an expensive engagement ring because her weighty cluster of diamonds is hurting her delicate finger.

The problem is reportedly so bad, Hilton's shipping heir fiance Paris Latsis has brought her a plain band engagement ring for everyday wear.

A source tells American magazine Us Weekly, "(Hilton) started complaining how heavy her 24-carat ring was and that her finger hurt so (Latsis) got her a more manageable diamond-less platinum
Cartier band."

Music on the Internet

So I read this article today, which suggests that the album may soon be on the way out. Frankly, I truly doubt this is so. I have a feeling that people have been predicting the death of the album since about 1964. But the author makes an interesting point, which is that the music business, and musicians more specifically, have not adjusted well to the Internet Age. And that's kind of counterintuitive at first, because one think that we associate strongly with the internet is mp3's and song-swapping on Napster or whatever. But think about it - those things are a product of the fan base and bootleggers, not of the industry and the artists themselves. The music industry, instead, revolves around making an album, promoting it, touring to support it, and then returning to the studio. This means the a given artist is in the spotlight only for a short time before falling off the face of the earth, sometimes for years.

So this author says that maybe the solution for music on the internet is to make it more similar to news or television sites - provide constant material, and music on the internet will thrive. This, in turn, would kill the album, because someone who's putting out 50 internet singles a year simply won't have the time, or the motivation, to produce albums. But, as I stated above, I really don't see this happening. I could be wrong, but I think most musicians are perfectionists, at least to a degree, and they simply wouldn't have the temperment to just dash off songs and stick them online for anyone to hear. Sure, some would be gems, and some would have a lot of work put into them. But others would be junk. And I think the average artist wouldn't be happy with that.

On the other hand, I think for certain artists, this could work. Take someone like Ryan Adams. This year, he has three albums scheduled for release, two of which (I believe) are double albums. So we're probably talking about somewhere in the 50 song range, total. Now, imagine that, instead, he made one really good album (even a one double-album) and then released the remainder of the songs on a biweekly basis. Yes, he'd probably sell less albums in the short term, but he'd make up for it in constant exposure. Every couple weeks, you'd likely see a short review somewhere of the latest internet single. And that could help his career in the long-term.
Anyway, an interesting article.

Bats

Here's a cool article comparing old-time baseball bats to the more modern variety.

Anti-Terrorism

So the bad news is that London increasingly seems to be under seige by Islamic terrorists. The good news is that their latest attempts haven't been successful. Three cheers to the brave London policemen who killed the latest attempted bomber! The story indicates that they shot him at extremely close range - it takes a lot of balls to get that close to a man with explosives strapped to him. Not to mention the good police-work of identifying him in the first place.

UPDATE: So it now appears that the police killed a completely innocent man. That means that pretty much everything I said above is incorrect - they actually did a poor job identifying the man and shot him without any real evidence that he was up to anything illegal.

Here's to hoping that the police take steps to prevent this sort of tragedy from occurring again.

Scotty!

Sad news - James Doohan, Star Trek's Scotty, passed away today.

Doohan was an impressive man off-screen. I already knew about his WWII service, but it's worth repeating:

At 19, James escaped the turmoil at home by joining the Canadian army, becoming a lieutenant in artillery. He was among the Canadian forces that landed on Juno Beach on D-Day. "The sea was rough," he recalled. "We were more afraid of drowning than the Germans."

The Canadians crossed a minefield laid for tanks; the soldiers weren't heavy enough to detonate the bombs. At 11:30 that night, he was machine-gunned, taking six hits: one that took off his middle right finger (he managed to hide the missing finger on screen), four in his leg and one in the chest. The chest bullet was stopped by his silver cigarette case.

I didn't already know that his, ahem, child-producing skills were likewise impressive:

Doohan's first marriage to Judy Doohan produced four children. He had two children by his second marriage to Anita Yagel. Both marriages ended in divorce. In 1974 he married Wende Braunberger, and their children were Eric, Thomas and Sarah, who was born in 2000, when Doohan was 80.

Dr. Roberts, J.D.

So, from what I've read so far, the President's nomination of John Roberts to the the Supreme Court appears to be the most sensible pick we could hope for. I have to say that I'm surprised and relieved. It looks like the Democrats' tenacity in fighting judicial nominees may have paid off big time.

Of course, to be safe, let me note that I'm reserving final judgment for now.

Mine's Not A High Horse (Anymore)

So you may remember a post of mine from a long, long time ago about how, since I'm an atheist, I don't like being pressured into participating in religious activities, and how I'll try very hard to avoid doing so. How hard? Well, judging by this past weekend, not very.

My grandmother was being honored upon her retirement for her 25 years of service to the Synagogue where she worked. This involved a kiddush luncheon and also several mentions of her in the service, including the participation of her, her daughters, and (you guessed it!) her grandsons.

So my brother, two cousins, and I got to go up and dress the Torah (I'm sure that's not what it's called, but it's an accurate description), each of us decked out in a yarmulke and tallit. Four non-Bar Mitvah'd Jewish boys faking it (and not very convincingly). Did I feel like a fraud? Yes. Did my grandma just about plotz (explode)? You betcha. And in the end, that's why I don't really feel bad about it.

The worst part of the service, actually, came when the cantor paraded the Torah around the sanctuary before placing it back in the ark. He stopped briefly at each row and the congregants reached out to touch the Torah. When he got to me, I stood stock-still for what seemed like an eternity, with the cantor glaring at me, before he moved on. Thing is, the adulation people were showing for the Torah just seemed inappropriate (isn't idolatry, like, totally forbidden in the Ten Commandments?). I mean, I'm no Talmudic scholar or nothing, but I totally was not buying the argument in the English-language section of the prayer book that this sort of thing was different from idol-worship. I can understand considering holy the words in the Torah, but not the book itself.

Finally, I have to say that I kinda enjoyed the sermon (or whatever you call it) that the Rabbi gave. Partly, it was because the Rabbi emphasized that the Torah is not to be understood literally, something that I think a lot of people seem to forget nowadays. Secondly, I actually kind of enjoy all of those Mosiac stories. Maybe it's just because they resemble history (and, in fact, may actually be history, albeit with some, uh let's say, embellishments).

All You Need is Rove

I don't have a lot to add to the whole Valerie Plame thing. Karl Rove should resign or be fired, but I doubt that will happen. It's extremely doubtful that his leak was an accident, and it certainly wasn't done for the greater good. But Bush will probably keep him anyway.

But one thing that continues to puzzle me is the whole controversy over Time magazine handing over Matt Cooper's notes. Time had to choose between the law and the principle of maintaining confidentiality. Jacob Weisberg does a very good job in this article defending Time's decision, because, with all due respect to Judy Miller and the New York Times, there's no such thing as a right to maintain confidential sources, at least not at the federal level. And the reason is to avoid cases like this, where confidentiality aided in the comission of a crime. So there's not really a choice here, unless journalists think that they're above the law. But frankly, that's a really bad precedent to be setting. How, then, do you decide who's a "journalist"? And how do you prevent other professions from claiming similar rights?

Judging Non-Judgmentalism

One of the things that bothered me so much about the period right after 9/11 is how often you heard someone on the left say "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" or some such thing. They said it as if it were a profound thought. But really, it was a cliché standing in for a failure to make a moral judgment. Yes, yes, "judge not ...," but failure is the right word. What sort of world would we live in were we all to abdicate the responsibility to tell the difference between right and wrong?

I bring this up because following the bombing in London, we've been hearing some of the same moral abdication from the left again. See this post for some examples. What make this so abhorrent is that these same leftists who are too sophisticated to judge terrorists have no such problem when it comes to Wal-Mart, Karl Rove, or Imperialism. So then, either they just don't think terrorism is that big of a deal, or they don't think it's wrong. Either way, that's a huge blindspot, and a big part of the reason that Kerry lost the election.

On a related note, apparently Oliver Stone is directing a movie about 9/11. That this is a terrible idea almost goes without saying, but if you're not convinced, read this.

Lawnmower Update

Oh, so it turns out that I'm not incompetent. The lawnmower engine was defective - it wasn't pulling gas from the tank. So it would start when primed but wouldn't keep going. My father-in-law and I returned the mower to Sears and got a replacement on Sunday.

Score one for the city boy.

Public Prayer

So Annie and I were having a very nice time at her aunt and uncle's 4th of July party when it suddenly came time to say grace before dinner. The 50 or so people gathered around the pool and took hands and her uncle said some things.

Annie and I, both being atheists, decided to stay inside and not participate. I, in particular, think that it's disrespectful to participate in religious ceremonies if you are an unbeliever, so when I do have to I make sure to neither actively participate nor be disruptive. For instance, at a church wedding, funeral, or baptism, I'll bow my head, but I won't repeat the prayers or even say "Amen." After all, I'm pretty sure that if God does exist, he doesn't want me faking it.

Anyway, after the prayer had started, our absence must have been noticed, and so Annie's dad came inside and pretty much told us that we were being rude by not participating. Not wanting to cause a scene, we sheepishly went outside and took our place in the circle, with 100 eyes trained on us. The prayer then continued and concluded by singing "God Bless America." Annie and I pretended to sing along. Annie and I both felt sufficiently chastened that the remainder of the evening was marred.

This sort of thing is exactly why I absolutely abhor the idea of government sponsored prayer. Look at what happens when peer pressure is brought to bear against unbelievers. Imagine the greater coercion and imposition on free-will if the pressure is exerted by government.

But I'm also confused, frankly. Why is it that Christians often want to compel the participation of unbelievers or heretics? I mean, isn't part of the point of Christianity that you freely except it and embrace Jesus Christ as your savior? Someone who has been coerced into participating isn't exactly letting Jesus into his heart, now is he?

Maybe this just can't except the idea that someone sincerely does not believe, and that such a belief can be as sincere as that of someone who does believe. Maybe they think of the prayer as a communal, not a religious, activity. But then why must it have religious content?

I truly don't have the answers to these questions. I can only hope that people of faith can come to respect those of us who live moral lives, but do not abide by any particular creed.

SCOTUS

So Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring, paving way for the President to nominate someone who's idea of the perfect social order is Alabama, circa 1950. The Senate will then descend into the chaos (remember that judicial compromise? - out the window). Democrats will try to block the nomination by any means necessary. Frist will scream "obstruction" (how dare the opposition party disagree with the majority!) and threaten to go nuclear. In the end, Bush will likely win and get his social ultra-conservative. Girls in Mississippi will have to start driving to Illinois for their abortions.

But amid all of this doomsaying, I think that we liberals ought to focus on some very important. What's that, you ask? Blame. In other words, who's fault is this mess? Oh, I'm sure there are lots of candidates - Tom Daschle and John Kerry, for being lousy leaders; James Dobson and Ralph Reed, for being such social neanderthals; President Bush, for tricking us all into believing in 2000 that he was a moderate.

But the real blame in my book has to go to Ralph Nader. Remember? The asshole who cost Al Gore the election? Yeah, without him, Gore would be President, and we could look forward to a nice moderate liberal to replace O'Connor, a nice moderate conservative.

Oh, you might say, Nader's hardly the real culprit here, and besides you're just kicking a guy who's already down. To which I answer, maybe and sure, but so what?, respectively. Progressives decided in 2000 that Clinton and Gore were some sort of crazed arch-conservatives in disguise, rather than the best liberal leaders since JFK. So they deliberately torpedoed Gore in order to get Bush in 2000, and then hopefully a "real" progressive in 2004. But it all failed miserably.

So now we just have to sit and wait for Bush to nominate his ultra and wait for the fireworks to begin.

Exam, Part 2

So I got back my exam that I took on Tuesday, and as I thought, I got 41 out of 50, a low B. However, everyone found the test hard, and so the the highest grade was a 45, and the professor grades on a curve. Plus, she decided one of the questions was vague, and so adjusted the scores of those who got it wrong.

In the end, then, I got a 42 out of 45 - 93%. So now I'm no longer worried about getting an A overall. And next week I only have two nights of class - Monday is a holiday and Thursday I have a flight to catch. These two things combined mean that I can relax and not worry about school this weekend.

The 'Burbs

So I just had my first Dammit, I'm a City Kid! moment here in sunny suburbia.

You see, growing up we never had a lawn. Well, we did, but it was about 2' x 6', literally. So that didn't exactly require a lawn mower. Mostly, our neighbor who was a professional gardener just weed-wacked it from time to time.

Anyway, this evening I got out of class early (the professor decided that we were ahead of schedule, so he skipped the lecture and just gave us the quiz - awesome!), so I came home and decided to be productive by mowing the lawn. So I got out of my work clothes, dragged the mower out of the garage, and then, in full view of the neighbor lady who was outside on the phone, proceeded to have trouble starting the damn thing. Mildly embarassed, I gave it a couple I'll-pretend-I-know-anything-about-engines once-over and then tried again.

Nothing.

Okay, so now I wheeled the thing out of her view, and proceeded to check the oil. It was fine. Then I checked the gasoline. Hmm, I thought, gasoline doesn't normally have tiny little bubbles in it. That most be what they're talking about when they say don't use stale gas. So I went back to the garage, got the gas can, and proceeded to pour in new gas. I then promptly overfilled the tank and spilled gas on the mower. Dammit. That's okay, cause gasoline evaporates quickly.

So I screwed the gas cap back on tightly, and decided to wait a few minutes. Well, while I'm waiting, how about I check the underside of the mower, just in case something is stuck in the blade? So I tilted the mower over, and cleaned out some clumps of grass. Excellent. Now, let's turn her back over. Oh shit! Gas has now spilled out of the overfilled (remember?) tank. It's all over the engine and there's a puddle on the ground.

So at this point, I figured I ought to get the hose and dilute the spilled gas on the ground. But, trying to play it cool, I decided to water the petunias, rain lillies, and boxwood bushes. That done, I sprayed down the driveway to dilute the spilled gas (which has mostly evaporated already). Down the drain (and into Lake Michigan!) went the last of the gasoline.

Now I looked at the mower. The gas on the engine appeared to be evaporated. But it still smelled of gas. Dare I start it and risk igniting the entire damn thing? I hemmed and hawed for several minutes, crouching thoughtfully by the mower, trying hard to look like I knew what I was doing. Finally, I decided to just chicken out.

Defeated, I went inside to burn some CDs and write this post. The computer! There's a machine I know how to use.

Exam

So I had an Exam in my Civil Procedure class last night. The teacher told us beforehand that it was going to be 50 questions, mixed true/false and multiple choice, and that it would only take about 30 minutes. So I totally wasn't worried about it, even though it covered 7 chapters. After all, how hard could a 30 minute test be?

Well, I'm not going to say it was really hard, but I should have studied much better. There were at least a dozen questions that I really wasn't sure about, and when I checked some of them later in the book, I realized I had missed most of them. So I think I'll be lucky if I end up with a B on this test. Which sucks, because the percentage of my tuition that my employer reimburses is tied to my grade, and we only have two more tests. So I'm thinking that I pretty much have to ace them to get an A in the class (and get 100% of my money back).

Things that Suck

1. Karl Rove
2. The Kelo Decision
3. Torture
4. The War
5. John Bolton

You know those surveys where they ask "Do you think that overall the country is heading in the right direction?" I never know how to answer, because it's a ridiculously broad question. But this week, I have no such reservations. Things are looking pretty bad on the political front.

1. So Karl Rove thinks all liberals are sissy traitors, huh? And the White House is standing behind his comments? Well, with all due respect, fuck you Mr. Rove, and fuck you, too, Mr. Bush.

For the last week, we've been told that Senator Durbin's comments comparing American torture with that practiced by totalitarian regimes was so beyond the pale that the Senator should be forced to walk on his knees five miles across broken glass before apologizing to every member of the armed forces personally. But Karl Rove's comment? Perfectly acceptable. The White House finds it "puzzling" that anyone would object.

Fuck that. As a liberal who most certainly does not think that terrorists need therapy (they need a bullet in the brain or a 500-pound bomb in the gut) I want a personal apology from Rove. What's say, Karl? Are you man enough to admit your error?

2. The Supreme Court thinks it's okay for private property to be seized by eminent domain and given to other private citizens/corporations? Wait, when did this become a communist country? I thought our system was supposed to be based on individual property rights. But I guess the 4 liberal justices + 1 proved me wrong.

Well, guess what? When Walmart comes for my house, I'm coming for yours, Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Souter.

3. This hasn't really been much in the news recently, but y'know, aren't we still torturing/murdering inmates and not really coming clean on it?

Are we going to start acting like a civilized country any time soon, or is it anything goes?

4. Oh, and remember that war in Iraq thing? It's still going on. And we're not winning. And the President doesn't really seem terribly concerned.

I mean, it's been over two years now, and there's no end in sight. The solution? More of the same. Here's a different idea - how about anything else? More troops might be a good place to start. But that would require admitting error, and that seems unlikely (see number 1).

5. Can we drop the fiction that John Bolton is going to walk into the U.N. and magically the place will start working perfectly? That's the best argument conservatives have come up with for why an untrustworthy, incompetent, undiplomatic (more precisely, anti-diplomatic) bully should become ambassador the United Nations, but it's complete hogwash. If confirmed, Bolton will instantly become the least popular guy at the U.N., meaning that he will accomplish zero. I agree that the U.N. needs reforming, but this isn't the way to do it.

Pot Kettle Black

Okay, I'm not a big fan of Howard Dean, but this comment by Dick Cheney struck me as utterly absurd:

I've never been able to understand his appeal. Maybe his mother loved him, but I've never met anybody who does.

This from a man who'd kill and eat Santa Claus if the Energy Industry told him it would increase profits.

Cardinal Sin

Cardinal Jaime Sin. Good man. Unfortunate name.

Sin had a sense of humor about his name, often referring to his residence as "the house of Sin."

Ancient Civilizations

As a follow-up to yesterday's post, there is this recent article on what appears to be the oldest known civilization in European yet uncovered by archaeologists:

Archaeologists have discovered Europe's oldest civilisation, a network of dozens
of temples, 2,000 years older than Stonehenge and the Pyramids.

More than 150 gigantic monuments have been located beneath the fields and
cities of modern-day Germany, Austria and Slovakia. They were built 7,000 years
ago, between 4800BC and 4600BC. Their discovery, revealed today by The
Independent, will revolutionise the study of prehistoric Europe, where an
appetite for monumental architecture was thought to have developed later than
in Mesopotamia and Egypt.

To continue on yesterday's theme, I find it fascinating that one of the first things ancient civilizations from all parts of the world did was built huge temples and shrines - that there was, as they say, "an appetite for monumental architecture." I guess the urge to build huge monuments has always been there, just because. And to this day, we carve faces in mountains, construct massive dams, and build 1,776 ft. tall buildings. But in doing so, we're not really besting our ancestors, but emulating them with ever more sophisticated techniques.

Just one more piece of evidence that humans across all cultures are really more alike than different.

This Is Neat

I saw this story in today's San Francisco Chronicle online:

Until now, few scientists have dared to speculate that the ancient Polynesians visited Southern California between 500 and 700 A.D., that is to say, in the centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire. This is known as the "transpacific diffusion" hypothesis.

I find theories like this to be really cool. Not because I want to prove that "the man" has been hiding information about the achievements of minorities or something, but because the idea that technologically primitive people in the past were still incredibly smart, resourceful, and brave. Most people wouldn't travel across the ocean in a canoe nowadays with a GPS guidance system, but here's evidence that a number of people made the trip roughly 1500 years ago, presumbably with only the stars to guide them. That's impressive. And every time I hear about one of these fantastic trips in the ancient or medieval world - Chinese ships circumnavigating the world, Basques fishing off of Canada, Roman legionnaries fighting in China - I find it fascinating, even if I know that some of the stories might turn out to be unfounded.

Ryan Adams is Crazy

So, this is a tardy follow-up to my previous post about Jeff Tweedy. As you'll remember, I was worried that Tweedy was too happy, sober, and stable to keep making good music.

Somehow, judging from this picture of his latest Letterman appearance, I don't think I have to worry about that problem with Ryan Adams:

Summertime Blues

Ugh.

I'm taking two classes in summer school, which means for the next 7 weeks, I'm going to have 8 hours of work and 3 1/2 hours of school Monday-Thursday, plus of course, work on Friday. And then there's reading and homework. Now, there's a chance that my professors will let us go early every night (that has happened in previous classes), but I didn't get that impression from my first class last night.

I'd really prefer to only be taking one class, like a couple of my friends, but I need to maintain 6 credits to keep my student loans deferred for the semester.

At least this is only until the end of July. This too shall pass ...

Evil

In this complex world, one should usually be circumspect about making moral judgments ("judge not ..."), especially when it comes to categorizing something or someone as evil. But I feel no such need for circumspection in this case.

What is it with young, white Texans attacking mentally retarded black men? At least in that case, the attackers got justice, Texas-style (one got life in prison and two are scheduled for execution).

The most galling part of the case in Linden is this quote from the ex-mayor, Wilford Penny:

"But I don't think there was anything racial about it. These guys were drinking, and this guy [Johnson] liked to dance. I'm not surprised when they get to drinking and use the n-word. The black boy was somewhere he shouldn't have been, although they brought him out there."

Okay, three things:

1) there's nothing racial about calling a black man the n-word? um, what?

2) the "boy" in this case is a middle-aged man, thank you very much

and 3) the victim "was somewhere he shouldn't have been." Yeah, somehow I doubt we'd hear that rationalization if a white girl was raped in inner-city Houston or something of that sort. Then, it would be "how could something horrible happen to such a nice girl?"

Anyway, I hope you find yourself in hell some day soon, Mr. Penny (your clock is ticking). You and all the nice boys from Linden, Texas who think it's funny to beat retarded black men.