Moms pissed off

I love hearing stories about pretentious suburban mothers getting hosed over nothing. And it happens all the time in allegedly "liberal,""progressive" Los Angeles. Like, this non-issue about some Disney Channel star on some movie that I've seen billboards for somewhere getting pissed off because an actress in it was seen nude:

(Sept. 7) - The wholesome image of Vanessa Hudgens, star of the made-for-kids TV movie hit "High School Musical," was under fire on Friday because of a nude photo circulating on the Internet, creating a new publicity challenge for the Walt Disney Co.

...

"She's damaged," Renee Rollins-Greenberg, a Los Angeles mother of two, told Reuters. "She's got this teeny-bop audience, young pre-teens and younger, who are admiring her and thinking she's this wonderful, pure innocent person. Eighteen is awfully young for this kind of display."

"I'm devastated because I have an 8-year-old for which I now have to have an explanation," said another Los Angeles-area mother, Rosie Konkel. "She's always looked at this character as a very smart and proper young lady."

No, she's not damaged. She's damaged when she does a nude pictorial in Penthouse. That's when you know your body is buying you a star on the Walk of Fame anymore.

Yahoo! News Story: Bridge falls into Mississippi River

This must have sucked.

MINNEAPOLIS - The entire span of an interstate bridge collapsed into the Mississippi River during evening rush hour Wednesday, sending vehicles, tons of concrete and twisted metal crashing into the water.

...

A burning truck and a school bus clung to one slanted slab, while at least eight cars and a truck were submerged in the river.

Slanted slab?

Government Secrecy in Missouri

From The New York Times ("After Flawed Executions, States Resort to Secrecy" by Adam Liptak; July 30, 2007):

A Missouri doctor who had supervised more than 50 executions by lethal injection testified last year that he sometimes gave condemned inmates smaller doses of a sedative than the state’s protocol called for, explaining that he is dyslexic. “So it’s not unusual for me to make mistakes,” said the doctor, who was referred to in court papers as John Doe I.

My first instinct on reading this was surprise that a doctor, sworn to preserve life, would help a state—especially a barbaric state like Missouri—execute a prisoner.

So, what does a government do when its unethical behavior is challenged? Pass a law to protect itself!

A new law, signed this month by Gov. Matt Blunt, makes it unlawful to reveal “the identity of a current or former member of an execution team,” and it allows executioners to sue anyone who names them.

Hell, if we're going to have execution, why can't we be honest about it? Government activities should be publicized, afterall. Of course, the answer about why we can't be honest about it is it would turn people's stomachs if they saw it happen publicly.

White House Using President's Biography To Spread Political Propaganda

I found myself reflecting on what a miserable failure Bush is today, and decided to see if the whole Google bomb thing was still going on. Sadly, it's not. However, if you read the president's biography on WhiteHouse.Gov (as of today) you'll find a very glowing review of his mediocre presidency. It's also riddled framed terminology designed to spread party propaganda. Here's an annotated text of the biography with the propaganda terms (at least the ones I caught) in bold:

George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn into office on January 20, 2001, re-elected¹ on November 2, 2004, and sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005. Prior to his Presidency, President Bush served for 6 years as the 46th Governor of the State of Texas, where he earned a reputation for bipartisanship² and as a compassionate conservative³ who shaped public policy based on the principles of limited government,⁴ personal responsibility, strong families, and local control.

President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor’s degree in history from Yale University in 1968, and then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. Following graduation, he moved back to Midland and began a career in the energy business.⁵ After working on his father’s successful 1988 Presidential campaign, President Bush assembled the group of partners who purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989.⁶ On November 8, 1994, President Bush was elected Governor of Texas. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive 4-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998.

Since becoming President of the United States in 2001, President Bush has worked with the Congress to create an ownership society and build a future of security, prosperity, and opportunity for all Americans.⁷ He signed into law tax relief that helps workers keep more of their hard-earned money, as well as the most comprehensive education reforms in a generation, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This legislation is ushering in a new era of accountability, flexibility, local control, and more choices for parents, affirming our Nation’s fundamental belief in the promise of every child. President Bush has also worked to improve healthcare and modernize Medicare, providing the first-ever prescription drug benefit for seniors; increase homeownership, especially among minorities; conserve our environment⁸; and increase military strength, pay, and benefits. Because President Bush believes the strength of America lies in the hearts and souls of our citizens, he has supported programs that encourage individuals to help their neighbors in need.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked our Nation. Since then, President Bush has taken unprecedented steps to protect our homeland and create a world free from terror. He is grateful for the service and sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform and their families. The President is confident that by helping build free and prosperous societies, our Nation and our friends and allies will succeed in making America more secure and the world more peaceful.

President Bush is married to Laura Welch Bush, a former teacher and librarian, and they have twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. The Bush family also includes two dogs, Barney and Miss Beazley, and a cat, Willie.

One could only hope that someday a future administration will replace the above with a more accurate biography.

Notes

1. Implies he was elected the first time around. The result of the original election was closely contested, and an honest result likely wouldn't have been in Bush's favor.
2. Also debatable, although Bush wasn't really well-known outside of Texas before he was elected. His father was something of a high-level bureaucrat within the government and Republican Party apparatus, however. Oh, his father was also president from 1989-1993 and is also named George Bush.
3. Bush's administration has cut back benefits to the poor. Bush also supports the death penalty, and opposes life-saving stem cell research. "Compassionate" is an interesting term to use.
4. This term is especially interesting. While Bush has cut taxes and privatized government functions, he has also expanded the federal budget to a record size and increased national debt drastically. Some of the functions formerly handled by the civil service have been bidded off to contractors. This has, ironically, raised costs and decreased efficiency in some cases (although it arguably decreased the size of the government).
5. If memory serves, he never really had a single successful drilling venture.
6. Bush was likely benefitting from his father's connections. Either way, this venture made him quite wealthy when the team was sold. However, the idea that Bush took a strong leadership role in this venture is unlikely.
7. While only the term "ownership society" in this section constitutes an example of carefully crafted, framed propaganda, the rest of the sentence is interesting too: Bush's actions have enraged large portions of the world, and his war in Iraq has proven to be a spectacle of American weakness. Likewise, his cuts to benefit programs have likely reduced opportunity and most certainly have increased poverty.
8. Here we have an outright lie.

New York Post : Anti-New York?

Lee Anthony Nieves is leaving New York. He couldn't take all the godless liberalism, gun control, high utilities, and "ceaseless left-wing extremism." And he's taking the wife and kids with him.

Who is Lee Anthony Nieves? I don't really know either. Some guy who wrote an op-ed in The New York Post ("Ex-New Yorker: Why I'm Gone," May 29, 2007). Says the post, "Lee Anthony Nieves was a lifelong resident of The Bronx. He resigned recently as deputy director of the Mayor's Office of Veterans' Affairs." The best part of the whole thing is the terrorism hook.

And then there's the liberal political culture of Bush-bashing and anti-conservative hatred. No matter what the White House does to protect New Yorkers in particular and the nation as a whole, it's either never enough, wrong, illegal or stupid. It's as if the Republicans (I'm one) are the real enemy, not Islamic jihadis.

Can't we have more than one "real enemy"? Just because Islamic jihadis are dangerous, authoritarian troglodytes doesn't mean that Republicans aren't too.

Bye, Lee. Take The New York Post with you.

Master debaters

I don't watch the Republican debates usually. It's not really worth my time to see a bunch of overly made-up old men masturbating over who likes Ronald Reagan the most. So, I just read about the debates afterwards.

There was one nugget of complete insanity ("Republicans clash on immigration," BBC News, June 6, 2007):

The 10 candidates also debated the possibility of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

All candidates agreed that Iran needed to be prevented from developing nuclear weapons and there was criticism of Democratic rivals over their willingness to hold direct talks with Iran on the issue.

California congressman Duncan Hunter was the most explicit, promising that he would be prepared to authorise a tactical nuclear strike if necessary.

Great, let's just turn Iran into a glass parking lot. It sure solved all our problems every other time we did it. Luckily, even Reagan wasn't batshit nuts enough to push that button.

So who's running anyway? He's a list for those wanting to stay updated:

• Sam Brownback—religious nut
• Jim Gilmore—governor of Virginia, big fan of execution ("pro-life")
• Rudolph Giuliani—mediocre mayor of major city, tough on crime, guest starred on Law & Order
• Mike Huckabee—former fatass, current religious nut
• Duncan Hunter—batshit nuts war hawk
• John McCain—war hawk has-been
• Mitt Romney—goofy Massachusetts Mormon
• Ron Paul—Texas authoritarian ("libertarian")
• Tom Tancredo—anti-immigrant, anti-choice
• Tommy Thompson—starred on Law & Order

Pelosi running for President in 2012 or 2016, then saving world?

Well, unless the Republicans nominate a New York politician too, it's a fairly safe bet that the Democrats will lose in 2008. Between Hillary and Rudy, I'm guessing Hillary would be the better of the two Republicans in the running.

California, though also having a (largely underserved) reputation as a fairly progressive state, somehow was lucky enough to have their delegate of House of Representatives' 8th district also be Speaker of the House. The 8th district of California covers most of San Francisco, the city that is probably largely the reason for California's (largely undeserved) reputation as a progressive state.

So, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been running around the world meeting almost everyone she can. On a Congressional tour of Israel and Syria, Pelosi tried to be a go-between for the Israelis and Syrians to discuss peace.

Now, she has met with Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, to discuss climate change ("Merkel and US House Speaker Pelosi Debate Climate Change," Deutsche Welle, May 29, 2007):

Chancellor Angela Merkel said Tuesday after meeting with US House of Representives Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she would continue to press for binding targets to combat global warming ahead of the G8 summit in Germany.

"We need multilateral agreements to deal on a global basis with the challenges facing humanity," Merkel said after a meeting with Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives.

Pelosi, for her part, stressed her commitment to "save the planet" and said she supported cooperation on climate change as she met with Merkel.

I wonder if she's shoring up on foreign policy experience to see if she can take a stab at running for President in the next decade or so. It's a common tactic of less-than-qualified career politicians.* George W. Bush didn't bother, of course, but it was the tactic Bill Richardson used for years before he decided he was going to run for the nomination in 2008. She'd have an opening in 2012 if the Democrats manage to steal defeat from the jaws of victory again.

* I always feel that the best candidates for President of the United States are the ones most quickly disqualified. First of all, I would expect them to be fairly effective governors of medium-to-large, influential, highly bureaucratic states. As far as foreign policy is concerned, having economic, cultural, and in some cases even political ties to other countries couldn't hurt. California has a large immigrant population from Latin America and Asia; New York has many European immigrants as well as the United Nations. Even Illinois, because of its immigrant population, and Massachusetts fit the bill to some extent. Also, it's not that I appreciate bureaucracy, but the federal government is the biggest bureaucracy of all. Unfortunately, such states, even as they often are tax donors to smaller states (meaning their citizens send income taxes to the federal government, which then get redistributed to other states), often have a reputation for being economically rigid. Thanks to media ostracization, potential candidates from such states tend to be taken out of the running early. Part of the reason for the said media ostracization is that these states tend to not really fit the media's prevailing image of "real America"—that is, predominantly white, Protestant, politically conservative-populist (at least on paper). As a matter of fact, they tend to be as politically hegemonic as allegedly conservative-populist states. As a result, we often end up with mediocre options from states that maybe shouldn't be states at all.

Disgusting, disgusting, and that's all you can say about it, and it shouldn't happen; it shouldn't be allowed to happen and the government should ensure that laws are put in place to stop these type of things happening.

—Noel McNamara, Crime Victims Support, Sydney (see Virginia Tech killing game anger)

I of course don't like the idea of such a "game," but I also don't like the idea of censoring people for making what is apparently a political statement of some sort (albeit, a poorly constructed one). Yeah, the game's concept is disgusting, but the United States Federal Government and State of Virginia are also disgusting for allowing Seung-Hui Cho to get a gun. Why don't we ban them?

What Noel McNamara sees to be gained from banning a mockery of something that happened across the world in a foreign country is beyond me. Even the United States isn't so authoritarian as to ban this game—at least not yet.

Then, we all have to put up with things that we find distasteful. I find most "victims' rights" groups distasteful. As a matter of fact, I find them to be one of the biggest threats to civil liberty out there. Of course, I'm not familiar with McNamara's organization, but here in the U.S., "victims' rights" groups frequently push for unconstitutional restrictions on individuals, including ex post facto laws. Furthermore, they're dangerous in that they try to treat justice as a personal matter, rather than as a social virtue (as even Plato and Aristotle saw it). Of course, McNamara probably thinks I should have my blog shut down for saying that.

The game appears to be available from NewGrounds.com here. If you don't like it, don't play it. I didn't.

E. J. Dionne, Jr. on atheism

E. J. Dionne, Jr., wrote a somewhat interesting article about the so-called "neo-atheist" movement. He describes the movement as a reaction against modern religious fundamentalism, and somewhat a re-kindling of the post-Age of Reason religious skeptics of the late 19th and early 20th century ("Answers To the Atheists," April 6, 2007).

The article begins:

This weekend, many of the world's estimated 2 billion Christians will remember and celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

While some Christians harbor doubts about Christ's actual physical resurrection, hundreds of millions believe devoutly that Jesus died and rose, thus redeeming a fallen world from sin.

Are these people a threat to reason and even freedom?

No, they often are not. And not very many people think they categorically are. The problem with Christians, as with any other massive, wide-ranging group, are the ones that are batshit nuts. Here in the United States of America, we have a lot of those. A hell of a lot. Elsewhere, there are other Christians who are batshit nuts to the point of crucifying themselves. And then there are groups that are just plain strange (I include the Catholics and Mormons in this category).

Oh well. No problem. Religous freedom, right? Yep! So, why did Dionne ask if devout Christians are a threat to reason and freedom? Well, apparently, somebody made what sounded like a categorical statement that they were:

It's a question that arises from a new vogue for what you might call neo-atheism. The new atheists -- the best known are writers Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins -- insist, as Harris puts it, that "certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one." That's why they think a belief in salvation through faith in God, no matter the religious tradition, is dangerous to an open society.

What if the believer just believes that he'll get salvation? He may not be certain. And I don't think all religious people are so certain.

Belief and faith, to me, are two forms of uncertainty anyway. That's the primary reason I call myself an atheist. I don't believe in God, and I don't have faith in God or any particular religion claiming to speak for God. On the other hand, I don't believe there is no God. I withhold judgment on the question of God due to lack of evidence. My atheism, personally, is rooted in the technical meaning of the term: a- (greek root for negating something) and theism (belief in the existence of God or gods). Other atheists will categorically state that there is no God, which strikes me as just as silly as saying there is a God.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who not only believe there is a God, but that this God (usually referred to with the proper pronoun "He") actually speaks to them. These people are often certain because they actually hear God's voice in their heads. I have a hard time not thinking these people don't belong in Bellevue, personally (okay, I'm being a little ironic here—a little).

On the other hand, Dionne brings up a good point here (inadvertently). What believers are the most dangerous ones? The certain ones or the uncertain ones? In fact, it may well be the uncertain ones who are the most threatening. These people are more likely to be insecure in their belief systems, often hold political power, and often exercise their political power at the expense of others. The United States Republican Party is crawling with these types of people. There isn't any reason to try to institutionalize your religion and impose it on others if you're at least pretty sure you're right—or at least secure enough in your beliefs to accept that you might be wrong, and are respectful of people who might draw alternative conclusions.

Then again, I don't have access to the thoughts of believers who exercise power at the expense of others. Sometimes, however, I'm convinced their very sure about their beliefs. That doesn't mean they're not insecure (intolerance of innocuous beliefs or lack of beliefs—and I hold lack of belief in God in and of itself to be innocuous—seems like a form of insecurity to me). However, it's hard to think that these people are uncertain sometimes. Fred Phelps and his family/church are so certain that God utterly hates homosexuals that they're willing to go to remarkable lengths to tell everybody. What reason do I have to believe that Fred Phelps isn't certain? He's certainly wrong (even if God exists, why would God hate homosexuals?), and he would probably be pretty dangerous if he held actual political power, but he's not uncertain.

Another example of certainty in your belief system are probably the 9/11 hijackers, who, in a religion-inspired frenzy, decided that God wanted them to suicide bomb some skyscrapers with airplanes. It seems to me that you need to have a lot of certainty in the afterlife to do something like that. You may be batshit nuts for doing it, but it still takes certainty.

So, what is the problem with the neo-atheists? Are they certain or uncertain? Dionne says they're certain:

The problem with the neo-atheists is that they seem as dogmatic as the dogmatists they condemn. They are especially frustrated with religious "moderates" who don't fit their stereotypes.

For one, there's nothing intolerant about being frustrated with people you disagree with. I get frustrated all the time with people I disagree with. Ultimately, the challenge is to remember that you have to allow people to think (even believe) what they want, even stupid things.

It even seems fair to be frustrated when people are utterly disregarding established practice because they simply don't understand it. The evolution v. creation debate is a great example. I'm not sure that idea escapes Richard Dawkins, even if he at times does seem to have a bit more zeal than he needs. (I for one don't care if people believe in creationism, although I take exception to having it imposed on me, and also take exception to the way that many people refuse to modify their beliefs in the face of other factors. If anything, evolution gives us a pretty good explanation for why the world wasn't created in seven literal 24-hour days. And if God is so omnipotent, why couldn't he have created the world in one second? Seven days seems awfully arbitrary.)

Take a look at this exchange between Dawkins and Bill Moyers (from December 3, 2005, on NOW With Bill Moyers):

MOYERS: Even as you speak about the four billion years of evolution, I can hear minds going off in the audience that says, "Yes, but we can't think that long. We're concerned right now with this controversy in this country."

One of the largest school districts in Georgia created a real stir, not long ago, when they insisted on putting a warning sticker on biology books saying, and I've got the exact quote here, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." What's your response to that?

DAWKINS: All materials should be studied with an open mind, studied critically, etcetera. I'm all for that. What's wrong is to single out evolution as though that is any more open to doubt than anything else. Of course, in science, there have been sort of open to doubt and things that need to be discussed.

And, of course, everything needs to be approached with an open mind. But, among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know. And that, of course, as you know, is accepted by responsible educated churchmen, as well as scientists.

Evolution is a fascinating case of something that is frequently cited as blurring the line between faith and fact. I never really hear Dawkins give a great explanation of what the theory in the theory of evolution really means. I'll try to explain it the way I believe most scientists see evolution. First of all, we're dealing with something that can't quite be proven to the point that you can reproduce it completely in a lab. Now, you can demonstrate natural selection in a lab. That's pretty easy; you could probably do it in your kitchen with fruit flies. But evolution is more than just natural selection, and the idea of evolution predates natural selection. Likewise, natural selection, as described by Charles Darwin, predates by almost a century the explanation for natural selection. It wasn't until the mid-20th century, well after the development of some pretty sophisticated medicines (vaccines, antibiotics, happy pills, birth control pills) that we discovered that there was actually a coherent unit of natural selection, genes, that passed traits from parents to offspring, and that these genes could even mutate (even identical twin brothers don't have the exact same genes).

As a result of what we have learned about evolution (dating back to before Darwin), natural selection (dating back to Darwin), and genetics (dating back to the mid-20th century), human beings have discovered some remarkable applications. These applications range from understanding our ability to adapt to our environment (e.g., what role does genetics and blood types play in a heart surgery?) to solving crimes (remember O. J. Simpson?). Yet, evolution continues to be dismissed as "just a theory" when convenient for creationist zealots.

Naturally, the term theory in the theory of evolution doesn't mean the same thing that theory means when it's used in everyday language. When you use the term theory in everyday language, you're talking about a guess or hunch. Not so in science. A theory in science is more like a framework. There might be pieces of the framework that need to be altered in the face of new evidence (Einstein did this to Newton, for instance; Newton's equations describing motion don't take into account variations in time, and don't necessarily have to, since time is a rather insignificant variable at low speeds). A good explanation of the differences between theories, laws, and hypotheses can be found on Wilstar.com ("Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories"). Another good example comes from the Online Gadfly ("We're Not in Kansas Anymore"):

So folks, here it is again. As we all know, in ordinary speech, "theory" means "a hunch." And as we gather practical evidence, that "theory" may "grow up" to be a proven fact. (The scientist uses the word "hypothesis" in roughly this sense). In contradistinction, to the scientist, a "theory" is a complex model of reality, composed of "facts," laws (generalizations), and a carefully defined vocabulary of concepts, all woven into an intricate structure of implication and mutual support. Scientific theories are no more capable of "growing" (dare we say "evolving"?) into "facts," than a raisin cake is capable of "growing into" a raisin, a solar system into a planet, or a molecule into an atom. In science, facts are ingredients of theories!

This is why it never occurs to most people to discount Newton's theories of motion and gravity, or atomic theory, or the theory of relativity, or numerous other scientific theories, as "mere theories, not facts."

So, how does scientific theory play into religion? If you ask me, it shouldn't. If anything, scientific theory should supersede previously held religious dogma. But science could never replace religion. They aren't compatible, and near as I can tell, don't overlap. Religion is supposed to offer spiritual fulfillment, not factual certainty. Debunking evolution no more proves there was a "creation" of the cosmos than debunking relativity disproves motion. God might have created the world five minutes ago, with all our thoughts and memories intact, if God was so inclined.

However, the elegant thing about science isn't that it provides certainty. Science provides a posteriori answers to questions. The rules of logic come into play, but there is a method to science as well. The method is experimentation and observation. These methods don't provide certainty, however. Take the claim, the sun rises every day. That seems like a pretty well-established fact. But, is it universally-descriptive? Not really. Observing the sun from Baltimore, Maryland, you might think it is. The sun does rise every day in Baltimore, Maryland (discounting overcasts and crazy volcanic eruptions, anyway). On the north pole, the sun may not set for months, so it doesn't rise every day. We, therefore, have to modify the description, perhaps to places north and south of a certain latitude. The sun rises every day in southern Ontario, but it might seem to rise earlier in northern Ontario.

At the end of the day, I don't ever really see Dawkins harping on religious folk like Ghandi or Martin Luther King, Jr.. There is room, however, to criticize religious moderates. They often believe things that must be fundamentally wrong (they often believe in opposing theologies, so at least somebody has to be wrong). Often, they allow room for interfaith dialog, however. The moderates aren't killing each other. Sometimes they're debating each other. Sometimes they're joining together to improve the effectiveness of their humanitarian efforts, however.

Sam Harris may be a bit more critical of the so-called moderates. As Dionne says:

In his bracing polemic " The End of Faith," Harris is candid in asserting that "religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each one of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others."

I don't see where that's such a scathing criticism. I know it may not make a lot of people happy to think that religious moderates have to, at least logically speaking, be incorrect in their belief systems.

But, something also tells me that there is a danger to categorically refusing to accept that moderate people can hold personal religious beliefs. Primarily, I think there's something that we all have to grapple with, even if we personally don't like religion: religion isn't going away. As reported in The Washington Post ("Atheist Evangelist," October 26, 2006):

Nobody has ever accused the man of being subtle. Harris is straight out of the stun grenade school of public rhetoric, and his arguments are far more likely to offend the faithful than they are to coax them out of their faith. And he doesn't target just the devout. Religious moderates, Harris says in his patient and imperturbable style, have immunized religion from rational discussion by nurturing the idea that faith is so personal and private that it is beyond criticism, even when horrific crimes are committed in its name.

"There is this multicultural, apologetic machinery that keeps telling us that we can't attack people's religious sensibility," Harris says in an interview. "That is so wrong and so suicidal."

Van Harvey is quoted in the article as a critic of Harris:

"I think this country needs a sophisticated attack on religion," says Van Harvey, a retired professor of religious studies at Stanford University. "But pushing moderates into the same camp as fanatics, that seems like a very crude mistake."

According to Harvey, not only has Harris picked a fight with those who could be on his side, but his solution -- let's all ditch God -- is laughable given the role that religion plays in so many lives. Others say that he has taken these "Old Books" at their literal word, instead of studying the way that the faithful actually engage the scriptures. Put more simply, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'm inclined to agree that religious moderates perhaps don't alter their beliefs based on evidence. I find the idea of bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is somewhat silly. I just can't help that. But Christianity doesn't have to monopolize religion, or belief in God. God could easily exist independently of Christianity.

In closing, I think the key point that Dionne missed was that atheism itself is a very poor thing to identify with. Atheism is an assertion that you don't believe in God, and perhaps an assertion that God doesn't exist in its more dogmatic forms. God may or may not exist, but even if God doesn't exist, why base your political or spiritual identity around the matter? Maybe the worst thing Harris and Dawkins do is just that. But that doesn't make them worse than those who base their identity around the belief that God does exist.

Newt Gingrich is a bigot

From Boston.com (April 5, 2007):

WASHINGTON --Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is mulling a presidential bid, said his "word choice was poor" when he equated bilingual education with "the language of living in a ghetto."

The headline of the article is hilarious: "Gingrich clarifies 'ghetto' word choice." Clarifies? Very charitable headline.

Today's Fuckery Round-up: Drunk Driving Horseback

Drunken horseback riding from the Associated Press, printed on Boston.com ("Ala. woman on horseback charged with DUI," April 4):

SYLVANIA, Ala. -- A woman used a horse to ram a police car during a midnight ride through town and was charged with driving under the influence, police said. DUI charges can apply even if the vehicle has four legs instead of wheels, Chief Brad Gregg said Tuesday.

Sex paper in high school ("Parents Protest H.S. Sex Newspaper," March 30):

HAMPTON, N.H. Mar 30, 2007 (AP)— Some parents are protesting the "sex" edition of the student newspaper at Winnacunnet High School. Several said they were especially offended by a photograph of two women kissing under the headline, "Why men love women who love women," a quiz question about anal sex, and an interview with an unnamed custodian who said he had found a vibrator in the girls' shower.

...

"I don't want to discuss personnel," Wood said. "I want to discuss the paper. "I thought it was a vile, disgusting piece of pornography I wouldn't want to be in front of children, let alone paid for by taxpayers."

...

The student paper's editor in chief, Katie McCay, and managing editor, Lisa McManus, said they wanted to educate students, nearly half of whom are already having sexual intercourse, according to a 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey at the high school. The true or false quiz was particularly enlightening, they said.

...

In an editorial, McManus wrote that the students were aware they were dealing with a taboo.

"These stories have been edited and re-edited for content and delivery, keeping in mind that the job here is to inform, not shock," the editorial said. "It's about sex. Deal with it.

"It is something parents hope their children remain ignorant about until after marriage. It is something faculty members and administrators hope not to deal with, but something that almost all students have experienced or been exposed to."

Bribing little boogers not to drink ("MADD and Nationwide(R) Kick Off Prom With Music by Bow Wow at Sam Houston High School," April 5):

Schools participating in the THINK.Prom program receive a pledge pack that includes a giant pledge signing banner, individual pledge sheets, a powerful DVD to show in the classroom or to an entire assembly, artful awareness posters, ID cards, event hand stamp and giveaways such as penny stickers, party mints and rear-view mirror tags. Schools also receive safety posters for spring break and graduation. Through the THINK Web site, students can receive rewards for making good choices including free Napster downloads, text messaging, screensavers and cell phone wall paper.

(6000? What the hell is an underage-drinking related cause?)

Alcohol is the No. 1 drug problem among youth killing more young people than all other illicit drugs combined. More than 6,000 young people die each year due to underage drinking-related causes. In 2005, 2,035 15-20 year olds were killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes-an average of six deaths per day. Of those deaths, 1,387 youth aged 15-20 died in crashes involving a 15- 20-year-old alcohol-impaired driver.

(Don't fall for it, kids. Drink up, and take mass transit.)

From July 28, 2006: Happy map (Danes Are the Happiest, Study Says):

FRIDAY, July 28 (HealthDay News) -- Piecing together information from more than 100 studies in the growing field of happiness research, a British psychologist has produced what he says is the first world map of happiness.

It ranks 178 countries, with Denmark at the top and the African nation of Burundi at the bottom. The United States comes in 23rd.

Your Own Chocolate Jesus

So, a brief recap: Catholics have their panties in a bunch again. Somebody made a sculpture of Jesus. Okay, that's not so bad. But the sculpture was made out of chocolate. Okay, that's...tasteless? But not that bad. So, what was so bad about the statue that it attracted the attention of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights? (As a side note, just remember that the League has very little to do with religious rights and just about nothing to do with civil rights.) Here's what was so bad: Chocolate Christ was missing the loin cloth. (BBC News: "Chocolate Jesus exhibit cancelled," March 21, 2007.)

Elsewhere on the crossroads between religious fanaticism, oversensitivity, and censorship, here's a nice little gem from the UK:

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Governmentbacked study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

So, that makes sense. Take the one chance to instill something other than iman-endorsed lies into the minds of impressionable young children and just piss it away ("Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims," by Laura Clark of the Daily Mail, 02-April-2007).

Christians against Sarah Silverman!

Oh oh ("Offensive Sex Scene with 'God' Upsets Christians," 09-March-2007):

Comedy Central, home to controversial shows such as South Park and Drawn Together, rebroadcasted an episode of the Sarah Silverman Program on Thursday in which the female comedian has sex with “God.”

Dear The Christian Post:

I'm not sure South Park or Drawn Together are particularly controversial anymore. They're sort of like how The Simpsons were by 1995: mainstream.

Sorry!

And the only controversy I see here is this: why would Sarah Silverman want to even pretend to have sex with a crusty old man who Michaelangelo seems to think looks like Santa Claus? (At least Michaelangelo made him into a swarthy Santa Claus.) Next, maybe she can copulate with Odin—who is much less swarthy, although he is missing an eye.

The Bible: Georgia in the news again

From the Associated Press ("Ga. close to OKing Bible classes," The Associated Press, March 8, 2007):

Georgia is poised to introduce two literature classes on the Bible in public schools next year, a move some critics say would make the state the first to take an explicit stance endorsing — and funding — biblical teachings.

The Bible already is incorporated into some classes in Georgia and other states, but some critics say the board's move, which makes the Bible the classes' main text, treads into dangerous turf.

I say, cool! Anyone who actually reads the bible isn't going to come out believing a lot of that crap anyway. Learning the Bible properly is a critical component of understanding our culture and traditions, and why many of them are so goddamn ridiculous.

While many might be skeptical of teaching the Bible, it must be remembered that it doesn't need to be taught in a way to indoctrinate the youth to make fundamentalists happy. This might even backfire for religious fundamentalists. Fundamentalists depend largely on teaching their own interpretations of the Bible in churches, newsletters, party propaganda, and on TV. I'd really be quite surprised if fundamentalists actually wanted their congregations to read and understand the Bible. When they do the interpreting, it's easy to just ignore the really absurd passages like:

Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Some may scoff at the degree to which religious fundamentalism is taught, but it really should be remembered that the Catholic Church depended on keeping scripture esoteric for centuries. Part of the reason the printing press was seen as so dangerous was because it actually made mass production of ideas, including religious ideas, viable. When scripture was translated from Latin to colloquial languages, scripture became accessible to the masses.

When students actually have to read the text of The Bible, or at least significant portions of it, they'll inevitably draw their own conclusions. Naturally, as happens when students actually are stimulated to think for themselves, the conclusions they'll draw about the Bible won't make some people very happy.

Sweet, innocent, little girls go bad!

Stuff like this really bugs me:

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- The mother of a 19-year-old arrested in a bank theft scheme said Monday that her daughter isn't a bandit, she just fell in with the wrong crowd and made a bad choice.

Joy Miller said her daughter, Ashley Miller, is sorry for what she did.

...

"I want (people) to know that her and Heather both are not bandits," Joy Miller told ABC's "Good Morning America" Monday." "They're little girls that made a bad choice."

That's from CNN ("Mom: Giggling bandits 'little girls that made a bad choice'," March 5, 2007). What I didn't paste from the article is that both these "little girls" were 19. The father of the other daughter, Ashley Johnston, had something possibly even more mindless to say:

Johnston's father, Edward Johnston, has said his family was in shock.

"God gives us free will and it's up to us what we do with it," he said. "Any adult has to make decisions and live with them -- good, bad or indifferent."

Well, at least he acknowledges that his sweet "little girl" was actually an adult. Though I'm not sure any offering from God plays into this. Perhaps it was determinism!

Don't forget this is Georgia. These "little girls" should feel lucky that they're white. At least they'll get off easy, as long as the feds don't get involved. Hell, if you get away with bank robbery, the rewards are probably great.

The slow death of the Mandeans

The Mandeans are a small ethnic and religious minority who live on the frontier bordering Iran and Iraq. They're semi-nomadic, and have lived in the area for over 2000 years. In the power vacuum left by the fall of Saddam Hussein, they've been persecuted by Islamic fundamentalists who regard them as heretics.

Saddam kind of tolerated the Mandeans. The new religious orders taking shape in Iraq feel they shouldn't exist. As a result, Islamic fundamentalists have begun a systematic campaign of rape, torture, and even murder.

The Mandeans aren't often discussed in the mainsteam media. It might be because they probably blend in with the other nomads and semi-nomads in Iraq, like Marsh Arabs. In a lot of ways, they're strangely reminescient of southern U.S. baptists (actually, in a bit of a turdabout, Mandeans are indeed baptists, but not Christians). Like the American baptists, they're very ritualistic, speak in tongues, perform baptisms, and exorcize demons.

What's so strange about the Mandeans is not any particular belief they have, but their history. They're a throwback to a loosely organized group of monotheistic religions known as gnostics (actually, many would classify them as the last gnostic group still in existence, barring perhaps strange traditions carried over from whoever or whatever loosely inspired groups like the Masons). Gnosticism was all the rage in early Christian history, but most of its literature and followers were destroyed by the Catholic Church. The Mandeans don't believe that Jesus Christ was their lord and savior. Actually, they believe Christ was something of a usurper of divine autority and perhaps even an evil demon. They believe themselves to be followers of John the Baptist, whom they see as their major prophet (kind of like Muhammed is to Islam).

According to an article on the BBC, the Mandeans are now trying to get out of Iraq. They're going to slums in urban areas of neighboring countries. A small group already, there is fear that they may become extinct. This is yet one more toll of Bush's moronic war.

• BBC News: Iraq's Mandaeans 'face extinction' (March 4, 2007)
  

The environment: taking small steps to ruin the atmosphere; Grassley doesn't mind funding terrorists

"Moderate" Senator Grassley has something to say about ethonal imports. And other interests would hate to see the United States actually import cheap energy other than oil ("U.S. and Brazil Seek to Promote Ethanol in West," New York Times, March 3, 2007):

In a letter to President Bush on Thursday, Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said he failed to understand “why the United States would consider spending U.S. taxpayer dollars to encourage new ethanol production in other countries.”

The proposed partnership, Mr. Grassley warned, could become a backdoor way for Brazil to escape the tariff on imported ethanol that currently insulates American producers.

Meanwhile, of course, we cap some our oil wells because we can't cheap with cheap, cheap OPEC oil. The article continues:

The United States imposes a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on imported ethanol, but Caribbean nations and countries in the Central American Free Trade Agreement are exempt from those duties if they make the ethanol from products grown in their own countries. Using Brazilian technology for refining sugar-cane-based ethanol, such countries could in time become exporters to the United States.

In addition, Caribbean nations can export a limited amount of ethanol that comes indirectly from Brazil and other countries. Under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which has been in force for years, countries can take partly processed ethanol from a country like Brazil and carry out the last step in processing before shipping it to the United States. But the region is allowed to export that kind of ethanol only up to a limit of 7 percent of United States’ ethanol consumption.

Last year, the United States imported about 600 million gallons of ethanol, and about 200 million gallons came indirectly from Brazil through the Caribbean, according to Robert Dineen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group that represents ethanol producers. The total imports of all kinds of ethanol amounted to slightly more than 10 percent of American consumption last year.

For the moment, American ethanol producers are watching warily but not protesting.

“I don’t believe the fundamental objective of the administration is to produce ethanol in the Caribbean for export to the United States,” Mr. Dineen said. But, he added, American companies will be watching to see if the initiative becomes “the camel’s nose under the tent.”

Really, why not? It sure as hell beats exporting petroleum from the Middle East. I'm not saying that because I think ethanol is going to be our savior. It actually seems to have very few benefits. But it is something.

It seems to me that if demand for ethanol actually grows to the point where it becomes a common component of fuels (face it, we probably can't produce enough to make it our primary fuel), there might be enough demand to make every producer, foreign and domestic, happy—especially with subsidies we already offer American producers still in place.

It's imperative that we reduce our dependence on petroleum products. Setting aside the environmental aspects of consuming gasoline, the fact remains that buying oil puts money into the coffers of terrorist governments like Saudi Arabia.

I'm by no means a fan of preserving the subsidized transportation and development of the American suburb, but at least this has the potential to reduce the damage wrought by cheap gasoline. I feel that we should do more to limit that damage that cars do to our cities, however.

One solution is better public transportation in urban areas, which allows for energy to be produced at a better scale than a small internal combustion motor, as well as move emissions away from densely populated areas (reducing that smog effect you see even in cities with good public transportation, such as New York).

Public transportation is itself admittedly a dangerous proposition. Despite the common belief that public transportation causes little or no damage to the environment, it indeed does when it's not used effectively. Enter a case such as Washington, D.C., where the heavy rail rapid transit system allows workers to live ever further away from the central city. They may take the train into the city and reduce traffic congestion (it's possible, but I'm not sure if I believe that either), but the fact of the matter is most of them probably go in for work. When they get home, they're using their cars at least as much as they would at any other time. And if you imagine that some people who live in distant exurbs have to drive a long distance to get to a train station, you also have to figure many of them are living in places where they have to drive to get food, clothing, go out, go to church, visit friends, and do whatever other things exurbanites do. So in reality, not only is the public transportation idea a wash, but it's very likely that people are venting more emissions because of public transportation in some cases.

Image information:

• Image Information (smog in New York, 1988, from WikiPedia)
• The second image I took after taking off from Los Angeles International Airport in January; some of the distortion probably comes from the plane window, but it's a striking image of the smog in the L.A. metropolitan area.
  

Links:

• David Owen wrote an interesting article in The New Yorker ("Green Manhattan," PDF) on the positive effects of places like Manhattan on the environment, and also spoke about the D.C. transportation system and its effects on the environment.
• From the Washington Post: "Around D.C., A Cheaper House May Cost You" (October 12, 2006)

BBC News: Mayor unveils climate change plan

From the BBC ("Mayor unveils climate change plan," Feb. 27, 2007):

London Mayor Ken Livingstone has called on Londoners and businesses to unite in the fight against global warming.

Unveiling his Climate Change Action Plan, the mayor appealed to people to stop wasting energy.

Londoners will be offered cut-price loft and cavity wall insulation and could cut £300 a year from fuel bills by making homes more energy-efficient.

He also urged companies to invest in green technology to help slash carbon emissions by 60% within 20 years.

By 2025 he wants 25% of London's electricity supply to be from local combined heat and power systems.

It's interesting to see this kind of thing happening more. It is especially important for cities, however, to try to cut costs of doing business. While they produce a lot of carbon dioxide per unit of real estate, they often produce very little per capita compared to surrounding suburbs. Driving businesses to cheaper suburbs will end up causing more pollution.

Love Me, I'm A Liberal

Some new lyrics of the Phil Ochs classic! Also, 100 fucked up things said by fundies.

Rural Values?

From Local6.com ("1 In 3 Boys Heavy Porn Users, Study Shows," Feb. 24, 2007):

Almost half of rural youths in the survey reported seeing pornographic videos or DVDs at least once, compared to one-third of the urban participants. Thompson is unsure why rural teens access porn more on video and DVD, but suggests that parents may think distance acts as a buffer.

"Maybe they have a false sense of thinking they are far away from unhealthy influences," she said.

Rural boys also reported a lower incidence of parents talking with them about sexual media content. Urban girls were most likely to have had discussions with their parents. And while the majority of teens surveyed said their parents expressed concern about sexual content, that concern hasn't led to discussion or supervision, and few parents are using available technology to block sexual content, according to the study.