(Via Instapundit) Michael Yon e-mails OP-FOR blog from Iraq. He thinks we're currently losing in Iraq, but that it is winnable, and General Petraeus is just the man to win it. (By the way, I love how Classical-Latin "Petraeus" sounds.) Furthermore, he thinks that we'll need to kill Muqtata (sp?) al-Sadr, head of the most problematic Shiite militia, the so-called "Mahdi Army." Recall, also, that it was a guy calling himself The Mahdi--a prophesied Moslem messiah--in the Sudan 120 years ago who caused such trouble for Egypt and Britain...and got Chinese Gordon killed.
Does anyone else recall that the first trouble with Sadr happened when we tried to deliver an arrest warrant against him as an accessory to murder? He started up a big fight to direct attention away from his criminal behavior. And has gotten a lot more people killed as a result. This is war, and he's part of the enemy.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Options on Iran
John Derbyshire has a pessimistic post on The Corner today about our options in Iran. He's citing Amir Taheri in the NY Post. Short of nuking them, the conclusion is apparently that we can't do anything that will destroy their nuclear capability without leaving them looking like heroes to the Moslem world.
Yeah, I've been afraid of this, too. But I do see one good long-term option: get the Iranian people to overthrow the mullahs. The Iranians are basically favorable towards us, and it's possible that democracy there would result in a government that didn't want the Bomb. Now, the mullahs are portraying the nuclear program as a matter of national pride, so it's not a given that the people don't want it. But just like in Iraq, a change of government is the only long-term solution. I doubt we've got the manpower or the willpower to accomplish this ourselves.
But the Iranian people are better positioned. Can they do it? Will they do it? There's not much time...
One more thing: with this week's reports of dissention within the Iranian government, is there some hope of internal weakness?
Yeah, I've been afraid of this, too. But I do see one good long-term option: get the Iranian people to overthrow the mullahs. The Iranians are basically favorable towards us, and it's possible that democracy there would result in a government that didn't want the Bomb. Now, the mullahs are portraying the nuclear program as a matter of national pride, so it's not a given that the people don't want it. But just like in Iraq, a change of government is the only long-term solution. I doubt we've got the manpower or the willpower to accomplish this ourselves.
But the Iranian people are better positioned. Can they do it? Will they do it? There's not much time...
One more thing: with this week's reports of dissention within the Iranian government, is there some hope of internal weakness?
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
More on Iran
(via Drudge) The Telegraph has a story out today claiming that the Iranians are getting North Korean assistance in preparing a nuclear bomb test. If they go for a low-yield weapon of half a kiloton, they might possibly be ready in 12 months.
The story relies on an anonymous "senior European defence official," and a lot of the specific claims aren't specifically sourced. But I'm still worried.
The story relies on an anonymous "senior European defence official," and a lot of the specific claims aren't specifically sourced. But I'm still worried.
SOTU: Iran
He's brought up the Iranian nuclear program. Good. That ought to be front and center on people's minds, these days. Over at YNET news, there's a disturbing report that the Iranian president has assured the Syrian foreign minister that the US and Israel will soon be destroyed. Wonderful, wonderful.
For goodness' sake, people--he's telling us what they're going to do. Wake up!
For goodness' sake, people--he's telling us what they're going to do. Wake up!
SOTU: Various
Ho-hum on a number of domestic issues. Health care (where is that in the Constitution, I'd like to know?!), maybe a few other things graciously lost in the static. But now he's promoting his Iraq war and rebuilding plans, which is smart. Take the offensive on this, both to the enemy and to the domestic opponents. He's laying out the case for spreading liberty and keeping the fight abroad.
"Whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure." Amen, brother!
Speaking of "liberty," some unholy instinct caused me to tune into XM radio's "XM Public Radio" channel--their NPR show selection--this week, and I came across Bob Edwards interviewing Chris Hedges (sp?), about his book, "American Fascists," I believe. I'd read Jonah Goldberg's discussion of this, but that hadn't prepared me for just how much of a fringe conspiracy theorist this man appears to be. He's seeing legions of black-shirted mercenaries already patrolling the streets, paid for by "evangelical" churches. (No, no--he really said this!) And though these "dominionists" (I didn't get who they are, exactly--I mean, names of leaders?) are a tiny fraction of the population, they apparently control the Republican party and specifically the Executive Branch.
He can prove it, too! His "evangelical" speech-writer inserts code-words into the President's speeches (oh, goody--we get to play with codes!). For instance (this is chiling--be prepared!), the President ended a speech that called for new troops to Iraq, with something about "liberty." Not "God bless America," but something about liberty. Spooky! Well, you see, most of you normal people hear "liberty" and think "liberty." Not these radical religious conservatives. No, sir! They hear "liberty," and they think of the liberty that only comes from submission to Jesus! (Submit! Submit! The power of Christ compels you!) So, this way, the President could slip them a message that the theocracy is coming soon, without the poor heathen getting the hint. Heh, heh...sneaky of him.
What a nut.
"Whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure." Amen, brother!
Speaking of "liberty," some unholy instinct caused me to tune into XM radio's "XM Public Radio" channel--their NPR show selection--this week, and I came across Bob Edwards interviewing Chris Hedges (sp?), about his book, "American Fascists," I believe. I'd read Jonah Goldberg's discussion of this, but that hadn't prepared me for just how much of a fringe conspiracy theorist this man appears to be. He's seeing legions of black-shirted mercenaries already patrolling the streets, paid for by "evangelical" churches. (No, no--he really said this!) And though these "dominionists" (I didn't get who they are, exactly--I mean, names of leaders?) are a tiny fraction of the population, they apparently control the Republican party and specifically the Executive Branch.
He can prove it, too! His "evangelical" speech-writer inserts code-words into the President's speeches (oh, goody--we get to play with codes!). For instance (this is chiling--be prepared!), the President ended a speech that called for new troops to Iraq, with something about "liberty." Not "God bless America," but something about liberty. Spooky! Well, you see, most of you normal people hear "liberty" and think "liberty." Not these radical religious conservatives. No, sir! They hear "liberty," and they think of the liberty that only comes from submission to Jesus! (Submit! Submit! The power of Christ compels you!) So, this way, the President could slip them a message that the theocracy is coming soon, without the poor heathen getting the hint. Heh, heh...sneaky of him.
What a nut.
SOTU: Immigration "Reform"
Hmmm... Temporary worker program, again. Couldn't hear (static) if he'd push border control, along with it.
SOTU: Reform Earmarks
Advocated putting Congressional budget earmarks in "the light of day." Good for him--it'll take Congressional action, since it's in their rules, but he can threaten vetos. And just mentioning it in the SOTU gives the issue more of a push.
SOTU: Don't Raise Taxes
Got rousing applause for saying we can balance the budget w/o raising taxes. An emotional-sounding bunch of cheers. Can't tell if there were boos included in that from the left-hand side of the House.
Live blogging the State of the Union Address
I'll be posting some live comments tonight (what--like I ever do this from beyond the grave? And yet...the phrase stands.) on the State of the Union. I don't have TV right now, just a staticky AM station, so I'm missing a little, but I'll try. I'm listening to Tammy Bruce, sitting in for Laura Ingraham. Nice opening comment--"Nancy Pelosi is smiling...she is showing some facial movement!"
Presidential Candidates' Second Amendment Records
Dave Kopel has a post on the Volokh Conspiracy classifying Presidential candidates by their Second Amendment records. It's useful and illuminating. I hadn't known that Democrat Bill Richardson ranked relatively high on 2nd Amend. support--unique among the Democrats running. It did not surprise me that Rudy Giuliani ranked in the lowest category, and this is one thing that could keep me from voting for him, despite his good law-and-order record and leadership during a crisis. Mitt Romney's fairly low ranking did come as a surprise, because though I'd not heard anything about this particular issue before, I'd gotten the impression he was an all-around conservative. Apparently, though, he's flipped on some issues.
Al Gore comes in with a nearly-perfect pro-gun record until 1989, after which he's demonstrated a nearly-perfect anti-gun record. No surprise there. We Tennesseeans have been talking about his various liberal epiphanies for a while, now. The emotional anti-tobacco speech he gave at the 1992(?) Democratic National Convention is a good example. His sister's death from lung cancer supposedly steeled him to oppose tobacco, and yet, my dad still has a copy of Sen. Gore's letter to us (and to all Tennessee farmers), declaring his support for tobacco subsidies (I think it was a subsidy--we never grew the stuff, so I forget)...after his sister's death supposedly changed him. Naked political opportunism, whichever way you look at it.
Al Gore comes in with a nearly-perfect pro-gun record until 1989, after which he's demonstrated a nearly-perfect anti-gun record. No surprise there. We Tennesseeans have been talking about his various liberal epiphanies for a while, now. The emotional anti-tobacco speech he gave at the 1992(?) Democratic National Convention is a good example. His sister's death from lung cancer supposedly steeled him to oppose tobacco, and yet, my dad still has a copy of Sen. Gore's letter to us (and to all Tennessee farmers), declaring his support for tobacco subsidies (I think it was a subsidy--we never grew the stuff, so I forget)...after his sister's death supposedly changed him. Naked political opportunism, whichever way you look at it.
Monday, January 22, 2007
The Next Holocaust
This is not a unique or original opinion, but it astounds me that so much of the world is treating the Iranian nuclear problem as something to worry about later, if ever. The Iranian leadership has been quite clear in their plans for Israel. Sure, any individual threat might could be dismissed as a vague wish, something they wouldn't be carrying out themselves. But taken together, it's clear that the Iranian government really does want to eradicate Israel themselves. And once they've got nuclear weapons, they get to choose the day and time. As President Bush said of another dangerous Middle Eastern country, we can't wait until the threat is imminent.
I wonder if there are the naive in this country who believe the Iranian protests that they only want cheap nuclear power, not weapons. I'd suspect that any such folks do not extend the benefit of the doubt to statements by our American government. They'd put themselves up as hardened cynics in that case. But our enemies? Have to take them at their word.
I've actually known people like this--people who, back in college or high school, were more willing to take Soviet statements at face value than our own government's. If pressed, they could change into a moral equivalence stance--both governments are untrustworthy, and we can't trust the US claim that the Soviets are untrustworthy. Or something like this.
In this light, read "This Holocaust Will Be Different", by the Jerusalem Post's Benny Morris. If you needed any convincing.
I wonder if there are the naive in this country who believe the Iranian protests that they only want cheap nuclear power, not weapons. I'd suspect that any such folks do not extend the benefit of the doubt to statements by our American government. They'd put themselves up as hardened cynics in that case. But our enemies? Have to take them at their word.
I've actually known people like this--people who, back in college or high school, were more willing to take Soviet statements at face value than our own government's. If pressed, they could change into a moral equivalence stance--both governments are untrustworthy, and we can't trust the US claim that the Soviets are untrustworthy. Or something like this.
In this light, read "This Holocaust Will Be Different", by the Jerusalem Post's Benny Morris. If you needed any convincing.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Not a bad ending...
...to a busy week. My research team has got an observing proposal that made the cut, and (whenever it gets scheduled) we'll be trying out some new adaptive optics technology. Besides that, I've responded to the referee's report on what I hope will a major paper, I've started writing a new one, and a friend gave me some old lab equipment, (which the wife will definitely not let me keep at home). And on top of all of this, we've got snow!
Commentary starts a blog
Commentary magazine has started a blog, "Contentions." It's a group blog, which I think makes for some of the best variety. And if you aren't familiar with the magazine, pick up a copy or check them out online. They've got some of the best and most in-depth foreign-affairs articles, and they do well in religion and philosophy, as well.
Happy Lee Day!
Happy Robert E. Lee Day! Not only is today his birthday, and therefore a Day of Special Observance in Tennessee and in other Confederate states, but today is his 200th birthday. Be sure to wear gray!
P.S: Don't forget Stonewall Jackson Day, coming up this weekend...
P.S: Don't forget Stonewall Jackson Day, coming up this weekend...
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Scottish and English independence?
Iain Dale has been covering the rising support amongst the English for a separate parliament within the United Kingdom, on a par with the Scottish and Welsh parliaments. In fact, he's among the leaders of the movement, from what I can gather. This is interesting, especially since it was England that did the conquering of Wales and Scotland. The "British" parliament is what used to be the English parliament, and the push in Wales and Scotland for their own parliaments is a result of chafing under foreign dominion.
The devolution that has progressed under Blair's government has gotten the English wanting a measure of self-rule, too. But what's new (to me) in this article is that there's rising support for outright independence. About half of Scottish and English respondents to the poll wanted to end the union between their countries.
And the Scottish support for outright independence is higher than the support for the devolution that has let them have a separate parliament within Great Britain. That's interesting. It suggests to me that getting a taste of slight self-rule can make you unsatisfied with anything less than the real thing.
The devolution that has progressed under Blair's government has gotten the English wanting a measure of self-rule, too. But what's new (to me) in this article is that there's rising support for outright independence. About half of Scottish and English respondents to the poll wanted to end the union between their countries.
And the Scottish support for outright independence is higher than the support for the devolution that has let them have a separate parliament within Great Britain. That's interesting. It suggests to me that getting a taste of slight self-rule can make you unsatisfied with anything less than the real thing.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
More on Venezuela
One thing to add to my previous post: Chavez's announcements caused a precipitous drop in his country's stock markets. The price of oil (maybe the only thing that had been letting him get away with his behavior until now) had already hit an 18-month low. Will the decline in both stocks and oil prevent him from carrying out his plans? I'm no economist, but I suspect not. I have a fear that he might use it as a justification for nationalizing those companies and centralizing the economy. After all, if the free market can't be trusted to keep money in the economy, he'll say, the state must do it. And the state, it is he.
Venezuela turns towards communism
Read this saddening post by Fausta. (via Instapundit) This isn't a surprise; many observers have been shouting that this was exactly where Hugo Chavez has been heading for years. Now he's made it explicit. He said Venezuela would become socialist, and he referred to himself as a "communist" (I'm putting that in lower-case intentionally). He wants to "nationalize" (that is, "steal") certain businesses, shut down the opposition press, and rule at least in part by decree.
Will the Left in our country keep brown nosing him?
Will the Left in our country keep brown nosing him?
Great spoof from Lileks
Read this "diary" by Bernard-Henri Levy in the Times of London...then read today's Bleat by James Lileks. He does a wonderful job of spoofing it. It's worth reading Levy's whole entry, or at least scanning it (I wasn't able to slog through every word), just for the weirdness; I wonder if his books read like this.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Fare well to Southern Appeal
(I thought I'd already posted on this, but apparently not.) It's with friendship and great disappointment that I've got to announce that Steve Dillard's blog, Southern Appeal, has closed its doors permanently.
Steve (then blogging as "Feddie," for his being a true states' rights Federalist) was one of the very first to link to my blog here, and we've corresponded since then. He's a good Christian, a true son of the South, and a well-reasoned Conservative.
The web will be losing a good man. It wasn't clear from his e-mail what his exact reasons were. I only hope that he hasn't had any professional problems as a result of his blogging. And I hope that some day in the future, his circumstances will change, and he'll resume.
Steve (then blogging as "Feddie," for his being a true states' rights Federalist) was one of the very first to link to my blog here, and we've corresponded since then. He's a good Christian, a true son of the South, and a well-reasoned Conservative.
The web will be losing a good man. It wasn't clear from his e-mail what his exact reasons were. I only hope that he hasn't had any professional problems as a result of his blogging. And I hope that some day in the future, his circumstances will change, and he'll resume.
Israeli nuclear attack on Iran?
No story yet, but Drudge has a leak that The Sunday Times of London is preparing to report on Sunday that the Israelis are preparing a nuclear strike against Iran. The only specifics he's got yet are that it would be a tactical nuclear strike against Iran's uranium enrichment facilities.
I reckon it would have to be--from all I keep hearing, even a conventional airstrike wouldn't be effective against the buried and dispersed Iranian facilities. If this is real, it's a shame it's coming out in the paper. An Iranian spy couldn't have done any better. The Israelis are plagued with the same spineless leakers that we are.
I reckon it would have to be--from all I keep hearing, even a conventional airstrike wouldn't be effective against the buried and dispersed Iranian facilities. If this is real, it's a shame it's coming out in the paper. An Iranian spy couldn't have done any better. The Israelis are plagued with the same spineless leakers that we are.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
What do international law and Methodism have in common?
The answer is Hugo Grotius (1583-1645).
My wife and I have been getting into theological discussions lately, and it's prompted me to look up more on my Methodist theology. Methodism's character was formed by John Wesley (1703-1791), of course, who founded our movement. Wesley's theology was similar to Arminianism, and in fact, he founded the Arminian Magazine (1778-1969, with some name changes; revived 1980-present) for the promotion of Methodist teaching. Wesley, as I understand it, didn't come to his beliefs as a direct result of reading Arminianism, but his theology is closely identified with it.
Arminianism is traced back in a formal sense to Jacobus Arminius (Jacob Harmenszoon; 1560-1609) a University of Leyden professor and Dutch theologian. His theology is often contrasted with Calvinism, especially over the famous "Five Points of Calvinism." Arminian teaching holds that Christ died for all and that there is (in practice) free will.
In the early Dutch Republic, after the overthrow of Spainish dominion and Catholicism, Calvinism grew to prominence. Arminius' views changed, as he studied and rejected some the Calvinist doctrines. Church issues got caught up in politics, there still being an official religion at that time. After his death in 1609, his followers published the "Five articles of Remonstrance" against Calvinism. The national synod he had called for to debate the issue was finally provided in the Synod of Dort (Dordrecht), but it turned out not to be a two-sided debate but a heresy trial for the Arminians. Excluded from speaking or debating, the conclusion was..ahem...predestined, and the Arminians were imprisoned or banished from the country. The "Five Points of Calvinism" were part of the synod's proclamation.
Now, where does Hugo Grotius fit in? Huig de Groot (his Dutch name) was a child prodigy who had lived up to his early promise. When the Arminian "Remonstrants" published their points in 1610, the official government position was to be one of tolerance for the Arminians. Grotius, then a rising star in the government and a protege of statesman Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, was asked in 1613 to write the edict of toleration. Grotius had been developing a theory of church/state relations, holding that "only the basic tenets necessary for undergirding civil order (e.g., the existence of God and His providence) ought to be enforced while differences on obscure theological doctrines should be left to private conscience." (From Wikipedia) The official proclamation didn't exactly end the crisis, unfortunately. The public arguments worsened, the Synod of Dort was convened, and the Prince of Orange saw van Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius as political threats. They were arrested, van Oldenbarnevelt was executed, and Grotius was to be imprisoned for life.
Fortunately, Grotius escaped and fled to France (What--royal France, haven of political and religious toleration? As opposed to those intolerant Dutch?? Well, times change...). There he wrote both a book on Christian apologetics from a Protestant perspective and his works on international law and just war theory.
Grotius is today recognized as the founder of the modern system of international law (as much as I dislike where it's gone these days). His Christian apologetics remained in print through the end of the 1800s (by the way, his Dutch version of this is entirely in verse!). And he further developed Arminian thinking, proposing the now-widespread "Moral Government" theory of Jesus' atonement.
Beyond the person of Grotius himself, I find interesting the frequent emphasis by Arminians on toleration. Grotius published an official edict on this, and he was already developing a theory of church and state that advocated reducing the governmentally-prescribed beliefs to the bare minimum. (Well, the minimum as they saw it.) Move the details of theology into the sphere of private conscience. The Arminian "Remonstrants" as a whole asked for toleration, as well. Maybe partly because they were then in the minority, but it did go along with their belief that people's interpretations of scripture could be debated and change over time. We find the same strain In Methodism, as well. Of course, we started within Anglicanism, which had already sought to achieve the broadest-possible consensus within the denomination and thus holds only to 39 articles of religion (compare this with the catechisms of some other denominations). Then Methodism, with its emphasis on practical application and away from abstract theology, reduced these further to 25 articles. It holds that only the fundamental understandings of salvation and faith need to be agreed upon within the denomination, and everything else left to private conscience.
Well, this went on much longer than I'd planned, but I hope you've enjoyed this tour of a rather winding thread.
My wife and I have been getting into theological discussions lately, and it's prompted me to look up more on my Methodist theology. Methodism's character was formed by John Wesley (1703-1791), of course, who founded our movement. Wesley's theology was similar to Arminianism, and in fact, he founded the Arminian Magazine (1778-1969, with some name changes; revived 1980-present) for the promotion of Methodist teaching. Wesley, as I understand it, didn't come to his beliefs as a direct result of reading Arminianism, but his theology is closely identified with it.
Arminianism is traced back in a formal sense to Jacobus Arminius (Jacob Harmenszoon; 1560-1609) a University of Leyden professor and Dutch theologian. His theology is often contrasted with Calvinism, especially over the famous "Five Points of Calvinism." Arminian teaching holds that Christ died for all and that there is (in practice) free will.
In the early Dutch Republic, after the overthrow of Spainish dominion and Catholicism, Calvinism grew to prominence. Arminius' views changed, as he studied and rejected some the Calvinist doctrines. Church issues got caught up in politics, there still being an official religion at that time. After his death in 1609, his followers published the "Five articles of Remonstrance" against Calvinism. The national synod he had called for to debate the issue was finally provided in the Synod of Dort (Dordrecht), but it turned out not to be a two-sided debate but a heresy trial for the Arminians. Excluded from speaking or debating, the conclusion was..ahem...predestined, and the Arminians were imprisoned or banished from the country. The "Five Points of Calvinism" were part of the synod's proclamation.
Now, where does Hugo Grotius fit in? Huig de Groot (his Dutch name) was a child prodigy who had lived up to his early promise. When the Arminian "Remonstrants" published their points in 1610, the official government position was to be one of tolerance for the Arminians. Grotius, then a rising star in the government and a protege of statesman Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, was asked in 1613 to write the edict of toleration. Grotius had been developing a theory of church/state relations, holding that "only the basic tenets necessary for undergirding civil order (e.g., the existence of God and His providence) ought to be enforced while differences on obscure theological doctrines should be left to private conscience." (From Wikipedia) The official proclamation didn't exactly end the crisis, unfortunately. The public arguments worsened, the Synod of Dort was convened, and the Prince of Orange saw van Oldenbarnevelt and Grotius as political threats. They were arrested, van Oldenbarnevelt was executed, and Grotius was to be imprisoned for life.
Fortunately, Grotius escaped and fled to France (What--royal France, haven of political and religious toleration? As opposed to those intolerant Dutch?? Well, times change...). There he wrote both a book on Christian apologetics from a Protestant perspective and his works on international law and just war theory.
Grotius is today recognized as the founder of the modern system of international law (as much as I dislike where it's gone these days). His Christian apologetics remained in print through the end of the 1800s (by the way, his Dutch version of this is entirely in verse!). And he further developed Arminian thinking, proposing the now-widespread "Moral Government" theory of Jesus' atonement.
Beyond the person of Grotius himself, I find interesting the frequent emphasis by Arminians on toleration. Grotius published an official edict on this, and he was already developing a theory of church and state that advocated reducing the governmentally-prescribed beliefs to the bare minimum. (Well, the minimum as they saw it.) Move the details of theology into the sphere of private conscience. The Arminian "Remonstrants" as a whole asked for toleration, as well. Maybe partly because they were then in the minority, but it did go along with their belief that people's interpretations of scripture could be debated and change over time. We find the same strain In Methodism, as well. Of course, we started within Anglicanism, which had already sought to achieve the broadest-possible consensus within the denomination and thus holds only to 39 articles of religion (compare this with the catechisms of some other denominations). Then Methodism, with its emphasis on practical application and away from abstract theology, reduced these further to 25 articles. It holds that only the fundamental understandings of salvation and faith need to be agreed upon within the denomination, and everything else left to private conscience.
Well, this went on much longer than I'd planned, but I hope you've enjoyed this tour of a rather winding thread.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
A good response to the world-government types
Some of our black-robed would-be masters in the judiciary have tried to apply foreign precedent to interpreting American laws. There are others on the Left who want to subject America to all sorts of multilateral treaties and sign away our sovereignty. I've always held that democracy depends to a great extent on popular sovereignty-the ability of a people to govern themselves, without outside interference.
I was reading the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church this week. The Methodist Church, of course, was born as a movement within the Church of England and only became a separate denomination with the American Revolution. The existing Anglican bishops served under (at least nominal authority of) the King of England. While most of the 25 articles of our doctrine are pared down from the Anglican Church's 39, Article XXIII was added to make something explicit:
[Emphasis in original.]
I like that. Not only on the foreign issue, but also in how we explicitly mention the states.
I was reading the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church this week. The Methodist Church, of course, was born as a movement within the Church of England and only became a separate denomination with the American Revolution. The existing Anglican bishops served under (at least nominal authority of) the King of England. While most of the 25 articles of our doctrine are pared down from the Anglican Church's 39, Article XXIII was added to make something explicit:
The President, the Congress, the general assemblies, the governors, and the councils of state, as the delegates of the people, are the rulers of the United States of America, according to the division of power made to them by the Constitution of the United States and by the constitutions of their respective states. And the said states are a sovereign and independent nation, and ought not to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction.
[Emphasis in original.]
I like that. Not only on the foreign issue, but also in how we explicitly mention the states.
"Family" TV, then and now
We're here watching the Disney Channel's marathon of "holiday" episodes. The "Proud Family" just got taught the true meaning of The Holidays by a kindly bunch of black nationalist angels: don't celebrate Christmas, but instead celebrate the "cooperative economics" of Kwanzaa. The "Even Stevens" Hanukkah episode was much better, great, in fact--religion was explicit, with hymns being sung and the story of Hanukkah being recited. Now, for Christmas, apparently, there's the "Lizzie Maguire" episode that seems to be explaining the true meaning of Christmas as something to do with elves. Woah--out of the blue, the annoying little brother character is reciting the nativity story out of Luke (I think Luke)! Didn't see that coming... Aaaand he's done. Those few seconds were the only mention of religion in this show. Well, it was a start, anyway.
But my real point here was to get onto the decline of "family" TV shows over the past two decades. In the 1980s, with us not having cable (and for that matter, only picking up one channel), most nights had an hour or more of prime-time shows that all of the family could enjoy together. I don't mean kids' shows. I mean comedies like, say, "M*A*S*H," "Who's the Boss?," "Growing Pains," "Coach," "The Cosby Show," or "Benson." Mom and Dad watched these, too. Even the dramas were generally fine for kids to watch.
This has been pointed out in more detail by many other people, but there's been a decline in the 8:00 "family hour" of programming, going to more and more adult-oriented shows, or at least adding more bad language and sexual situations. (Someone put the start of the fall with "Rosanne.")
But this isn't the whole story that I'm getting at. At the same time as the prime time shows have changed to aim for adults, there has opened up a cable market for shows kids can watch. Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel come to mind, although I've only seen the latter.
Though these Disney Channel shows superficially remind me of the '80s family sitcoms, they've got a noticeable difference in style and quality. Many of them are nearly unwatchable from an adult's perspective. They're over-acted, the humor is juvenile, and the directing is over the top. Everything is exaggerated. Parents act like big teenagers, with no maturity or self-respect, and they get little respect from their brat kids, who get scripts full of smart-alecky remarks and sarcastic come-backs.
You can debate the quality of the '80s family shows I mentioned above, but at least they had material adults could appreciate. I've enjoyed a couple of Disney shows. "Even Stevens" was pretty good (though now off the air), and "Kim Possible" is an excellent cartoon. But that's about it for me.
The wife has said that "Scrubs" reminds her of a grown-up version of these kids' shows. She's right--there's the same intentional exaggeration, the intentional silliness, and use of sound effects. But it is of far better quality, so we enjoy it.
I wonder if the proliferation of cable channels has led to niche programming [Brilliant insight, genius!--ed.], and the assumption that kids are going to watch shows on their channels, adults will watch their channels, and nobody's going to watch together. Maybe everybody's got two TVs these days, but this kind of fragmentation isn't such a good thing.
But my real point here was to get onto the decline of "family" TV shows over the past two decades. In the 1980s, with us not having cable (and for that matter, only picking up one channel), most nights had an hour or more of prime-time shows that all of the family could enjoy together. I don't mean kids' shows. I mean comedies like, say, "M*A*S*H," "Who's the Boss?," "Growing Pains," "Coach," "The Cosby Show," or "Benson." Mom and Dad watched these, too. Even the dramas were generally fine for kids to watch.
This has been pointed out in more detail by many other people, but there's been a decline in the 8:00 "family hour" of programming, going to more and more adult-oriented shows, or at least adding more bad language and sexual situations. (Someone put the start of the fall with "Rosanne.")
But this isn't the whole story that I'm getting at. At the same time as the prime time shows have changed to aim for adults, there has opened up a cable market for shows kids can watch. Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel come to mind, although I've only seen the latter.
Though these Disney Channel shows superficially remind me of the '80s family sitcoms, they've got a noticeable difference in style and quality. Many of them are nearly unwatchable from an adult's perspective. They're over-acted, the humor is juvenile, and the directing is over the top. Everything is exaggerated. Parents act like big teenagers, with no maturity or self-respect, and they get little respect from their brat kids, who get scripts full of smart-alecky remarks and sarcastic come-backs.
You can debate the quality of the '80s family shows I mentioned above, but at least they had material adults could appreciate. I've enjoyed a couple of Disney shows. "Even Stevens" was pretty good (though now off the air), and "Kim Possible" is an excellent cartoon. But that's about it for me.
The wife has said that "Scrubs" reminds her of a grown-up version of these kids' shows. She's right--there's the same intentional exaggeration, the intentional silliness, and use of sound effects. But it is of far better quality, so we enjoy it.
I wonder if the proliferation of cable channels has led to niche programming [Brilliant insight, genius!--ed.], and the assumption that kids are going to watch shows on their channels, adults will watch their channels, and nobody's going to watch together. Maybe everybody's got two TVs these days, but this kind of fragmentation isn't such a good thing.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Re: How not to conduct a religious debate
Sigh. I keep finding more little gems in that discussion on The Nativity I linked to below. Here, commenter "Christopher" says,
Sigh, part 2. Shocking how closely that reminds me, by way of contrast, of this statement of Saint Augustine's (Confessions, Book 11, Ch. 12):
It's not that Christopher was making fun of the one who asked the question; he was criticizing him, which is about as bad.
People, we have brains, and to say that discussion and questioning aren't allowed, even in principle, is to turn good people away from their faith.
You think that we should talk about all this stuff, but the Church after thinking much longer and harder on it than we have, has said we should not delve into too much of the specifics, but should keep it closer to mystery. Don't you think they have a good reason for saying so? Do you really think this was just some arbitrary request of the Church? Do you really think so much of your opinion, that you are unwilling to admit that maybe the Church is the one that is right?
Sigh, part 2. Shocking how closely that reminds me, by way of contrast, of this statement of Saint Augustine's (Confessions, Book 11, Ch. 12):
How, then, shall I respond to him who asks, "What was God doing before he made heaven and earth?" I do not answer, as a certain one is reported to have done facetiously (shrugging off the force of the question). "He was preparing hell," he said, "for those who pry too deep." It is one thing to see the answer; it is another to laugh at the questioner -- and for myself I do not answer these things thus. More willingly would I have answered, "I do not know what I do not know," than cause one who asked a deep question to be ridiculed -- and by such tactics gain praise for a worthless answer.
It's not that Christopher was making fun of the one who asked the question; he was criticizing him, which is about as bad.
People, we have brains, and to say that discussion and questioning aren't allowed, even in principle, is to turn good people away from their faith.
The reason Christmas is December 25
I got so caught up in reading Mark Shea's blog post on The Nativity that I forgot the reason I surfed over there. Here is his well-written explanation of why Christmas is celebrated on December 25. It's not a revamped Mithraic holiday. The reasoning behind December 25 is faulty, or at least relies on a pious superstition, but it's not to take over the cult of Mithras.
Shea doesn't discuss the Saturnalia, though, which is the one I'd always heard, rather than the Mithraic celebration of the Winter solstice.
Shea doesn't discuss the Saturnalia, though, which is the one I'd always heard, rather than the Mithraic celebration of the Winter solstice.
How not to conduct a religious debate
Over at Mark Shea's excellent Catholic blog, there's been a lively discussion over the movie, The Nativity Story, and one specific detail of Catholic doctrine. Being a Methodist, I won't comment upon the specifics, but I have been interestedly reading along.
I think, though, that the style of the debate in some places compares unfavorably with that I linked to at Southern Appeal, a few posts below. For example, there's this little gem:
"Unfortunately, in this post Enlightenment Age, people are convinced that their opinion really means something."
And this one, "Back not so long ago honorable men would not dare to disrespect a Priest in such a way for fear, both of God and perhaps of a good whipping behind the shed! " That latter remark came after a priest had said somebody else's comment was a "libel," and a third person asked whether this was what Saint Francis would have done.
And this is a debate within a single denomination. I'm much more impressed now with how that Catholic/Protestant debate was handled over at Southern Appeal.
I think, though, that the style of the debate in some places compares unfavorably with that I linked to at Southern Appeal, a few posts below. For example, there's this little gem:
"Unfortunately, in this post Enlightenment Age, people are convinced that their opinion really means something."
And this one, "Back not so long ago honorable men would not dare to disrespect a Priest in such a way for fear, both of God and perhaps of a good whipping behind the shed! " That latter remark came after a priest had said somebody else's comment was a "libel," and a third person asked whether this was what Saint Francis would have done.
And this is a debate within a single denomination. I'm much more impressed now with how that Catholic/Protestant debate was handled over at Southern Appeal.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
On the workings of the Holy Ghost
Methodist Bishop Will Willimon has some interesting things to say here, about Christians' involvement in politics, the watering-down of religion, and the driving force of the Holy Spirit. I particularly liked this bit:
He seems to be somewhere in the middle, politically, and a conservative, theologically. From what I'm reading here, I'd be proud to have him as my bishop. Wonder which Conference he's bishop of?
Reminds me--I was thinking this week about how the Holy Spirit works in the church today, and you get the idea from some people that His inspiration is limited to properly convened meetings, with quorums (quora?) (wait--or is "quorum" genitive plural?), procedures, rules, precedents, and so on... So I particularly enjoyed this quip.
Willimon quipped that he sometimes felt that the United Methodist General Conferences were designed "to use Robert's Rules of Order to keep the church safe from the Holy Spirit."
He seems to be somewhere in the middle, politically, and a conservative, theologically. From what I'm reading here, I'd be proud to have him as my bishop. Wonder which Conference he's bishop of?
Reminds me--I was thinking this week about how the Holy Spirit works in the church today, and you get the idea from some people that His inspiration is limited to properly convened meetings, with quorums (quora?) (wait--or is "quorum" genitive plural?), procedures, rules, precedents, and so on... So I particularly enjoyed this quip.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Weird Revelations on the US Bugging Princess Diana
Well, I don't know quite what to say about this post of Mickey Kaus', on the news this week that the Clinton administration had bugged Princess Diana and was interested in her relationship with Ted Forstmann, a New York financier and Republican, who had some political aspirations (he considered running against Hillary! Clinton in 2000). According to aides of both Diana's and Forstmann's, there was a romantic interest, and Diana had dreams of ultimately being First Lady.
Huh.
Again, ...huh.
UPDATE: Byron York's got more on this at National Review. For me, most articles about foreign royalty fall into the category of trashy celebrity gossip. So I don't really care about it all, except that it's kind of funny, and it involves the Clinton bunch. But I made a mistaken implication above--that the interest in wiretapping her might have been that Forstmann was considering running against Hillary in 2000. Well, Diana died in 1997, so their interest in Forstmann wasn't that he was specifically any rival of Hillary's.
UPDATE 2: "Never mind."
Huh.
Again, ...huh.
UPDATE: Byron York's got more on this at National Review. For me, most articles about foreign royalty fall into the category of trashy celebrity gossip. So I don't really care about it all, except that it's kind of funny, and it involves the Clinton bunch. But I made a mistaken implication above--that the interest in wiretapping her might have been that Forstmann was considering running against Hillary in 2000. Well, Diana died in 1997, so their interest in Forstmann wasn't that he was specifically any rival of Hillary's.
UPDATE 2: "Never mind."
A Government-authorized Protection Racket
Via Instapundit, the Volokh Conspiracy reports on a jaw-dropping case of eminent domain abuse. Here, a city has authorized a private land development firm to do the work, but also to demand what sounds like a bribe (of $800,000) from landowners in return for not condemning their land! At least, I gather that the city authorized them to extort this sort of money.
With my limited knowledge, I don't see that this is necessarily unconstitutional at the Federal level. But you'd sure think it would be outlawed by the state, under corruption laws. At the very least, the citizens of Port Chester, New York, ought to assert their rights as free citizens and demand that their city fathers be accountable to them.
Ilya Somin (who wrote the post) offers much more detail here, in his original post on the subject. It's not clear that the city government authorized this extortion, but when the landowner refused to pay the developer, they certainly authorized the land's condemnation. Even more interestingly, the developer gave the landowner (who wanted to put in a CVS pharmacy) three options: pay him $800,000 outright, let him go in 50/50 on the CVS business, or suffer the consequences of having his land condemned. The owner stood firm...and wound up with option #3.
I agree with some the commenter Joel Mackey on Somin's follow-up post, who says that the developer ought to be charged with extortion, and let that be the end of this.
Scary. The more publicity on this case, the better.
With my limited knowledge, I don't see that this is necessarily unconstitutional at the Federal level. But you'd sure think it would be outlawed by the state, under corruption laws. At the very least, the citizens of Port Chester, New York, ought to assert their rights as free citizens and demand that their city fathers be accountable to them.
Ilya Somin (who wrote the post) offers much more detail here, in his original post on the subject. It's not clear that the city government authorized this extortion, but when the landowner refused to pay the developer, they certainly authorized the land's condemnation. Even more interestingly, the developer gave the landowner (who wanted to put in a CVS pharmacy) three options: pay him $800,000 outright, let him go in 50/50 on the CVS business, or suffer the consequences of having his land condemned. The owner stood firm...and wound up with option #3.
I agree with some the commenter Joel Mackey on Somin's follow-up post, who says that the developer ought to be charged with extortion, and let that be the end of this.
Scary. The more publicity on this case, the better.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Catholics and Protestants Debating "Unity"
Let me link to this interesting discussion over at Southern Appeal, which was one of the first blogs to link to us here. Hunter Baker was musing about the possibilities for rapproachment (sp?) between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches, and he wondered whether any fellow Protestants might be eager to join them if they reunified.
The resulting debate has raised a number of interesting issues that I hadn't realized were lying in wait, there. Your humble correspondent has been participating in this debate, and I've made a number of posts there. I'll probably summarize them here, later.
Some of my questions center on the intent behind Anglican-Catholic discussions that have been going on for some time now. For a critical Anglican's view on these, take a look at Archbishop Cranmner's blog. The latest relevant posts His Grace has made are here and, more usefully, here.
The resulting debate has raised a number of interesting issues that I hadn't realized were lying in wait, there. Your humble correspondent has been participating in this debate, and I've made a number of posts there. I'll probably summarize them here, later.
Some of my questions center on the intent behind Anglican-Catholic discussions that have been going on for some time now. For a critical Anglican's view on these, take a look at Archbishop Cranmner's blog. The latest relevant posts His Grace has made are here and, more usefully, here.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Water on Mars? NASA Press Conference Announced
"Water!" is just speculation, but NASA's press release today (link via Drudge) is headlined, "NASA Schedules Briefing to Announce Significant Find on Mars." It's live at 1:00 PM EST and will present results from the Mars Global Surveyor. Global Surveyor completed exactly one decade in space on November 7th, and on the eve of that anniversary...we lost contact. NASA now says that Global Surveyor's mission is likely finished, as a result.
Stay tuned Wednesday to find out what they've found. I don't know for sure whether it's going to be a general mission wrap-up or something more specific, but "significant find" sounds pretty specific!
Interestingly, here's a related report that the new Mars orbiter, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, has taken photos of the old Viking 1 & 2 landers, which touched down on the surface in 1976.
Stay tuned Wednesday to find out what they've found. I don't know for sure whether it's going to be a general mission wrap-up or something more specific, but "significant find" sounds pretty specific!
Interestingly, here's a related report that the new Mars orbiter, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, has taken photos of the old Viking 1 & 2 landers, which touched down on the surface in 1976.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Movie Review Sunday: Lost Horizon
Another movie we've recently seen is Lost Horizon (1937). This one is a classic and undeniably well-made. My wife and I wholeheartedly disagreed with the entire premise, but we enjoyed watching it. It takes place from 1935-37, as a British diplomat is escaping a local rebellion in China and helping other Englishmen get on the planes to take them to safety. His own plane is instead forcibly taken to some place in Tibet or Nepal, off all of the maps, and he finds Shangri-La. Shangri-La is ruled by a three hundred year-old Belgian priest (the fantastic ages possible here are part of the premise) as the High Lama, and it is a place of peacefulness and harmony. The guiding philosophy (they demurr when asked of their "religion") is one of "moderation in all things." Quite Epicurean, in the true sense of that word.
The film quite nicely represents a liberal (in the modern sense) utopia, not only in outcome, but also in the reasoning behind it. No police are needed because crime is unknown. Crime is unknown because every man has enough of what he wants, and if there is no lack, how can there be greed? The baser aspects of human nature are gone, somehow--rather than being part of human nature, they are seen by the characters as merely social problems whose causes they have eliminated.
The day-to-day leader, Chang, explains the moderation-in-all-things premise to include virtue itself: they only aim to have moderate virtue. I've forgotten some of my college philosophy class, but I remember our discussing whether the Epicureans believed in only moderate virtue, as well. ...and I don't remember the answer.
Hmmm...that "moderate virtue" part may go a long way to explaining why they allow someone to steal another's wife, if he really wants her badly enough. In that case, Chang explains, the husband should simply give the man his wife.
The High Lama and our hero, Robert Conway, discuss the awfulness of war and how to avoid it. MInd you, this is 1937, as tensions are rising with Germany. The Lama says that war can be stopped even in the face of an invading army, if you were to put down your (defensive) arms and welcome the invaders in. And they will say to themselves, "why, what wonderful people these are! Surely we can't shoot them!" And peace will reign. As my father says of such ideas, "There's always the peace of the grave."
I will say, that as foolish as I believe all these ideas to be, Lost Horizon does an excellent job of presenting the liberal argument attractively and without malice, and so it's a pleasure to watch. I think that most viewers today, even liberals, will be amazed at the naivite and silly assumptions that are presented here. We're seeing it with the full experience of the twentieth century. And I think the past hundred years have disabused even the utopians of a lot of their notions.
Still, watch it and see what thinking was considered part of the mainstream of literature, if not politics, seventy years ago.
The film quite nicely represents a liberal (in the modern sense) utopia, not only in outcome, but also in the reasoning behind it. No police are needed because crime is unknown. Crime is unknown because every man has enough of what he wants, and if there is no lack, how can there be greed? The baser aspects of human nature are gone, somehow--rather than being part of human nature, they are seen by the characters as merely social problems whose causes they have eliminated.
The day-to-day leader, Chang, explains the moderation-in-all-things premise to include virtue itself: they only aim to have moderate virtue. I've forgotten some of my college philosophy class, but I remember our discussing whether the Epicureans believed in only moderate virtue, as well. ...and I don't remember the answer.
Hmmm...that "moderate virtue" part may go a long way to explaining why they allow someone to steal another's wife, if he really wants her badly enough. In that case, Chang explains, the husband should simply give the man his wife.
The High Lama and our hero, Robert Conway, discuss the awfulness of war and how to avoid it. MInd you, this is 1937, as tensions are rising with Germany. The Lama says that war can be stopped even in the face of an invading army, if you were to put down your (defensive) arms and welcome the invaders in. And they will say to themselves, "why, what wonderful people these are! Surely we can't shoot them!" And peace will reign. As my father says of such ideas, "There's always the peace of the grave."
I will say, that as foolish as I believe all these ideas to be, Lost Horizon does an excellent job of presenting the liberal argument attractively and without malice, and so it's a pleasure to watch. I think that most viewers today, even liberals, will be amazed at the naivite and silly assumptions that are presented here. We're seeing it with the full experience of the twentieth century. And I think the past hundred years have disabused even the utopians of a lot of their notions.
Still, watch it and see what thinking was considered part of the mainstream of literature, if not politics, seventy years ago.
Movie Review Sunday: The Legend of Zorro
Last weekend, we watched "The Legend of Zorro" on TV. I'd rented it last year but after the Southern-bashing in the beginning of the movie, I got fed up and turned it off. This time, I figured I'd grin and bear it to the end. Well, the anti-Southern bits turned out to be too ridiculous to get worked up over. So I'll get worked up over them here:
Now, our movie takes place as California is voting to join the United States. Specifically, it's 1850, and we know that because at the end of the movie, an act of statehood is passed and signed and dated. So, when early on, we are introduced to P. G. T. Beauregard (yes, General Beauregard), we've got to marvel at his prescience as he says that he's afraid the Confederacy will secede if California joins the union as a "free state." Let's parse that sentence. So before secession, there was a Confederacy? Within the United States? People, the Confederacy didn't exist until after multiple states had seceded. Oh, and this is a full decade beforehand.
Then there is the scene in which Confederate soldiers in gray uniforms are working for the bad guys (of course) and fighting Zorro. Again, this is a decade before they existed!
And finally, let me mention that I had forgotten that part of my Confederate States history in which General P. G. T. Beauregard was killed by a massive nitroglycerin explosion in 1850, as he was about to transport it by the Transcontinental Railroad (completed 19 years later) to aid the Confederate States in destroying Washington, in order to advance the intrests of a secret society bent on ruling the world. That must have been his ghost leading us to victory at First Manassas eleven years later.
I'll end my sarcasm here. I really enjoyed the earlier Mask of Zorro, with the same principal actors. Legend didn't live up to it. Aside from the explicit Confederate bashing, there was also the bad guy with a Southern accent and a cross branded on his cheek who was always spouting off ethnic insults and saying he was doing the "Lord's work" by attacking Mexicans. Hey--they put my preacher in the movie! OK, I'll really end the sarcasm this time.
And aside from my people all made out to be bad guys, it wasn't as exciting a movie as the first. It reminded me a bit of the later episodes of MacGyver, in which he stopped chasing spies and terrorists and South American dictators and started working on after school programs and helping aging boxers and things like that. I think one episode, his only gadget was a cold compress, when the boxer took a hit to the face. Sheesh. In this movie, Zorro's graduated to making public appearances at election sites and saving the ballot box. More exciting than that MacGyver episode, but not very swashbuckling.
Now, our movie takes place as California is voting to join the United States. Specifically, it's 1850, and we know that because at the end of the movie, an act of statehood is passed and signed and dated. So, when early on, we are introduced to P. G. T. Beauregard (yes, General Beauregard), we've got to marvel at his prescience as he says that he's afraid the Confederacy will secede if California joins the union as a "free state." Let's parse that sentence. So before secession, there was a Confederacy? Within the United States? People, the Confederacy didn't exist until after multiple states had seceded. Oh, and this is a full decade beforehand.
Then there is the scene in which Confederate soldiers in gray uniforms are working for the bad guys (of course) and fighting Zorro. Again, this is a decade before they existed!
And finally, let me mention that I had forgotten that part of my Confederate States history in which General P. G. T. Beauregard was killed by a massive nitroglycerin explosion in 1850, as he was about to transport it by the Transcontinental Railroad (completed 19 years later) to aid the Confederate States in destroying Washington, in order to advance the intrests of a secret society bent on ruling the world. That must have been his ghost leading us to victory at First Manassas eleven years later.
I'll end my sarcasm here. I really enjoyed the earlier Mask of Zorro, with the same principal actors. Legend didn't live up to it. Aside from the explicit Confederate bashing, there was also the bad guy with a Southern accent and a cross branded on his cheek who was always spouting off ethnic insults and saying he was doing the "Lord's work" by attacking Mexicans. Hey--they put my preacher in the movie! OK, I'll really end the sarcasm this time.
And aside from my people all made out to be bad guys, it wasn't as exciting a movie as the first. It reminded me a bit of the later episodes of MacGyver, in which he stopped chasing spies and terrorists and South American dictators and started working on after school programs and helping aging boxers and things like that. I think one episode, his only gadget was a cold compress, when the boxer took a hit to the face. Sheesh. In this movie, Zorro's graduated to making public appearances at election sites and saving the ballot box. More exciting than that MacGyver episode, but not very swashbuckling.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
More on Bond
Here's a story on the same subject as my previous post, this one by Simon Winder, the author of The Man Who Saved Britain: A Personal Journey Through The Disturbing World Of James Bond. The Dynamist Blog story I linked to below is taken mostly from his book. I apologize that I've only gotten Scotland's "Sunday Herald" story by the Google cache. They've moved their links, and I haven't bothered to hunt around for the thing.
The original world of Casino Royale
Via Instapundit, here's an eye-opening explanation of the context of Ian Fleming's book, Casino Royale. Now, I've read a few of Fleming's books, and I think I've seen all of the James Bond movies, but I hadn't realized the great differences in the cultural landscape from then 'til today. Sure, the early-mid '60s, in which many of the Sean Connery movies were made, had a lot more class and formality than today, but I always figured that I knew enough about the culture then to understand what I was watching.
But Casino Royale was written in 1952 (if I've read correctly), long before any of the movie adaptations had made it to the big screen. (Actually, Casino Royale was featured as a TV movie on the show "Climax!" in 1954; supposedly a good adaptation. We'll slip past the awful 1967 movie spoof version without comment, which is the only movie my dad has ever walked out of.) So the original settings were much earlier than even the movies.
Great Britain of the early 1950s was a much different place than it was in the high-Cold-War 1960s. They were living in the aftermath of the War, and wartime privations were not entirely gone. The Dynamist blog describes currency and travel restrictions from England to France that were still in place then, making a French casino a quite exotic and unreachable place to the British readers.
Frustratingly, it doesn't explain exactly what those restrictions were, although it says that some remnants of them continued even through the 1970s! I've got to find out what these entailed--legal anachronisms fascinate me.
Incidentally, even the mention of an avacado in the book was exotic back then. Not that people didn't know what they were, but after the war, they simply weren't available. In a different way, it reminds me of an ear-opening experience I had listening to the comedy channel on XM Radio last week. They were playing a clip from "You Bet Your Life," with Groucho Marx. It was the part of the show in which he introduced each of the contestants and asked them about themselves. One lady was of Mexican background, married to a husband of Irish ancestry. She described all the kinds of Mexican foods she liked to fix for him--tacos, enchiladas, etc. "What's his favorite?," Marx asked. "Steak and potatoes." She said this without laughing.
But the interesting thing was that after she mentioned tacos, enchiladas, and the rest, Marx asked her, "Could you tell me, what is a taco?" And she went on to describe the concept. Now, whether Marx already knew and was just setting up the next joke is beside the point--what's amazing is that the audience wasn't expected to know what a taco was! Could you imagine that today?
I remember in the early 1980s, my family occasionally fixing tacos or taco salad at home. No hispanics in our part of the state back then, either. So it had certainly become part of the general culture 20-25 years after this show was on.
But Casino Royale was written in 1952 (if I've read correctly), long before any of the movie adaptations had made it to the big screen. (Actually, Casino Royale was featured as a TV movie on the show "Climax!" in 1954; supposedly a good adaptation. We'll slip past the awful 1967 movie spoof version without comment, which is the only movie my dad has ever walked out of.) So the original settings were much earlier than even the movies.
Great Britain of the early 1950s was a much different place than it was in the high-Cold-War 1960s. They were living in the aftermath of the War, and wartime privations were not entirely gone. The Dynamist blog describes currency and travel restrictions from England to France that were still in place then, making a French casino a quite exotic and unreachable place to the British readers.
Frustratingly, it doesn't explain exactly what those restrictions were, although it says that some remnants of them continued even through the 1970s! I've got to find out what these entailed--legal anachronisms fascinate me.
Incidentally, even the mention of an avacado in the book was exotic back then. Not that people didn't know what they were, but after the war, they simply weren't available. In a different way, it reminds me of an ear-opening experience I had listening to the comedy channel on XM Radio last week. They were playing a clip from "You Bet Your Life," with Groucho Marx. It was the part of the show in which he introduced each of the contestants and asked them about themselves. One lady was of Mexican background, married to a husband of Irish ancestry. She described all the kinds of Mexican foods she liked to fix for him--tacos, enchiladas, etc. "What's his favorite?," Marx asked. "Steak and potatoes." She said this without laughing.
But the interesting thing was that after she mentioned tacos, enchiladas, and the rest, Marx asked her, "Could you tell me, what is a taco?" And she went on to describe the concept. Now, whether Marx already knew and was just setting up the next joke is beside the point--what's amazing is that the audience wasn't expected to know what a taco was! Could you imagine that today?
I remember in the early 1980s, my family occasionally fixing tacos or taco salad at home. No hispanics in our part of the state back then, either. So it had certainly become part of the general culture 20-25 years after this show was on.
Another assassination in Lebanon
A Lebanese Christian leader was assassinated in Lebanon this week, probably by the Syrians, again. At least, everybody figures it's the Syrians. As far as "why?", there is interesting discussion at Sandmonkey's blog. Scroll down to the input by reader "Vox" on the Lebanese parliamentary rules. I don't follow the whole thing (the alliances in the government seem contradictory to me, but that could be just me, or it could be the complexity of Lebanese politics), but the gist seems to be that if 1/3 of the ministers leave the government, whether by resigning or dying, the government falls. According to this reader, if the Syrians get only one more minister killed, the government will be dismissed.
Farther down the discussion, reader "tommy" suggests that if that happens, with Syria managing a coup to bring themselves back in to run Lebanon, then Israel should wait patiently as the Syrian army crosses into Lebanon...and then launch an all-out offensive against Syria proper. Boy, wouldn't I love to see that happen!
Farther down the discussion, reader "tommy" suggests that if that happens, with Syria managing a coup to bring themselves back in to run Lebanon, then Israel should wait patiently as the Syrian army crosses into Lebanon...and then launch an all-out offensive against Syria proper. Boy, wouldn't I love to see that happen!
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Home fusion generator
Check out this story about a high school senior who has become only the 18th amateur ever to create nuclear fusion. (link via Drudge) Impressive stuff. I liked the quote from his mother:
I like her ability to set limits with her son. A hyperbolic chamber? Not on your life! Nuclear fusion? Well, OK.
I'm only kidding--I agree that with the good supervision he was getting, this can be done safely. It's not nuclear fission, mind you! I think it's hilarious that the normal activity of kids' begging their parents to let them do things (stay up late, buy a video game, go to a friend's party) in this family gets turned around into high-energy physics projects.
Incidentally, my wife and I had a similar discussion, and the upshot is that she won't let me operate a particle accelerator in the basement. :( (Yes, seriously.)
Anyway, I was confused by the reference to a "hyperbolic chamber." I'm a physicist, and I did some research in particle physics before getting into astrophysics, but I didn't know of this equipment. What's so risky about a hyperbola-shaped chamber? So I googled it. What do I come up with? This article from America's Finest News Source, The Onion.
(Note the double meaning of hyperbolic, here.)
Huh. Was the kid pulling one over on his mom, to let him do something he really wanted to to begin with? Does she know this thing is a joke?
Is this whole story a joke? Well, it's in the Detroit Free Press, not the Onion, and they've got a picture of the kid, so they're not just taking some wire story. Weird. Anyway, best of luck to Thiago Olson and his fusion chamber!
UPDATE: A couple of friends and my wife have all suggested the "hyperbolic chamber" mentioned in the story was probably actually a "hyperbaric chamber"--a high-pressure chamber. That makes sense, then. And the reporter's spell-checker might have "corrected" the word.
Still, I think it would have been pretty funny if the guy had pleaded with his mom for a hyperbolic chamber as a way to get her to relent on the nuclear fusion!
Thiago's mom, Natalice Olson, initially was leery of the project [...] "Originally, he wanted to build a hyperbolic chamber," she said, adding that she promptly said no. But, when he came asking about the nuclear fusion machine, she relented.
I like her ability to set limits with her son. A hyperbolic chamber? Not on your life! Nuclear fusion? Well, OK.
I'm only kidding--I agree that with the good supervision he was getting, this can be done safely. It's not nuclear fission, mind you! I think it's hilarious that the normal activity of kids' begging their parents to let them do things (stay up late, buy a video game, go to a friend's party) in this family gets turned around into high-energy physics projects.
Incidentally, my wife and I had a similar discussion, and the upshot is that she won't let me operate a particle accelerator in the basement. :( (Yes, seriously.)
Anyway, I was confused by the reference to a "hyperbolic chamber." I'm a physicist, and I did some research in particle physics before getting into astrophysics, but I didn't know of this equipment. What's so risky about a hyperbola-shaped chamber? So I googled it. What do I come up with? This article from America's Finest News Source, The Onion.
OAK RIDGE, TN—After six grueling years of Herculean research, scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory pronounced EHC-1 Alpha, the new hyperbolic chamber, "an unquestionably, undeniably, fantastically revolutionary milestone in the history of science, mankind, and the universe, all of which it will undoubtedly change forever."
(Note the double meaning of hyperbolic, here.)
Huh. Was the kid pulling one over on his mom, to let him do something he really wanted to to begin with? Does she know this thing is a joke?
Is this whole story a joke? Well, it's in the Detroit Free Press, not the Onion, and they've got a picture of the kid, so they're not just taking some wire story. Weird. Anyway, best of luck to Thiago Olson and his fusion chamber!
UPDATE: A couple of friends and my wife have all suggested the "hyperbolic chamber" mentioned in the story was probably actually a "hyperbaric chamber"--a high-pressure chamber. That makes sense, then. And the reporter's spell-checker might have "corrected" the word.
Still, I think it would have been pretty funny if the guy had pleaded with his mom for a hyperbolic chamber as a way to get her to relent on the nuclear fusion!
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
The Jihad of the Eyes
I've forgotten where I found the link to this Moslem discussion board, but I poked around it a little and found an interesting thread: The Jihad of the Eyes during hot Summer months. ("Jihad" there is used in the general sense of "struggle," rather than in the more specific sense of "struggle to kill the infidels.")
The gist of this discussion is on the trials of being Moslem in a non-Moslem country, in which other people go around wearing less clothing, especially during the summer. Mohammed had apparently told them to keep their eyes lowered if they saw a woman showing too much, so they wouldn't be tempted. Well, in general, that's not outrageous advice, although the boundaries of how much is too much is something we're going to disagree upon.
The funny thing is the story by whom I gather is a young lady, "Ebony" (I'm figuring a she, based on her self-description as "Anti Mushy Sis"), who shares this personal anecdote:
First of all, I don't get her averting her gaze from members of her own sex. Without meaning to imply anything here, surely she doesn't regard this as a problem of temptation. (I reckon maybe it's still a shock to her--I certainly wouldn't want to go for a walk and have to weave through crowds of fully-naked men, but she's talking about people with (some) clothing on.)
This sounds like a parody at first. But she goes on to provide a helpful list of advice to keep yourself from temptation:
This sounds almost like a parody, but she seems sincere.
The gist of this discussion is on the trials of being Moslem in a non-Moslem country, in which other people go around wearing less clothing, especially during the summer. Mohammed had apparently told them to keep their eyes lowered if they saw a woman showing too much, so they wouldn't be tempted. Well, in general, that's not outrageous advice, although the boundaries of how much is too much is something we're going to disagree upon.
The funny thing is the story by whom I gather is a young lady, "Ebony" (I'm figuring a she, based on her self-description as "Anti Mushy Sis"), who shares this personal anecdote:
27-05-05, 07:34 PM
Watch out for the Arrow!
Oh, what a beautiful day: Twenty-two degrees Celsius; a clear sky; the sun passionately declaring its warmth to the land below. I put on my cap and decide to go out for a walk. Moments later, I come across two scantily dressed girls, enjoying the wonderful weather. Nervously, I look down towards the cement sidewalk and walk past them. I look up, only to encounter a couple, roller blading towards me in the most fashionable, spandex exercise gear.
I fidget with my cap using it to shield myself from obscenity and continue walking. With my head down and cap covering my view, it was bound to happen some time: I walk into a lamppost and hit my head! As I lay on the sidewalk recovering from the accident, I hear a male voice asking me, Are you alright? As I open my eyes to figure out what is going on, I see a bare-chested man, jogging in position, offering his hand to help me get up. Subhan-Allah, what a day! I get up, run home, go to my room, and close my door. How am I expected to survive in such a filthy environment? Am I supposed to isolate myself from the society to escape such temptations?
No. Obviously, with every trial and difficulty Allah always provides us practical defensive tools. Keep in mind, though, that the command to control our eyes is not just a fatwa of some conservative scholar From the East. It is explicitly expressed in the words of Allah and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
First of all, I don't get her averting her gaze from members of her own sex. Without meaning to imply anything here, surely she doesn't regard this as a problem of temptation. (I reckon maybe it's still a shock to her--I certainly wouldn't want to go for a walk and have to weave through crowds of fully-naked men, but she's talking about people with (some) clothing on.)
This sounds like a parody at first. But she goes on to provide a helpful list of advice to keep yourself from temptation:
[...]
3. Always walk with your gaze lowered. But make sure not to bump into a hydro post! Lowering the gaze does not mean that you cannot have any eye contact as you walk or during a conversation. It means that you keep your eyes under control.
4. Take the Right Seat! In a public place (e.g. café), choose a seat that minimizes your view-frame and avoid mixed-crowds. It is precisely about such comfortable gazing at the attractive features of the passers-by that the Prophet (pbuh) advised 'Ali ibn Abi Talib: "Ali, do not let a second look follow the first. The first look is allowed to you but not the second.''(Ahmad, Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi.)
[Is she really saying to face the wall when you're in a public place?!! Come on!]
[There follow a few reasonable suggestions about keeping friends of good character, and so on. Nothing wrong there.]
7. Avoid visiting malls and parks alone. Always try to go out with a family member or a good friend, whose company may help you avert your eyes from the objectionable billboards and inappropriately clothed people. In summer, step out only when you have to.
[Lock yourself indoors throughout the summer, unless you've really got a good reason to leave your house? Yikes!]
8. Surf or Watch TV when others are around. The temptation to sneak a look at dirty pictures is heightened when you're alone in your room watching TV or surfing the internet. Shaytan's primary target is always a lonely person! Try to avoid late night TV and internet surfing.
[OK, late night TV can be pretty raunchy in Europe--when I was in Holland recently, I joked that I found the BBC and CNN refreshingly nudity-free at 11:00 PM. Is England that bad? I assume she lives in England. But don't watch TV alone at any time of the day?!]
14. If you are able and responsible then get married for the sake of Allah. It may be one of the most effective, yet challenging, defense mechanisms against such temptations.
[I actually agree that being married is the responsible thing to do in life, but this comes across as advice to do it not for love, but to keep yourself from being tempted. ...hmmm, you can write your own joke here...]
This sounds almost like a parody, but she seems sincere.
And another thing...
Speaking of nursey rhymes, will she force these parents to sing the politically-correct versions? I've read reports lately of some school in England changing "Baa, Baa, Black Sheep" to "Baa, Baa, Rainbow Sheep," to avoid the racial overtones!
Maybe it really is April Fool's Day, and I forgot to flip my calendar...
Maybe it really is April Fool's Day, and I forgot to flip my calendar...
Who is Beverley Hughes?
Heh, heh...I don't usually laugh at Nazi references, but this is pretty funny. After posting that last item, on Britain's "Children's Minister," Beverley Hughes, proposing to establish government control over how parents teach their kids nursery rhymes and brush their teeth, I searched the web in a little panic to find out if this was a spoof. An old April 1st article that Stuttaford stumbled across out of season?
Nope. I found Iain Dale commenting on the same story from a different newspaper. So who is this Beverley Hughes, and what else has she committed? I Googled her and found a Wikipedia entry. Here's where the fun begins.
Here is the link to "Beverley Hughes" in Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverley_Hughes
And here is the page to which you are directed:
Somebody's done a prompt job with this hack. Not that I...um...approve of calling it a Nazi-like proposal, mind you...just utterly totalitarian...oh, what's the difference?
Nope. I found Iain Dale commenting on the same story from a different newspaper. So who is this Beverley Hughes, and what else has she committed? I Googled her and found a Wikipedia entry. Here's where the fun begins.
Here is the link to "Beverley Hughes" in Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverley_Hughes
And here is the page to which you are directed:
Lebensborn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Beverley Hughes)
Lebensborn (Source of Life, in German) was a child welfare and relocation program initiated by Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler to aid the racial heredity of the Third Reich. The program was implemented in Germany and some parts of occupied Europe. After World War II it was widely reported that the objective of the program was to establish housings where the Nazi regime would breed, through copulation, racially pure humans to create a strong race of Aryans.
...
The purpose of the program was to provide incentives to encourage Germans, especially SS members, to have more children.
On September 13, 1936, Himmler wrote the following to members of SS:
The organization "Lebensborn e.V." serves the SS leaders in the selection and adoption of qualified children. The organization "Lebensborn e.V." is under my personal direction, is part of the race and settlement central bureau of the SS, and has the following obligations:
(1) aid for racially and biologically-hereditarily valuable families
(2) the accommodation of racially and biologically-hereditarily valuable mothers in appropriate homes, etc.
(3) care of the children of such families
(4) care of the mothers
It is the honorable duty of all leaders of the central bureau to become members of the organization "Lebensborn e.V.".
Somebody's done a prompt job with this hack. Not that I...um...approve of calling it a Nazi-like proposal, mind you...just utterly totalitarian...oh, what's the difference?
This is in England?!
England. The country from whom we won our independence, over the issue of an intrusive and overbearing government. You know, I had been happily surprised a few years ago when I first visited Independence Hall, to hear that our colonial forefathers had actually been used to governing themselves pretty much. And when King George III started taking away their freedom, they demanded their rights as Englishmen. England was considered a pretty free country for its time, back then, and they were fed up with being made second-class citizens.
It makes all of those discussions of Constitutional rights that reach back to the Magna Carta and the Act of 1689 (or whatever--I can't remember the latter too well) make more sense. We weren't spawned by France or Spain, for instance.
And now, out of that same country...there's this:
Want to know where she's going with this? She's Britain's "Children's Minister," and here's some detail on the plan:
This sends chills down my spine. It is absolutely totalitarian in its outlook and approach. I'm sure that Britain remains, on balance, a free and open country. But this is the kind of government control over people's private lives that no free people should tolerate. There should be no debate over the effectiveness of this kind of program, but only an indignant rejection of the intrusion of government into children's upbringing.
I found this from Andrew Stuttaford's post on The Corner. I couldn't tell from his post whether this was a spoof or real. Even reading the whole article in This Is London, I wasn't sure it was real, but none of the commenters were laughing. Has Blair's government gone nuts?
It makes all of those discussions of Constitutional rights that reach back to the Magna Carta and the Act of 1689 (or whatever--I can't remember the latter too well) make more sense. We weren't spawned by France or Spain, for instance.
And now, out of that same country...there's this:
Mrs Hughes condemned the way governments before 1997 thought they had no role in the upbringing of children, which it 'regarded as the entirely private arrangements families make.'
Want to know where she's going with this? She's Britain's "Children's Minister," and here's some detail on the plan:
Parents could be forced to go to special classes to learn to sing their children nursery rhymes, a minister said.
Those who fail to read stories or sing to their youngsters threaten their children's future and the state must put them right, Children's Minister Beverley Hughes said.
[...]
The call for state intervention in the minute details of family life followed a series of Labour efforts to reduce anti-social behaviour and improve educational standards by imposing rigorous controls on the lives of the youngest children.
Mrs Hughes has established a national curriculum to set down how babies are taught to speak in childcare from the age of three months.
Her efforts have gone alongside a push by other ministers to determine exactly how parents treat their children down to how they should brush their teeth.
Tony Blair has backed the idea of 'fasbos' - efforts to identify and correct the lives of children who are likely to fail even before they are born - and new laws to compel parents to attend parenting classes are on the way.
This autumn is likely to see an extension of parenting orders that can force parents to attend parenting classes so that they can be used on the say so of local councils against parents.
For the first time, parenting orders are likely to be directed against parents whose children have committed no criminal offence.
This sends chills down my spine. It is absolutely totalitarian in its outlook and approach. I'm sure that Britain remains, on balance, a free and open country. But this is the kind of government control over people's private lives that no free people should tolerate. There should be no debate over the effectiveness of this kind of program, but only an indignant rejection of the intrusion of government into children's upbringing.
I found this from Andrew Stuttaford's post on The Corner. I couldn't tell from his post whether this was a spoof or real. Even reading the whole article in This Is London, I wasn't sure it was real, but none of the commenters were laughing. Has Blair's government gone nuts?
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Was Clementine Wrong?
Via Instapundit, here's a disappointing report in Popular Mechanics that the Clementine lunar orbiter's discovery of large amounts of water ice near the lunar south pole might not be so. A lot of the signal Clementine was picking up seems to be associated also with a particular type of ejecta from young impact craters, not only with water. Cornell's Donald Bruce Campbell, using Puerto Rico's Arecibo radio observatory, found the same signal on the sunny, temperate latitudes of the moon, where no water could exist.
However, he says that it doesn't mean there's no water at the lunar poles. Clementine also picked up excess hydrogen in the polar regions, which could still be consistent with (smaller) amounts of ice mixed into the soil.
However, he says that it doesn't mean there's no water at the lunar poles. Clementine also picked up excess hydrogen in the polar regions, which could still be consistent with (smaller) amounts of ice mixed into the soil.
The Weekly Standard on US Space Supremacy
Over at the Weekly Standard, Michael Goldfarb writes about the US government's goal of space supremacy. That came out in a press release a few days ago, and I'm sure that the Europeans are shocked and appalled at the idea. I heard the news over the BBC World Service, which didn't scold us in the segment I heard, but the idea of "supremacy" was emphasized by the news reader.
I haven't read Goldfarb yet, but it ought to be interesting. I'll comment on it once I do.
I haven't read Goldfarb yet, but it ought to be interesting. I'll comment on it once I do.
Kerry's Komments
There's always a delight in seeing your opponents squirm, especially from making a dumb comment. But it does seem reasonable to me that Kerry was trying to make another "Bush is stupid" joke, rather than a "soldiers are stupid" one. And the release of this intended text ought to put an end to it: "You know where you end up if you don't study, if you're not smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
Derbyshire and Nordlinger at National Review already thought this was a reasonable interpretation before the text was released, and I agreed with them. I've said enough things in my life that came out really, really wrong, that I am willing to give someone some benefit of the doubt in a situation like this.
Yes, it was also a reasonable interpretation that he meant just what he said, a crack about the supposed lack of smarts in soldiers. A lot on the Left probably hold that opinion, even if they're not saying it. But I'm not going to assume malice in Kerry, just because he's on the other side of the aisle, especially if I'd give a charitable interpretation to someone else.
The shocking thing is that while some conservatives honestly believe Kerry meant it as a slam against soldiers, there have been a few who don't care if it's true or not. In Derbyshire's e-mail, one correspondent quoted his comment that "Something is owed to honesty" and replied, "No, it isn't." Yikes! Now that's dishonorable and condemnable, and I hope there aren't many like that out there. When Derb calls this guy and those like him "liars for Bush," a whole bunch of others assume he meant anybody who disagrees on what Kerry meant is a "liar."
Geez, people! If you can't interpret Derb's easily-understood sentence properly, how can you expect to figure out what Kerry meant?!
I'm getting annoyed at all of the high campaign season dishonesty and rushing to misunderstand anyone who disagrees with you.
UPDATE: Incidentally, Kerry's intended "Bush is dumb" joke is over the line and is a typical left-wing conceit. I think it's ugly to call your opponent (former opponent in this case) "not smart," right out like that. The Left likes to think of themselves as the intellectuals and of conservatives as stupid, and it's an obnoxious bit of arrogance. What's funny in this case is that (as many have pointed out) Bush was a better student at Yale than Kerry was. So who's the butt of Kerry's joke? Himself?
Derbyshire and Nordlinger at National Review already thought this was a reasonable interpretation before the text was released, and I agreed with them. I've said enough things in my life that came out really, really wrong, that I am willing to give someone some benefit of the doubt in a situation like this.
Yes, it was also a reasonable interpretation that he meant just what he said, a crack about the supposed lack of smarts in soldiers. A lot on the Left probably hold that opinion, even if they're not saying it. But I'm not going to assume malice in Kerry, just because he's on the other side of the aisle, especially if I'd give a charitable interpretation to someone else.
The shocking thing is that while some conservatives honestly believe Kerry meant it as a slam against soldiers, there have been a few who don't care if it's true or not. In Derbyshire's e-mail, one correspondent quoted his comment that "Something is owed to honesty" and replied, "No, it isn't." Yikes! Now that's dishonorable and condemnable, and I hope there aren't many like that out there. When Derb calls this guy and those like him "liars for Bush," a whole bunch of others assume he meant anybody who disagrees on what Kerry meant is a "liar."
Geez, people! If you can't interpret Derb's easily-understood sentence properly, how can you expect to figure out what Kerry meant?!
I'm getting annoyed at all of the high campaign season dishonesty and rushing to misunderstand anyone who disagrees with you.
UPDATE: Incidentally, Kerry's intended "Bush is dumb" joke is over the line and is a typical left-wing conceit. I think it's ugly to call your opponent (former opponent in this case) "not smart," right out like that. The Left likes to think of themselves as the intellectuals and of conservatives as stupid, and it's an obnoxious bit of arrogance. What's funny in this case is that (as many have pointed out) Bush was a better student at Yale than Kerry was. So who's the butt of Kerry's joke? Himself?
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Shuttle to repair Hubble Space Telescope
This past January, at the winter meeting of the American Astronomical Society in D.C., I attended the big address by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. He told us that if the then-upcoming shuttle flights showed that they could fly safely, then the shuttle would go and repair the Hubble Space Telescope. I'd been watching this year's flights closely, and all of the reports seemed to be good enough.
So, true to his word, Griffin has announced that the next Hubble repair mission will fly in May, 2008, probably using the Discovery. The crew has been announced. It includes John Grunsfeld, whom I've met a few times, and Scott Altman, whom I've met once. Plus a bunch of other guys I don't know...
This will come as a great relief to some friends of mine, one of whom's (yikes--is that really correct grammar?!) job depends on the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph getting installed on the Hubble. Looks like that's a "go," now.
Whew!
So, true to his word, Griffin has announced that the next Hubble repair mission will fly in May, 2008, probably using the Discovery. The crew has been announced. It includes John Grunsfeld, whom I've met a few times, and Scott Altman, whom I've met once. Plus a bunch of other guys I don't know...
This will come as a great relief to some friends of mine, one of whom's (yikes--is that really correct grammar?!) job depends on the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph getting installed on the Hubble. Looks like that's a "go," now.
Whew!
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Debate over the Moslem "nikab"
National Review Online has a symposium up on an Islamic women's headcovering called the "nikab," which exposes only a slit for her eyes. The question of the day there is, "should it be banned?"
My own views accord most closely with those of Bill Bennett and, to a lesser extent, with Andrew McCarthy. To be honest, I'm shocked at many of the other opinions expressed in the symposium, at a conservative magazine. I'll say right off that I think there are specific situations in which a nikab might fairly be required to be removed--taking or checking a photo I.D., especially, because one has to be identified by the face. And a private group or institution is free to make its own restrictions within its property--I'm only discussing government action, here. But aside from those specific situations, the idea that any government--state, local, or federal--should involve itself in banning an expression of religion in clothing is horrible. The reasons given in support are not only unconvincing to me; they often strike at the heart of conservative and American ideals.
Some of the writers argue that the veil is not required by the Koran, and therefore it's not an element of religion and cannot be protected by the First Amendment. But that means the government gets into the job of interpreting someone's religion for her. No longer would her religion be a matter of private conscience; the government would tell her what she was to believe about it. Can the veil ever be "freely" worn, or is it always and inherently coerced by the Islamic patriarchy? Some of the writers say or imply the latter. Good grief! For all of my criticisms of Islam, I can't believe that all Moslem women live in persistent fear of their men and only go along with this because they're afraid of getting a beating. Do the writers really think they know the minds of all of the women who wear this clothing? Too much generalization, without much knowledge. And at least one post sounds like the kind of far-left feminism that claims women in our own society can't freely make a choice to, say stay home and rear children--they only do so if they're forced to or brainwashed by the Patriarchy.
One links the nikab to implicit support for terrorists. Maybe in some, but do you really think all wearers have this in mind? Who told you this? Or is it simply a wild guess made without evidence? Useless generalizations, again.
Some others seem to want to ban it (do they really mean by law?!) as a preemptive move to assimilate and make the culture more harmonious. I agree that it does create a separation from the rest of society, but that wouldn't make an argument for passing laws on it. "...one cannot have face-less persons walking the streets, driving cars, or otherwise entering public spaces." Actually, yes, we can. Not that I like them doing so, but we certainly can. As for discouraging separation, let's not let this talk get too far. After all, the Amish, for instance, separate themselves from the larger society, and by doing so, they keep themselves much more godly than the rest of society. I would not push them to remove that separation. Now, there's a clear difference between the pacifist, mind-their-own-business Amish, and some of the strains of Islam making the headlines these days. What I mean is not to push aside "separation" for its own sake.
Lastly, I'd like to ask the advocates of a "ban" if they really mean it in law. The federal government is Constitutionally prohibited from making such a blanket ban. Forget the First Amendment; Article I, Sec. 8 and the Tenth simply don't extend this power to Congress in the first place. What about the States? I'm suspicious about the incorporation doctrine, but although the States are not, unlike the federal government, of inherently limited powers, they all have explicit protection of religion. And as I wrote above, the government should not (can not?) be in the business of interpreting a man's religious beliefs for him.
My own views accord most closely with those of Bill Bennett and, to a lesser extent, with Andrew McCarthy. To be honest, I'm shocked at many of the other opinions expressed in the symposium, at a conservative magazine. I'll say right off that I think there are specific situations in which a nikab might fairly be required to be removed--taking or checking a photo I.D., especially, because one has to be identified by the face. And a private group or institution is free to make its own restrictions within its property--I'm only discussing government action, here. But aside from those specific situations, the idea that any government--state, local, or federal--should involve itself in banning an expression of religion in clothing is horrible. The reasons given in support are not only unconvincing to me; they often strike at the heart of conservative and American ideals.
Some of the writers argue that the veil is not required by the Koran, and therefore it's not an element of religion and cannot be protected by the First Amendment. But that means the government gets into the job of interpreting someone's religion for her. No longer would her religion be a matter of private conscience; the government would tell her what she was to believe about it. Can the veil ever be "freely" worn, or is it always and inherently coerced by the Islamic patriarchy? Some of the writers say or imply the latter. Good grief! For all of my criticisms of Islam, I can't believe that all Moslem women live in persistent fear of their men and only go along with this because they're afraid of getting a beating. Do the writers really think they know the minds of all of the women who wear this clothing? Too much generalization, without much knowledge. And at least one post sounds like the kind of far-left feminism that claims women in our own society can't freely make a choice to, say stay home and rear children--they only do so if they're forced to or brainwashed by the Patriarchy.
One links the nikab to implicit support for terrorists. Maybe in some, but do you really think all wearers have this in mind? Who told you this? Or is it simply a wild guess made without evidence? Useless generalizations, again.
Some others seem to want to ban it (do they really mean by law?!) as a preemptive move to assimilate and make the culture more harmonious. I agree that it does create a separation from the rest of society, but that wouldn't make an argument for passing laws on it. "...one cannot have face-less persons walking the streets, driving cars, or otherwise entering public spaces." Actually, yes, we can. Not that I like them doing so, but we certainly can. As for discouraging separation, let's not let this talk get too far. After all, the Amish, for instance, separate themselves from the larger society, and by doing so, they keep themselves much more godly than the rest of society. I would not push them to remove that separation. Now, there's a clear difference between the pacifist, mind-their-own-business Amish, and some of the strains of Islam making the headlines these days. What I mean is not to push aside "separation" for its own sake.
Lastly, I'd like to ask the advocates of a "ban" if they really mean it in law. The federal government is Constitutionally prohibited from making such a blanket ban. Forget the First Amendment; Article I, Sec. 8 and the Tenth simply don't extend this power to Congress in the first place. What about the States? I'm suspicious about the incorporation doctrine, but although the States are not, unlike the federal government, of inherently limited powers, they all have explicit protection of religion. And as I wrote above, the government should not (can not?) be in the business of interpreting a man's religious beliefs for him.
Calling for an English Constitutional Convention
Meanwhile, over in England,Iain Dale is calling for a Constitutional Convention, and he's not alone. The list of signatories includes some lords and members of Parliament, as well as journalists. I recognize Roger Scruton's name on there.
I suspect this idea goes hand-in-hand with Dale's criticisms of the "reform" of the House of Lords a few years back (1997, was it?) from a mostly-hereditary, impotent body, into an impotent body appointed by the majority party. Dale has argued recently that they ought to make it more like the American Senate, which is actually elected.
Their argument in this letter, though, focusses on the devolution of government to Wales and Scotland in recent years, which has left England out of the picture. As I understand it (and I haven't been paying careful attention), Scotland and Wales get their own national parliaments, as well as representation within the overall parliament of Great Britain. So the English don't get quite as much self-sovereignty.
Now, as a proud descendant of Scotland, and as a Southerner who likes popular sovereignty and weak central governments, I'm happy to see Scotland get its parliament back, and I hope it'll lead to independence some day. But I agree that England ought to have more self-sovereignty, too--it seems only fair. England's current situation seems like having New York's state legislature getting a say in the Tennessee General Assembly. Hmmm...that's not a really accurate comparison, because England had historically been the nation ruling over Scotland and Wales (is that still true?), while Tennessee and New York must Constitutionally be treated equally.
But whatever the comparisons to be made, this proposal sounds like a good move. I'm impressed, too, at the seriousness of it:
Wow--they're actually organized!
I suspect this idea goes hand-in-hand with Dale's criticisms of the "reform" of the House of Lords a few years back (1997, was it?) from a mostly-hereditary, impotent body, into an impotent body appointed by the majority party. Dale has argued recently that they ought to make it more like the American Senate, which is actually elected.
Their argument in this letter, though, focusses on the devolution of government to Wales and Scotland in recent years, which has left England out of the picture. As I understand it (and I haven't been paying careful attention), Scotland and Wales get their own national parliaments, as well as representation within the overall parliament of Great Britain. So the English don't get quite as much self-sovereignty.
Now, as a proud descendant of Scotland, and as a Southerner who likes popular sovereignty and weak central governments, I'm happy to see Scotland get its parliament back, and I hope it'll lead to independence some day. But I agree that England ought to have more self-sovereignty, too--it seems only fair. England's current situation seems like having New York's state legislature getting a say in the Tennessee General Assembly. Hmmm...that's not a really accurate comparison, because England had historically been the nation ruling over Scotland and Wales (is that still true?), while Tennessee and New York must Constitutionally be treated equally.
But whatever the comparisons to be made, this proposal sounds like a good move. I'm impressed, too, at the seriousness of it:
"At a meeting in the House of Commons today, the English Constitutional Convention will be formally established..."
Wow--they're actually organized!
European misperceptions of America
Over at Asymmetrical Information, "Jane Galt" goes to England and notes some British misperceptions of America. This unleashes a hilarious rain of anecdotes from the commenters. Her readers strike me as an impressively polite and well-spoken (written?) lot, especially when you think of the kinds of "flame wars" that erupt on some blogs. After reading a lot of these personal stories, this one, from "Mark in Texas," got me laughing hard:
I have usually found that Europeans have a very accurate picture of life in the United States that they have gotten from TV and movies. We are all very attractive young people with lots of money from our jobs as lawyers, cops, movie stars and computer geniuses. We all drive expensive cars very fast and frequently get into gun fights, sometimes with ninja assassins. [...]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
