Obsidian Wings

I don't play "what ifs?" (Except, I do)

Syria states that it is withdrawing its troops from Lebanon.  Whether Syria is making a complete withdrawal from Lebanon (as the Syrian government implies) or a partial withdrawal (as I suspect) really doesn't matter; this is big news.  I can't help but think that hope is coming, at long last, to the Levant.

Would it have happened if Saddam was still in power?  I frankly don't know. 

(I tend to think not.)

Poetry: Guess What?

As of yesterday, I have a new nephew! So even though this is not normally one of my favorite poems, I have to post it, especially since as of now, my new nephew doesn't have a name either.

Infant Joy

"I have no name:
I am but two days old."
What shall I call thee?
"I happy am,
Joy is my name."
Sweet joy befall thee!
Pretty joy!
Sweet joy but two days old,
Sweet joy I call thee:
Thou dost smile,
I sing the while,
Sweet joy befall thee!

-- William Blake

Liberals Have No WMD and Were Not Involved in 9/11

A while ago, in a post by Von about perceived "attacks" on Christians' rights to celebrate Christmas in the public sphere, longtime reader Roxanne asked

Can anyone point to the source of this new persecution complex? Are there entities feeding it? How do they benefit from feeding it?

Along with other folks on that thread, I tried to answer the question from what I've observed:

I've speculated on this in the past and think, from experiencing it in my family, it stems from one source, for three reasons. The source is the fundamentalist Christian leadership---from the national figures down to your local ministers.

The first reason is actually close to what they claim (there's a grain of truth in most closely held convictions): political correctness has altered the landscape, and they (white, Christian, middle-to-upper class) are no longer the unquestioned top of the food chain in the US(they're still the top, but they're now openly questioned). The second reason is this helps them (the leaders) rally their congregations, puts them in a fighting mood.

The third reason pertains particularly to fundamentalists, whose arguments crumble when confronted with the logic they're more frequently encountering now that they're being openly questioned (e.g., why is gay sex an abomination when eating shell fish is apparently not any longer), and so they retreat into this "victim" pose as a defense.

As I laid (lay?) in bed last night continuing to think about Frist's upcoming appearance with fundamentalist heavyweights calling the filibustering of judicial nominees an act "against people of faith" (yes, I get stuck on things), it occurred to me that reason 2 is much more insidious than I had thought at first and that it's not just the fundamentalist Christian leadership doing it. From the Christian leadership, to the talk show hacks (think mostly O'Reilly here), to now our national government, rightwing extremists have found it very useful to declare they are "under attack."

Thinking about this led me to recall that Goering quote that was popping up everywhere when Iraq was still hot:

You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up...

by hilzoy

Via Talking Points Memo, an article in the Palm Beach News tells us the following:

"Do you want a seven-day weather forecast for your ZIP code? Or hour-by-hour predictions of the temperature, wind speed, humidity and chance of rain? Or weather data beamed to your cellphone?

That information is available for free from the National Weather Service.

But under a bill pending in the U.S. Senate, it might all disappear.

The bill, introduced last week by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., would prohibit federal meteorologists from competing with companies such as AccuWeather and The Weather Channel, which offer their own forecasts through paid services and free ad-supported Web sites. (...)

"I believe I've paid for that data once. ... I don't want to have to pay for it again," said Scott Bradner, a technical consultant at Harvard University.

He says that as he reads the bill, a vast amount of federal weather data would be forced offline.

"The National Weather Service Web site would have to go away," Bradner said. "What would be permitted under this bill is not clear — it doesn't say. Even including hurricanes." "

Here's the National Weather Service web page. I think it's really great: it has all sorts of nifty marine data, reports from manned buoys, aviation stuff (icing forecasts, convection forecasts...), as well as the more usual seven-day weather forecasts and tornado advisories. Moreover, it's a great example of the sort of thing government should be doing. It's obviously a good idea for the government to collect meteorological data to protect its citizens by predicting e.g. hurricanes, to help shipping, aviation, farmers, and so on, and to provide the basis for science aimed at a more thorough understanding of the weather patterns that affect the country. Since the data has to be collected, it also makes sense to make it available to ordinary citizens like us. For one thing, we paid for it. For another, putting it on a website is cheap. For a third, this information is really useful to ordinary people: leaving aside its utility to anyone in the path of a hurricane, it's also useful to sailors, amateur pilots, and everyone else who needs or wants detailed meteorological information. When I go searching for birds on shorelines, for instance, their tidal information and coastal forecasts are invaluable. And my exploration of the NWS web site makes me think that they're doing this really well: it's accessible, as detailed as you want it, and really interesting. (I hesitate to think what would have become of me had this been available when I was a kid: I might never have gotten around to doing any homework at all.)

So what, one might ask, is the problem? Well, until about an hour ago, I would have scratched my head and said, "Gee, I can't imagine." But Accuweather disagrees:

"Barry Myers, AccuWeather's executive vice president, said the bill would improve public safety by making the weather service devote its efforts to hurricanes, tsunamis and other dangers, rather than duplicating products already available from the private sector.

"The National Weather Service has not focused on what its core mission should be, which is protecting other people's lives and property," said Myers, whose company is based in State College, Pa. Instead, he said, "It spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year, every day, producing forecasts of 'warm and sunny.'" "

The weather service's director of strategic planning and policy, however, has a different take: "If someone claims that our core mission is just warning the public of hazardous conditions, that's really impossible unless we forecast the weather all the time," Johnson said. "You don't just plug in your clock when you want to know what time it is." Which makes sense to me. Rick Santorum has a more likely explanation: "He (...) said expanded federal services threaten the livelihoods of private weather companies."It is not an easy prospect for a business to attract advertisers, subscribers or investors when the government is providing similar products and services for free," Santorum said."

It might not be obvious why, if the government is already collecting information that is very useful to its citizens, it should not provide that information to us for free, even if that means that someone else will not be able to make money taking that same information and charging us for it. It might be even less obvious why we should make it illegal for the government to share with us the information our taxes have paid for, just because it would make some company's life easier. Why would the Senator from Pennsylvania do this? It's a mystery.

Mixing of Church and State: Two Views

Two great Americans who were night-and-day on most other issues are being quoted today with regards to why the growing trend of mixing religion and politics is bad for America. First from Kos comes this by the Republican I've always considered true to his vision, if at times belligerent, Barry Goldwater:

However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'

And from Andrew Sullivan comes this quote from another American known for his vision, John F. Kennedy:

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference ... I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials." - president John F. Kennedy. At the time, the speech was regarded as an attempt to refute anti-Catholic prejudice. Today, wouldn't the theocons regard it as an expression of anti-Catholic prejudice? Wouldn't Bill Frist see president Kennedy as an enemy of "people of faith"? Just asking.

There's no way around it, whether liberal or conservative, if you're not disturbed by how much power the religious right is attempting to seize in this nation, you're not paying attention.

For You Obsessives

I've not played it yet, but knowing how I'll lose years of my life to the moronic game on my cell phone, I understand the appeal. The BBC has a story today about the Su Doku craze that's reportedly taking Britian newspaper readers by storm:

To be pure Su Doku each of the unique puzzles - which come in varying levels of difficulty - must have only one solution. The aim? To fill in the grid so that every row, every column, and every box contains the digits one to nine.

This simple game has spawned a complex industry, according to the man who brought Su Doku to the UK via the Times newspaper. Plans are afoot to add the game to mobile phones, and a board game and television show could soon leap on the bandwagon.

The internet is awash with chat about Su Doku and programers are tapping away to find the best system for solving the puzzles.

'Engrossed'

"I know if I've got a busy day ahead I won't even look at a difficult one, because once you are hooked into it you have to keep going," says Peter Levell, who keeps his playing to about three times a week.

If you're not the obsessive (or sporting) type, you might be interested one of the Su Doku solvers out there. If you get hooked on the real thing though, you can get your fix at the London Times Games website.

Just what I needed...another time-consuming distraction.

Meet the new Mayor

Same as the old Mayor*.  This does clean up the local political situation, not to mention save some taxpayer dollars that would have to be spent electing an interim mayor.  There's something a little off, though, when charges are dropped because the people being charged weren't aware that they were doing anything wrong.  Not that I care all that much; Dyer's been an inept politician in many respects but he's (can I say this?) Mostly Harmless.

The state's attorney that first charged Buddy Dyer and his associates is Brad King, who's the same fellow who refused to charge the housemates of longtime sex offender and recent murderer John Couey with any sort of crime at all.  Even though John Couey had his victim in his room while his housemates were in.  This is in a mobile home, remember.

I'm not all that hot on getting Mayor Dyer fixed up with a rap sheet, I just think that maybe the wrong person's in charge of the investigation.  For those of you who haven't been following this story (all of you, most likely) it was discovered that Buddy Dyer's campaign had a paid consultant collecting absentee ballots, which is illegal in the state of Florida.  Ken Mulvaney, Dyer's opponent in the election, asserts that not only did the consultant break the law in the way described, he also filled out some of the ballots himself, which is also illegal under Florida law.  Mulvaney says he'll be filing suit in civil court.

*This has been used by other people, notably Mike Thomas of the Sentinel.  However, it's so much of a cultural fixture (not to mention, obvious) that I'm not giving him credit.

Thatcher to Celebrate May Day in Havana

OK, not really, but is that any more ludicrous than this real news story?

President Bush Marks Earth Day

"One of the greatest responsibilities in a free society is responsible stewardship of our natural environment," Bush said at the White House ceremony. "All of you have taken that duty seriously. You have set a clear and strong example, and you're inspiring others to do their part."

It's like Madonna lecturing nuns on chastity.

UPDATE: Hmmm...looks like God's not dead after all:

Bush Cancels Great Smoky Mountains Visit

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the threat of hail and thunder storms was keeping the president from visiting the park

More on Fraud

Upon rereading it, I think I wasn't very clear in my last post.  I can't comment directly on the AIG case because it is so cryptic, but I want make a more specific comment on status crimes.  I am uncomfortable with the current state of financial/tax/economic sphere crimes.  I understand the difficulty being addressed--intent is hard to prove so if you make things that are likely to be associated with fraud crimes, you get to punish fraud without having to prove that the intent to deceive.  This works fine so long as everyone can reasonably be expected to know or understand what you can do to get into trouble. 

The problem is that things have gotten ridiculously complicated, with the rules changing from day to day.  Like Will at Crescat Sententia says:  "I hate doing my taxes-- not because the counting, figuring, or filing bothers me (on the contrary), but because the whole process fills me with sheer terror that there is some unknown rule or unclear definition (contained nowhere on the form) that will subject to me criminal and financial liability."  This isn't just true in tax, but in many areas of corporate life.  The really big corporations can usually fend for themselves, but small concerns are rightfully worried that they can innocently run afoul of some crazy regulation or another. 

I'm not sure there is much to be done about it.  Maybe this is just the kind of silly thing that I worry about. 

Snark

by hilzoy

OK, I had a moment of snark, which has fortunately passed. (Long day.) As penance, I present more and better snark, by other, better writers. First, here is a thread from Crooked Timber on academic put-downs. Examples:

• “This book fills a needed gap in the literature.”
• "When pygmies cast such long shadows, it must be very late in the day indeed." (Francis Crick)
• “His mind is like a rice paddy: miles and miles of shimmering water—one inch deep.”
• A professor writing on a grad student’s paper: You have reinvented the sled. Asked to clarify, the prof said: It’s much like reinventing the wheel, but less useful.

Also on Crooked Timber, you can see what dreadful sentence prompted Kieran Healy to write:

"Tom Friedman is a God. No, not a God so much as a moustachioed force of nature, pumped up on the steroids of globalization, a canary in the coalmine of an interconnected era whose tentacles are spreading over the face of a New Economy savannah where old lions are left standing at their waterholes, unaware that the young Turks—and Indians—have both hands on the wheel of fortune favors the brave face the music to their ears to the, uh, ground."

Finally, a theological post (old, but new to me) from Slacktivist:

" "Steve" has emerged as a central figure in American theology. He even played a significant role in the recent national elections. Yet despite his enormous influence, we know little about Steve aside from a single reference to him in our holy texts. This reference is, like the catechism, extra-canonical but considered authoritative:

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

This oft-quoted text presents a mystery. If God did not make Steve, then where did this uncreature come from? How did Steve come to be?

God did not make Steve, therefore we must also assume that Steve was never born. If Steve had been born, after all, then he would be "begotten, not made." Surely we are not meant to conclude that Steve is a little-known fourth member of the Trinity.

Thus again we come to mystery. Steve was neither made nor begotten; yet Steve is.

What can we do in the face of such mystery? It is beyond our ken. We cannot hope to understand, we can only drop to our knees to sing a bewildered hymn of praise to the Creator of all things except Steve."

Done!