Not again

There’s been another school shooting, this time at Northern Illinois University. As of the moment I write this, six are dead.

Why have there been so many school shootings in recent years? The easy answer that many jump to is the ready availability of guns- but that doesn’t bear close examination.

100 years ago, everything- up to and including cannons and machineguns- were legal. The Tommy gun , the machinegun made famous by the “Untouchables”, was sold mail order, no questions asked. (which is why so many criminals owned it) Only big cities required a license to carry a gun, and there were no restrictions on buying them. There were no school massacres.

When I was a very small child, machineguns were restricted, and you had to be 18 to buy a pistol in most places, but anyone any age could buy a long gun at any hardware store. You could still buy guns mail order. Lee Harvey Oswald obtained the surplus Italian infantry rifle he assassinated JFK with from an ordinary sporting goods store. No school massacres.

When I was a just a little older, Marlin advertised their .22s in comic books, and Col. Larsen, “The Marlin Man”, a famous sharpshooter, would wow kids by shooting through the hole of a Lifesaver candy at shows and fairs. I learned to shoot in the cub scouts. No school massacres.

In high school, I was on the school rifle team, and more than half the high schools had their own firing range. This was after the King and Robert Kennedy assassinations, so there were now more gun laws in place, but I still could, and did, buy a shotgun as a teenager. No waiting periods, no number of guns bought restrictions, no background checks- and no school massacres.

A couple of years ago, Indianapolis set a new homicide record, both in total number and per capita. I researched the records then, and noticed something: there were more non-firearm homicides- fists, knives, and clubs- in that year than there were TOTAL homicides, INCLUDING guns, the year I was born.

All this makes it really difficult to blame the availability of guns for the modern shootings. Guns are harder to obtain than they’ve ever been in my lifetime, but the violence still keeps getting worse. Some people are blaming poor background checks, not keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. But that still doesn’t explain why these school shootings have been happening only these last few years- there were people with mental illnesses fifty years ago.

One needn’t be a Jerry Fallwell to conclude that there’s something wrong with society itself that is behind this- there are other symptoms as well: rampant drug use, illegitimacy and divorce rates so high that less than one child in five is raised to majority in a two-parent household. But that doesn’t mean the past was better- widespread racism, sexism, homophobia, and injustice so bad that children reading of it in school can scarcely conceive how bad it was.

Is Humankind doomed to live at the poles? Are the choices always repression and oppression, or anarchy? Does it always have to be either public prudery or public licentiousness, either censorship or open sewers aimed at our minds? Either Prohibition or crack dealers on every corner? Won’t anyone tell people “No, we don’t act like that. Not because it’s illegal... not because you’ll burn in Hell... but because you’re better than that.”?

Valentine's Day in the news

Here's an interesting sampling of how Valentine's Day is being covered in the media. First, origin stories; some trace it to the Roman holiday Lupercalia, some to the Christian Saint Valentine, some both: from Western Cape, South Africa City Vision . From the Brunswick, NJ, dailytargum . From the Opelika, AL OANOW . From the Seattle, WA the DAILY . From the Logan, UT The Utah Statesman . And from the Dimapur, Assam, India Morung Express . Finally, from the Brooklyn, NY Global Politican notice that not everyone approves of the annual rose and chocolate infested frivolity.

Dueling headlines

From Reuters: Climate change may kill thousands in UK by 2017 . "There is a 25 percent chance that a severe heat wave will strike England and kill more than 6,000 people before 2017 if no action is taken to deal with the health effects of climate change, a report said on Tuesday."

From BBC: Global warming 'may cut deaths' . "However, even 6,000 deaths pales in comparison with the number of cold-related deaths, which in the UK currently average about 20,000 per year."

So is Global Warming good or bad? And how much change does it take to matter- we've been talking one or two degrees change in a century... but those stories are talking about a mere ten years from now. And the baked chicken littles wonder why we question whether they know what they're talking about.

The first story referrences the 2003 heat wave that killed 14,000 people in France alone. I had occassion to look that up a few years ago, and learned that in the US, despite having ten times the population, and despite the heat being worse in areas like Texas than it was in France, we had less than four hundred heat-related deaths. The second story mentions 20,000 per year dying of cold in England- again, doing a story on homelessness, I had reason to look up the US numbers, and they're a fraction of the British mortality. Maybe, juuuust maybe... it's time for Europe to start installing central heating and central air conditioning?

The rich are getting richer,

the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is getting squeezed out of existence. Right?

For the last two weeks I have been pondering

The discussion of worship at Ms. Kitty’s Saloon and Road Show, here and here . They are actually continuations of a discussion Tom Schade began, but her points and her readers’ comments were what sparked my thoughts. (Don’t forget to vote for Ms. Kitty in the Fourth Annual UU Blog Awards - I can say that without reservation, as she and I are nominated in different categories)

For me, one of the problems with our worship services- and, I think, one of the reasons our numbers are so small- is that in most UU services one feels like a member of the audience, not a participant. Indeed, if you equate a hymn with the pledge recited at many civic organizations, there’s little difference between a service and a lecture series. This is why UUs feel so free to play hooky; unless you’re a needed participant, you only need go to the lectures you’re interested in.

Part of the reason for this is our distaste for ritual, and our contempt for “making a joyful noise”- you’d never hear a shout-back from a UU congregate unless the Minister said something nice about George Bush. Another reason is simple inertia; we come from a rather dour, reserved tradition. Other old-line denominations have the same problems, but at least Christians have communion to make them feel they’re part of the show.

One of the most popular services at my home congregation is the annual Christmas Eve candlelight service. Everyone is issued candles; during the final hymn, “Silent Night”, the lights are put out, the candles lit, and the sanctuary is lit by our candles as we file out in a single file procession, extinguishing the candles at the door as we leave. It’s very moving, but not the most effective worship service I’ve seen.

The most powerful worship service I have ever attended was a Pagan Yule service at UU church of Indianapolis. This was not because of the Pagan theology, but the format. UUI has no built in pews, so the Pagans put the chairs in the round, with the leaders in the center. Everyone was given candles. Near the end of the service, the candles were lit, and they started a spiral dance towards the center, singing “This Little Light of Mine”. When we got to the center, we put our candles in a sand box- not extinguishing them, but setting them upright, still burning. By the time I made it back to my seat, “my little light” had become part of a mighty united blaze... it touched a very primitive part of my soul; I felt as if it was the force of our faith, not blind cosmology, that was driving winter back. I watched others return to their seats and gasp when they turned and saw the spectacle they had helped create; many had tears in their eyes. No one who was there that night will ever forget it.

Why can’t we be more like that? It’s not a question of theology; it didn’t matter whether it was Jesus or Sol Invictus being born that night- most Pagans take those stories just as symbolically as most UUs. It was the ritual and the participation that produced the effect. The leaders of that Pagan Grove were not ordained ministers, they didn’t have Doctorates of Divinity. They merely knew how to worship, how to refresh the soul. They knew how to create a sense of belonging, even if it was your first time. If we could capture those elements, we’d never need worry about attendance again.

What this campaign is all about

Here is the program of all the candidates, summed up in a brief synopsis:

Confused about Superdelegates?

Don't be. Here's a simple explanation on how they work in the Democratic Party in my home state, Indiana. (Thanks to Matthew Tully and the IndyStar )I do admit that many other states are more complicated- California much more so- but Indiana tried to keep things simple...

"...Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama -- should their battle continue until Indiana's May 6 primary -- will each walk away with a decent portion of the state's 84 delegates. (Actually, it could be 85. I'll explain that in a bit.)
Let's start at the top. There are two groups of delegates: pledged delegates and superdelegates. First up, the 72 pledged delegates. A portion of these is assigned to each candidate based on the percentage of the popular vote they receive... Of the pledged delegates, 25 are split between candidates based on their percentage of the statewide vote, so if one candidate gets 51 percent of the vote, he or she receives 13 of the 25 delegates.

The other 47 pledged delegates are tied to results in each of Indiana's nine congressional districts. Each district gets between four and six delegates to split between Clinton and Obama. (The exact number each district receives is based on how well Democratic candidates for president and governor performed in 2004.)...

Now let's talk about superdelegates. Indiana has 11. They include the four Democratic members of the U.S. House and Sen. Evan Bayh. Chairman Parker, state Vice Chairwoman Cordelia Lewis-Burks and former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew also occupy spots on the list, as do Democratic National Committee members Phoebe Crane, Bob Pastrick and Connie Thurman.

Andre Carson would become a 12th superdelegate if he wins the March 11 special congressional election.

(I hate to bring this up, but there's also one "unpledged add-on" delegate. It's confusing, but the bottom line is this spot likely will be assigned to Democratic contributor Bren Simon.)..."

Simple, but then Indiana is not sophisticated like Massachuessetts or California or Florida. No wait, Florida's delegates don't count; they're being punished. But the thing to watch is the Superdelegates in each state.

Why? First let me note that I'm about to say applies to both parties; I'm not picking on the Democrats here. When they decided to introduce some democracy into the democratic process, rather than having candidates pick in back rooms at conventions, they were afraid it might get too democratic- the people might pick the wrong candidate. So the party created Superdelegates, older and wiser heads that could throw the nomination back to the right choice.

They've never had to overrule the electorate before, but we've never had dueling candidates like this before. Which will the party think is more electable in the fall? Make no mistake; whatever the voters say, that's the candidate who'll win at the convention.

I finally saw "Across The Universe"

Cancellations turned this into a found day for Ginj and me, so we had a nice brunch, complete with newspaper, at our favorite cholesterol cafe, then took a turn through Blockbuster to see if any of the films we missed all summer had come out on DVD yet- we settled on Across The Universe and Elizabeth.

We decided to watch ATU first. I made a huge batch of popcorn in our Theatre II popper, cranked up the volume, and hit play.

***

Well, it was a true 60's film... by which I mean it would have been a great film with a couple hits of Mr Natural in me.

Now for Elizabeth.

Is McCain a foregone conclussion?

Here is how Huckabee plans to win the nomination.

Breakthrough in prisoners' rights

The rights of prisoners who belong to minority religions- Wicca, Asatruar, Santeria, etc.- have been argued at the state and federal level for decades, but never at this level before, and never with their own representative speaking. Friday, February 8, for the first time ever, a Wiccan Chaplain will speak at the Commission on Civil Rights in Washington, DC . Rev. Patrick McCollum, a member of Circle Sanctuary Wiccan church and Wiccan and Pagan civil rights activist, was part of the team that got the Pentacle added to the list of religious emblems that may be inscribed on veterans' tombstones, recently became the Director of Prison Chaplaincy for Cherry Hill Seminary, and chair of the National Correctional Chaplaincy Directors Association. He will speak at 9:30 am on Friday, February 8 at U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street NW, Room 540, Washington, DC.

I cannot follow the logic

of Rev. Rosemary Bray McNatt, UUA Trustee from the Metropolitan New York District , in her decision to not attend the next General Assembly. The issue, of course, is the security requirement that attendees show a government issued ID; she says, "This situation exemplifies our Fifth Principle writ large, and I am consumed by the idea that we have given the US government the capacity to dictate to our General Assembly who might and might not join us." Ok... assuming the worst from the Port security officials, who would be excluded by this? Anyone who drives to GA is already prepared to show ID at any traffic stop. Those who take a train or plane must show their ID just to get there. Anyone staying in a hotel must show ID to get a room. These things apply in every city, not just Ft. Lauderdale. So the only person affected by the special security in the Port of Ft Lauderdale and not at a GA in any other city would be the one who hitchhikes there, and stays at a homeless shelter or tent city in a park, AND who cannot get a government ID for some reason.

So who cannot get the required ID? Not the poor- even if your state does not give free ID as my state does, (Indiana requires ID to vote, and so gives free ID to those who cannot scrape up $10 for a drivers license), and this poor person receives no governemnt aid of any kind, (AFDC, SSI, all other government programs require ID as well), the UUA will buy it for you! (see Frequently Asked Questions About Security in Fort Lauderdale ) So the poor are able to get ID, as are convicted felons, Communists, VooDoo Houngans, left handed albino pipe fitters... in fact, the one and only class of people unable to get U.S. Government ID are illegal aliens. Actually, even an illegal alien could get in if they have ID from their nation of origin- the Ft. Lauderdale Port Security accepts ID from foreign nations, and does not run a computer check on them. (again, see the FAQ) So the only delegate who could be refused is an illegal alien who doesn't even have ID from their home country. Perhaps my congregation is a snooty elitist one, but that description does not fit any of our delegates.

As there is no practical reason for objecting, the only remaining reason is one of principal- the refusal to submit to government even when you're on their turf, rather than your own. I can understand that one, but it seems to me that there's another principal at stake here, too, one that should be balanced against the absolutist non-complance stand- and it has to do with our current debate on the Peace resolution. The raison d'etre for the extra security is that ports are both targets and conduits for terrorism. If there is another 9/11, there will be another war- as simple as that. Unlike the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war had popular support because it was the country from which 9/11 was launched- and a great many of those against the Iraq war are only complaining about how badly it's been handled, not the concept of the war. It seems to me that it's incumbent upon those most strenuosly opposing war to take the lead in following all measures meant to prevent war, and another attack might well mean the full might of the US Military being brought to bear upon the Middle East, rather than the police action it's been treated as so far- something I don't think we want to contemplate. If we want to take peace seriously, we have to take security seriously. Given what's at stake, what kind of example does it set for someone who has to show ID to rent a video to object to showing ID to enter a port?

Is your driver’s license “real” ?

This coming May 11th, the Real ID Act takes effect. From that day forward, if your state’s drivers license does not comply with “Real ID” standards, you can’t use it to enter airports or any Federal facility- including SSI, Medicare, and Veterans’ Affairs offices... and only half the states have so far complied! (the link above will give your states state of compliance) Four states have flat-out refused. Mark your calendars to watch the fireworks...

A special cautionary word for Obama supporters

Remember that the Democratic Party has 796 Superdelegates ; unelected party officials who nonetheless have votes at the convention. It is possible for Obama to win 60% of the elected delegates, and still lose the total delegate vote 48%-52%, if the party regulars break for Senator Clinton... and the Clintons have a lot of markers to call in. If you really want Senator Obama, vote big.

A cautionary word for the 2008 election

The UU Blogosphere is full of hopeful posts about Barack Obama. Perfectly understandable. But they are basing much of their hopes on his ability to change things in America- which is a mistake, and one that could lead to bad feelings in the future. As important as the choice for President is, it’s not the most important choice in front of you in 2008. Not even close.

More important are your choices for House and Senate. The President cannot spend a single dime unless they give it to him, he cannot start a war they don’t give their approval to, he cannot give an executive order they cannot override. In the end, all power is invested in the Congress- even the Supreme Court can be forbidden to rule upon Congressional order. And you cannot depend upon your political party to make a wise choice of candidates; both parties have held power in the last ten years, and neither one has covered itself in glory.

More important still, if you really want things to change, are your local races. A great deal of ink, airtime, and bandwidth will be spent debating the Presidential Candidates’ tax plans, and yet for those of us in the bottom 75% of wage earners, our Federal income tax bills will be meaningless compared to our state and local taxes; many in the bottom 50% with families will pay no Federal income tax at all after Earned Income Tax Credits, etc. It was not President Bush nor Speaker Pelosi who increased my property taxes by $3,000.00 this year, (that’s not the total, that’s the increase), nor was it they who increased the County income tax by 65%- and neither McCain nor Obama will be able to lower them.

Much will be made of the candidates’ education programs- and yet it is not they who build the schools, hire the teachers, select the books, buy the buses- or float the bonds to pay for all those things. The candidates will speak of new or expanded programs for the poor- but it will be the Township (or Ward or Parish, depending on your state) Trustee administering those programs who will make them a success or failure. The candidates will speak of law and order, but it is not they who will decide between new patrol cars or funding the police pension plan. They will talk of bridges to the future- but it will be the local Public Safety and Transportation Commissioners who fix the real bridges we depend upon to get to work.

In Indiana, every facet of government is run by an elected official- counting all levels, we have over 11,000 elected officials. While that’s more than average, there’s not a state East of the Mississippi that has fewer than 6,000- I guarantee that if you look it up, the total number in your state will shock you- especially since I know that you have no idea who they are. Here in Indy, a billion dollars will be spent this year by people no one outside of a few political junkies knows, most of whom ran unopposed... and the same thing is true in your town. Meanwhile, the average citizen votes only in Presidential years- and then says the system is broken when nothing changes.

Let this pattern be broken in 2008. Learn the names of the people who will affect your daily life, and let them know that you know... fix your Ward, your Township, your City, your County, your State- and see how much your life changes, regardless of the presidency!

In the play, "A Lion In Winter",

One character remarks on the unlikelyhood of the scenario they had been discussing. The other replies, "In a world where carpenters are ressurected, anything can happen." From now on, that reply will be "Hey- Giants 17, Pats 14!"

My thanks

for being nominated for a 2008 UU Blog Award in the category of Best Political Commentary - Best of class
. It is especially meaningful to me as I’m a conservative, and therefore a contrarian in nearly any Unitarian debate- which leads me to believe that this nomination is truly a tribute to my writing skills, rather than a popularity thing. I’ll do my best to live up to that honor in the future.

Is morality genetic?

There is a truly fascinating article in the New York Times magazine, The Moral Instinct , that deals with the difference between morality and social customs, whether a sense of basic morality is genetic, how one tells whether a given issue is one of morality or custom, and much more. Why can't we hear more of this sort of thing from the pulpit instead?

The oddest quiz yet...

The web is full of fun quizes, but this one is a bit... outre. Would you eat your buddies? Don’t look at me like that- you know you’re going to take the quiz too. I was rated at 44% likely to.

Reminds me of a juvenile joke from decades past- make a reservation at a restaurant for five under the name of Donner. When they call “Donner, party of five,” you tell them “It’s just four now- it was a long wait.”

Thoughts on Barack Obama and race politics

I have a theory that the success of Barack Obama is part of a third stage in race relations in America- and a very welcome one.

The first stage was the natural integration occurring in the 50s and 60s, led by people of conscience and the churches- and I’m proud to note the Unitarians were an important part of that stage. More progress was made in the 60s than those who did not live through them might be aware of. Sports were integrating, led by courageous team owners; TV was starting to cast Black and Hispanic roles, and even occasionally the lead roles- “Julia”, “The Cisco Kid”, “The Bill Cosby show” (his two early shows, not the one from the 80s), “I Spy”, others. The military had been ordered by several Presidents to integrate. Colleges were voluntarily starting to reach out. But progress simply wasn’t deep enough or fast enough.

The second stage was integration forced by laws and court orders. Council and Congressional districts were redrawn to get more minority representation. (curiously enough, this resulted more in party guarantees than racial ones; historically, Blacks would vote for a white Democrat over a Black Republican, and Black Republicans were elected by majority white but majority Republican districts) The equal opportunity and housing laws, affirmative action, etc., were very effective, but caused emotional backlash. The backlash wasn’t totally racism, but also the strong contrarian streak in the American psyche; Americans hate being ordered around and told what to do, even if it’s the right thing to do.

The third stage is made possible by the fact that the majority of the country is young enough to have never lived through the horrible conditions of the first half of the last century. A 30 year old today has grown up in a world where “race” simply doesn’t mean what it did when people my age were growing up. They live in a world where race is merely “a” factor, not “the” factor; a world where a white Marshall Mathers can be accepted by the rap community or a Tiger Woods is accepted in the golfing community- or a Barak Obama is being judged on his issues and character. Obama is running as an American, not as a representative of his race; he is not asking for votes because it’s “his turn“, and people are responding. The 93% white Iowa caucuses picked him because he’s the fresh face, the symbol of change, not the symbol of race.
Many people don’t realize that the March of Dimes wasn’t always devoted to fighting birth defects. In fact, it was organized for the express and only function of fighting Polio, but then the unexpected happened: Polio was cured. Rather than disband an effective organization, they selected another illness to fight. It is my hope that in the future, when all us dinosaurs with bad memories of the past die off, the same thing will happen to groups like the NAACP.

UU questions about God asked and answered

As more and more UUs start their own blogs, we occasionally run into the phenomenon of one blog post asking a question that another blog post answers. For example, at Transient and Permanent, the question is asked, Do Unitarian-Universalists Think Less of People Who Use the Word “God”? .

Meanwhile, over at “Heretic, Rebel, Thing to Flout”, in the post UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM AND PAGANISM--Faith, Ritual and Metaphor , Patrick Murfin tells us “Inclusion of some pagan rites, whether historically accurate or cooked up in some Victorian eccentric’s garden, does not alarm me if the practitioners do not believe that they are literally invoking specific gods, goddesses or spirits who will perform specific tasks or expect the congregation to do so. While there are Wiccans out there—and other organized and semi-organized pagans and neo-pagans—who really, really do believe that every incantation uttered is both real and true, those are not the folks who are comfortable being part of a UU community any more than a Christian who literally believes he/she is consuming the body and blood of Christ in communion will be comfortable.”

Clearly, there are UUs who think less of those who speak of God- at least, if they believe what they are saying. If you’re only toying with someone’s sacred scriptures in order to draw a metaphor, that’s ok... but you’d better not mean it! Wiccan or Christian, if you truly believe, you’re not welcome here! I had thought we didn’t discriminate because we had learned the lesson over the centuries the heart ache and violence that it leads to... but I’m learning the truth is that we don’t discriminate because we don’t take anything seriously enough to care.

Cuumbaya endorses candidates

We here in Indiana have no say in the picking a candidate process. Oh, we have primaries, but since they're held in May they're far too late to make any difference. That being the case, I thought I'd state my preferences now and see if the country agrees.

I come from a Libertarian/Goldwater style Republican baseline. In my case, that means a strong but not aggressive foreign policy; fiscally, a limited government, business regulations only to safeguard the employees and public's health and safety and stop fraud; tax policies that encourage growth and savings; social issues, liberal/libertarian- as long as it neither bloodies my nose nor picks my pocket, as the saying goes, it's none of the government's business. Illegal immigrants? Find a way to mainstream the ones already here; they're not hurting anything. How to stop new ones? How about admitting that Mexico is as corrupt, brutal, and oppressive as many a regime we pontificate about in the third world, and pressuring them to reform, become a country their citizens WANT to live in? Iraq? End it, yes, but not precipitously; leave it stable enough that we don't betray those who are risking their lives to help us- don't have another post-war bloodbath on our conscience like we did in Southeast Asia. Other issues are extrapolated from the principles above, ask if you want to know.

This being the case, obviously none of the candidates from either party fit the bill. But politics is the art of the possible; the next President WILL be one of them. So I'll pick one from each party, starting with the Republicans. only three are even close: Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Ron Paul is TOO much the Libertarian; his version of foreign policy boils down to building a wall around the US and errecting a sign that points out and says "Here there be monsters". His call to dissolve the Fed and return to the gold standard is foolhardy- he's out. McCain's stand on the war is good, especially banning torture; but McCain-Fiengold is unconstitutional in my view, and he's had his part in the free-spending congress- he's out. Hobson's choice, my pick is Giuiani.

Among the Democrats, all but two are non-starters for me: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama is simply too young; intelligence must be tempered with perspective. Additionally, his stated stands- he doesn't have enough experience for us to tell how he'd vote- are too fiscally liberal for me. The most conservative candidate in the Democratic crowd, God save the mark, is Hillary- so that's my pick.

My dream candidate? I voted for favorite son Dick Lugar in 1996, but as long as we're dreaming... what's Baroness Thatcher doing these days?

A roundup of inconvenient truths of 2007

Since Al Gore won the Noble Prize for his championship of the Global Warming issue in 2007, I thought it would be a good thing to revisit the climate news of 2007.

Mr. Gore, of course, says that the anthropogenic nature of Global Warming is established science; he must have missed this story, U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
, which begins “Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.” That story came as no surprise to those who had read the Survey stating “LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS”

One of the papers, no doubt, was this one from the Danish National Space Center, refuting previous claims that Global Warming is unrelated to Solar activity. They found that by taking readings from the Troposphere and the deep oceans rather than more variable surface readings, global temperatures track Solar activity exactly. This agrees with previous findings from NASA that Mars and Jupiter are undergoing climate change as well.

That report also noted that Solar activity, and Global Warming, have been static for the last few years, which agrees with the fact that once again, hurricane activity has not matched Al Gores predictions. According to the NOAA Hurricane Center , "The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season produced the predicted number of named storms, but the combined number, duration and intensity of the hurricanes did not meet expectations” In fact, the number and intensity are lower than they were a hundred years ago .

In short: Contrary to the “consensus”, climate news from 2007 was good.

Thoughts about Benazir Bhutto

Like millions, if not billions of others, I was saddened and depressed by the news of the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. I spoke to friends, read blogs, and dialed in to talk shows to learn what others’ reactions were, and heard many of the emotions I was feeling. I also heard many struggling to understand what the real issues behind all the Middle East violence are.

For many, it seems to me, the struggle to understand is itself the barrier to understanding. The various groups involved make no secret about what the issues are- indeed, much of the violence is intended to draw attention to their statements and demands. The problem is that many of us are psychologically incapable of accepting their words at face value.

The exact nature of the demands vary wildly from group to group- that is why so much of the violence is Muslim on Muslim. But the heart of all their demands is the same: our interpretation of scripture is the only correct one; this is the will of God and you must obey. And because they truly believe, they are not afraid to kill or die to enforce the will of God; eternal reward is theirs.

Because so many in post modern liberal churches are incapable of that depth of faith, they cannot believe that the problem is that simple and so try to force it into a template they can deal with. “It’s not really about religion,” the Marxists say, “It’s about class struggle, the haves and have nots”- and they are shocked to learn that some of the most stable regimes have the biggest gaps between rich and poor, and some of the worst violence occurred in societies that were reforming. “It’s not really about religion,” progressives say, “It’s about ignorance and want. Educate them, get them into the 20th Century, and the violence will stop”- and they are shocked to learn that many of the terrorists, including suicide bombers, are doctors and engineers. “It’s not really about religion,” the Neocons say, “It’s about disaffection. Bring in Capitalism, get them invested in their own economy, and it will be in their own interest to stop the violence.” Well, Anwar Sadat did exactly that when he cut a multi-billion dollar deal with Israel and the US- and they killed him for it.

I find myself thinking of the movie “Star Trek II”. In the opening scenes, a class of cadets are on a training mission in a simulator; they have to rescue a crippled freighter, the “Kobayashi Maru”. It turns out to be a trap; they are ambushed by Klingons and everyone “dies”. Furious, the cadet in command demands and receives permission to speak freely. “That wasn’t a fair test of our abilities,” she says, “There was no way to win.” “There was no way to win,” Admiral Kirk agrees. “Everyone at some point in their life will face a no-win scenario. This was a test of character.”

For all of humankind- including billions of nonviolent Muslims- dealing with the Jihadists may be our “Kobayashi Maru”. None of the solutions that have stopped violence are working, and we’re operating under a deadline: when will they get weapons of mass destruction? Don’t kid yourself that non-proliferation treaties and technology bans will prevent it forever.

Later in the movie we discover that just one person had beaten the no-win scenario: cadet James T. Kirk- by hacking into the simulator changing the conditions of the test. If we have time, perhaps we can change the conditions of our trial, too- but how? We can’t force peoplee to change their beliefs; that’s impossible to do and immoral to even try. Nor can we force all of mankind to abandon faith, as Dawkins and other atheists would have us do; that, too, is impossible.

But if a universal faith is impossible, a universal agreement, a covenant, may not be. Mankind must give up situational ethics, and adopt certain absolutes, certain behaviors that are never the right thing to do. There must be means that cannot be justified by any end, not even a holy one. Surely that’s an easier sell- how can holy ends come from unholy means? Of course, there will be disagreement at first over just what is and isn’t acceptable, even in vengeance- but just starting the conversation will force people to think about it. Sooner or later, surely even the hardest heart will have trouble publicly declaring the conditions under which it would be appropriate, to use an example from the book “1984”, to throw acid in a baby’s face. There must be limits somewhere that would be universally acceptable... and having found the first set, the next set will be easier.

You think an ethical covenant is impossible? Ok... let’s hear your idea.

Merry Christmas to all...

and God bless us, every one!

Life and death in New Mexico

My blogging has been erratic the last month because I have been busy preparing for and taking an extended trip west- The California Zephyr train to Grand Junction, Colorado, Thanksgiving with family in Cortez, Co., a ride on the Durango/Silverton honest-to-God steam engine, Arches and Mesa Verde National Parks, and return home on the Southwest Chief train. I intend to write about these experiences, and the deeper thoughts they inspired, but first I want to discuss four hours of the return trip, between Santa Fe and Las Vegas, NM.

We had pulled out of Albuquerque on time, 12:55 P.M., having just finished yet another wonderful meal in the dining car. Something over an hour later, the train came to a sudden stop. We thought nothing of it; this is a common occurrence, which would be followed shortly by an announcement about the slow freight or whatever ahead of us. Except it wasn’t. The lights and air shut down, and the emergency lighting came on. Then the sleeper car attendant came through, telling us we had to leave the train. No, not through our own exit downstairs; walk to the last car and then exit on the right. We started walking, confused but obedient.
The confusion deepened as we encountered crowds in cars to the rear who had either been given different instructions or had misunderstood them, and were milling around in the aisles. It eventually got through everyone’s heads that something bad had happened, and standing in the exits swapping rumors wasn’t a good idea; the train emptied in minutes. Once out of the train, the explanation became clear even before the Conductor’s briefing: perhaps a thousand feet behind us was a road crossing with wreckage in it; a few hundred feet ahead the nose of the train had wreckage wrapped around it.

The train had been evacuated because there was gasoline everywhere; it was still pouring out of the ruptured tank as we watched. Fortunately, the local Fire Department responded very quickly, and started watering the front of the train as if it were a potted plant, to dilute the gasoline. As they worked, the train crew passed out bottled water and tried to keep us herded away from either the crossing, where half the car had been sheered off on impact, or the front of the train, where the half of the car containing whatever remained of the driver was deeply imbedded into the front of the engine. It was a lost cause; those few who were interested in such ghoulish sights were impossible to herd, pulling out their cell phones to take photographs. I have no such pictures to share, thank you.

There was much clucking over people who try to beat the train through the crossing, although I later learned locals don’t believe that’s what happened . And from the victim’s life story , what they say seems reasonable.
When the gasoline had been diluted, they allowed people to re-board the train, but I stayed outside- I had been having trouble breathing at that altitude, and they had not turned the air back on inside the train. This allowed me to watch my fellow passengers react and cope, which was probably MY method of coping. Nearly all, except those who just had to get pictures, were solemn at first. But as minutes stretched into hours, many other reactions developed.

There were stabs at humor, of course. “You know what the last thing to go through his mind was? The engine!” Others talked with the Fire Dept. Chaplain, who arrived in the first fire engine. The ravens, who had showed up even faster than the Fire Dept. to orbit around both halves of the wreckage were the subject of much discussion. Some were angry, others philosophical, still others pondered the question of why ravens rather than vultures? Some just became very quiet, not initiating any conversation at all.

Eventually wreckers arrived to winch the imbedded car out of the front of the engine, replacement crewmembers arrived, and we were on our way again. Perhaps it was merely the shock of this happening in the middle of the holiday season, i don’t know... but I’m proud to say that not a single passenger complained about being late.

I'm back

from a trip to the other side of the country, via Amtrak! We got back in the wee, small hours this morning, 27 hours late, because of an incident outside Albuquerque; but I can't complain- we're not as late as the driver of the car that tried to beat our train through the crossing. More tomorrow after some recovery.

I'm still here,

I'm just being nibbled by ducks- sorry for the erratic ature of my posting lately. Thins should return to normal soon.

The best analysis

I have ever seen of the American political scene is The top US conservatives and liberals from the British newspaper Telegraph. I applaud the author, Toby Harnden, for a fair and very well presented piece.

P.S. This does not violate my moritorium as I am not expressing a political view, but drawing attention to an independent treatment of both sides. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

In honor of the day...

I offer this dramatization of a story from the first, and greatest, American master of horror.

The fear of faith

Despite- or perhaps because of- tremendous temptation, I have declared to myself a short moratorium on political or contentious entries, and will be posting only religious or philosophical entries for the near future. The first entry under this new policy is a snippet from my personal Book of Shadows, and is dedicated to Jamie over at Trivium .

One big difficulty in coming out of the “broom closet” is a societal problem with religion in general, not Wicca or Paganism in particular; certain strata of society are deeply contemptuous of any religious faith. Among such people, “faith” is synonymous with “ignorance”- they are truly astonished when they meet anyone of faith who has an IQ in triple digits. It’s hard enough to announce as a Christian if one has such aggressive skeptics in one’s important circles; fear of being seen as a New Age weirdo by them can be unbearable.

That fear is not completely misplaced; I have seen people become born-again Christians as adults and be treated by friends and family as if they were brain damaged. With each passing day such abuse becomes more public and more acceptable; books ridiculing the very concept of religion are best sellers, feeding the normal fear of ridicule. Fear of ridicule is terrible indeed- I have read that the prayer of test pilots and astronauts is not “God, don’t let me die”, but “God, don’t let me screw up!” Such deep seated fear can make it difficult to admit faith even to yourself, let alone others.

How is this fear overcome? By remembering what brought you to your faith in the first place. People don’t come to faith by logical syllogism; nobody draws a Venn diagram encircling both themselves and God and says, “It is proven!” People have faith because at some time in their lives, they felt the presence of the Divine. It may have happened in a church, or a forest, or a hospital waiting room... but at one point you felt, and you knew. Faith is not “belief”- it is inexpressible knowledge.

It has been argued that one cannot believe that Jesus was a good man, but not God, because his words would make him either a liar or a lunatic. But even the most devout Christian will agree that whether or not he was God, he was also a man- and so this must be true for all people of faith, all faiths. Either we have felt the presence of the Divine, or we are liars and lunatics. Billions have felt the touch, have direct knowledge of the Divine. It is not our burden to prove the ineffable to the atheist; our burden is to live the kind of lives we know we should, and not hide our light under a bushel.

So do not fear to declare your faith. And if your religion seems strange to others, what of it? Religions are not faith, they are merely how we choose to express the faith our hearts already knew to be true, the truth we have already experienced.

Now this is Sicko

It seems the British National Health Service is so short of dentists that people are treating themselves . From the CNN Europe article: "LONDON, England (CNN) -- Some English people have resorted to pulling out their own teeth because they cannot find -- or cannot afford -- a dentist, a major study has revealed. Six percent of those questioned in a survey of 5,000 patients admitted they had resorted to self-treatment using pliers and glue, the UK's Press Association reported."

Funny... national health care sounded so much better when Michael Moore talked about it.

Are there cats in your house: a quiz

Five points for each phrase you have heard or uttered in your house:

There's a mouse in the bed!

Who barfed on the checkbook?

There's half a mouse in the bed!

Have you seen my earrings? I could have sworn they were on the dresser.

Better look in your shoes before you put them on.

There's hair in the butter!

Eww, I stepped on a bird!

Why are there a dozen old cigarette wrappers under the bed?

Wow, look at the holes in the window screen!

Honey, your pantyhose are on the stairs again.

Scoring:

10 points, there is a cat in your house.
20 points, there are several cats in your house.
30 points, you are probably a Unitarian.
40 points, you are probably a Wiccan.
50 points, you are probably a member of my family.

No Loose Change here

I spoke to an acquaintance (not a friend- I don't know what it would do to me to learn that someone I liked and trusted was this big a moonbat) recently who is a "truther", one of those who believes that 911 was a Bush administration conspiracy. He thought that as I had written against the conspiracy nuts, I should, in the interest of fairness, I should adress his side. He challenged me to link to the movie "Loose Change", the "documentary" that "connects the dots" and "conclusively proves" that the towers were brought down by demolition charges.

I've decided to do them one better, by linking to the documentary Screw Loose Change . This contains every word, every image of the original, without alteration- but adds the answers to all their charges, half truths, and outright lies. It's long, I warn you; it takes longer to give explanations than merely make accusations. But it's well worth the time viewing.

Comments are on, but don't give me any conspiracy stuff unless you've watched Screw Loose Change.

A sobering thought

for the debate on Darfur, Burma, and even Iraq is hidden within Peacebang's post, Panzi Hospital in which she referrences a New York Time article, Rape Epidemic Raises Trauma of Congo War . She is quite right to use terms such as "evil" and "Satan": "BUKAVU, Congo — Denis Mukwege, a Congolese gynecologist, cannot bear to listen to the stories his patients tell him anymore. Every day, 10 new women and girls who have been raped show up at his hospital. Many have been so sadistically attacked from the inside out, butchered by bayonets and assaulted with chunks of wood, that their reproductive and digestive systems are beyond repair... Eastern Congo is going through another one of its convulsions of violence, and this time it seems that women are being systematically attacked on a scale never before seen here. According to the United Nations, 27,000 sexual assaults were reported in 2006 in South Kivu Province alone, and that may be just a fraction of the total number across the country."

What does this have to do with Darfur, Burma, and Iraq? This quote: "The attacks go on despite the presence of the largest United Nations peacekeeping force in the world, with more than 17,000 troops."

We are already on record calling for UN intervention in Darfur, and many are calling for the same in Burma. The more responsible of the "Get out of Iraq now, not another dollar, not another life" crowd propose having the UN intervene to stop the certain bloodbath that would follow such a precipitous withdrawl. (Rev. Sinkford doesn't mention it in his fax to our congressmen, nor does it appear in the petition he asks us to sign- I guess he isn't worried about the aftermath) The situation in Congo shows just how realistic these calls are; if the largest UN force in the world can't stop mass rape in the Congo, how are they going to do anything in all these other situations? Do our calls for UN intervention really accomplish anything other than making us feel good for having "done something"?

Amazing

We went to the Ohio Renaissance
festival over the weekend and saw a lot of amazing things. Given the weather- brutally hot, in the 90s- (and 2 days later it was in the 70s, and today in the 50s, welcome to Miami Valley weather), the most amazing thing was a troupe of Irish step dancers in furs!

I saw a new plant today

in the backyard, something wild- I didn’t plant it. Probably a weed; it’s kind of scraggly. But it has dozens and dozens of tiny, purplely-white flowers, and it’s growing over the grave of our cat Tommyknocker. I think I’ll keep it.

Of Britney Spears, Middle Class, and “Voices of a Liberal Faith”

You may well ask what Ms. Spears has to do with our recent discussion of UUism and the middle class and the new short film available as DVD or download from the UUA, Voices of a Liberal Religion-Unitarian Universalists . The explanation will make the most sense if you first go watch the film.

Back? Ok... What was missing in that film? They mentioned that we welcome everyone, good, that’s our biggest draw. They mentioned that we’re big on social activism, fine, and they mentioned our sex ed classes for kids. All good things, especially the OWL program- that’s a huge draw for us; many come to us only to enroll their kids in our RE classes, and leave as soon as they’re old enough. So what’s missing? Personal ministry... how to live, day by day; how to be good (other than marching in Selma), how we can help you survive the daily grind, and be righteous in the face of temptation.

As was noted by Doug Muder in his UU World article that kicked off the discussion of our “Middle Class Problem, Not my father‘s religion , these are not UU issues, or sermons. His point was that UUs are almost universally professional class people, and so we no longer need that kind of ministry- “I felt smug that morning because I knew that Ed would have been so much better off in my church. We talk about real life, his real life. He didn’t need to be told not to be bad. His issue wasn’t Good versus Evil; it was Good versus another Good versus a third kind of Good. And that’s the issue in my life and in the lives of all my professional-class friends. The primary spiritual challenge of the professional class is discernment. There are so many good things we could do with our lives. How do we choose?
That’s the kind of issue a UU sermon talks about.”

Doug is quite correct about the kind of issue a UU sermon talks about, but quite incorrect that this is the kind of sermon the professional class- or indeed, any class- needs. This is where Ms. Spears comes in. Her personal self destruction continues; she has now lost custody or her children. A multimillionaire before she was old enough to vote, she is perfectly able to take the God’s eye view above the maze of success that Doug spoke of, and she had even more choices than the usual professional- she could have taken her singing career in any direction she chose; she could have turned to acting, modeling, become a professional celebrity on the talk show circuit, or gotten her own talk show for that matter. Or even retired; she need not work another day in her life if she so chooses. But she seems bent on destroying her life. She needs help.

People in that situation most often turn to their church. Despite the growth in the therapy industry, and the lessening of any stigma attached to going to counseling, the church remains the counselor of first choice for most people. It’s not that hard to figure out why- you can go every week for free and without question, and the mainline (or “working class”) denominations teach “... the road to success is self-control. That’s what you want to teach your children: Resist temptation. Walk the narrow path. Do the hard thing you don’t want to do, so that you and the people who are counting on you won’t be punished.”- the way out of your problems, and the way to avoid them in the future. Would Britney hear these sermons in a Unitarian church? No- as Doug says, those are not our issues.

But they should be. Social activism is well and good- but as the airline safety lecture goes, “Secure your own oxygen mask before attempting to help others.” We need to teach how and why to believe in something larger than yourself. (other than the Democratic party, I mean) It doesn’t have to be an angry Jehovah- you can speak only in terms of the harm evil does to the interdependent web, as I do here . But we need to talk about good and evil. We need to make judgments. The professional and ruling classes need these lessons just as much as the working class. Moreover, they want these lessons- that’s why we’re not any better at recruiting the professional class than the working class.

How can I say that? Look at the numbers. There are more than 2.6 million millionaires in this country. What would you call the professional class- would knocking down $100,000 a year be a safe definition? According to the US Census Bureau, 17,803,000 households make 100k or above. Counting non-working spouses and children, that’s many tens of millions of people in “our class”- but there are only 200,000 regularly attending UUs. There are probably more red haired left handed professionals than UU professionals. We are not the church of the professional class, we are the church of those who are sufficiently satisfied with our lives as to have the illusion that we don’t need judgements and hard lessons- it’s just that that happens more often in the professional class.

I do not believe that this new advertising campaign will work in the long run. Oh, it will get people in the doors, no doubt about that- but we won’t retain them until we have a message that speaks to the real lives of more than one half of one percent of the populace. We can be as welcoming as we like, but Gays and Lesbians and Transgendered and African Americans and Semites and Asians and Atheists and Buddhists and Pagans and Red Haired Left Handed Professionals all want a church with a coherent message that speaks to simple human issues.

Words that have lost their original meaning

Words change their meanings over the years; sometimes deliberately and sometimes accidentally. Examples of accidental change include "tissue" (or, as we called them when I was a kid, snot-rags) becoming "Kleenex", or "reproduction" becoming "Xerox"- those brands had such a huge market share that the specific became the generic.

Examples of deliberate change include "Gay", "African American", and "Native American"; they were chosen because the previous terms had become pejorative. The first two mentioned have actually had several generations of change, and may change again in the future.

None of those changes matter very much to the common comprehension required for communication- if I say, "Hand me a Kleenex", my meaning is clear. A person who was unfamiliar with the term "Native American" could easily figure it out, and the only people I've known who were genuinely confused by the term "African American" were the young children of a white immigrant from South Africa. Other words that have changed, however, are becoming a true hindrance to clear communication. Here are a few:

Literally The way the word is used today, one would think that people literally do not know what it means.

God At one time, "God(s)" meant a supernatural being or beings. Discussions of "God" were limited to the quantity (Unity? Trinity? Poly?) of these beings, and the attributes thereof. Today, people speak of God being love, or the interdependent web, or some such. Of course, we know why these circumlocutions were invented- to allow Catholic and Anglican bishops who had lost their faith to continue to draw their stipends. But it has resulted in much miscommunication.

Liberal and Conserative, and to a large extent Democrat and Republican One small example among many: originally it was Liberal Democrat Kennedy who championed massive tax cuts to stimulate the economy, and Conservative Republicans who opposed it as a risky scheme. This was not a deliberate change, but merely reflects the fact that most politicians are not leaders but weathervanes. Nonetheless, it is rendering true communication difficult.

Socialist, Fascist, Nazi The original dictionary definitions of these words are no longer used outside of a polysci doctoral thesis; today they merely mean "Someone I don't like". The only difference remaining is in who is speaking: Democrats call those they hate "Nazi"; Republicans call them "Socialist", and conspiracy nuts call both of them "Fascist".

What words would you add?

Don’t bring the Peace Petition to me

and expect to get a signature. I think I’m being extremely generous in calling the petition, and Rev. Sinkford’s fax to our congressmen childishly naive. Of course, Rev. Sinkford must believe us to be equally naive when he promises “On October 10 we will be walking into your representatives' offices to tell them to end the war...” in his message asking for our signatures. All 435 representatives’ offices, Rev.? Do they allow roller skates in the congressional office building?

Don’t talk to me about whether we should have invaded or not; that ship has sailed. Nor is this about whether the war has been bungled; that dock too is empty. The question here is whether we should cut and run- and that is exactly what Rev. Sinkford demands: “Not another dollar. Not another life.” That position is so deeply immoral that I find it difficult to understand how a highly educated man of the cloth could hold it; I can only hope he’s playing the “ask for the Moon, and they’ll compromise on what you really wanted” game- but I fear, given his history, that he’s serious.

Yes, progress in Iraq is a fraction of what we had hoped for by now. Yes, the government of Iraq has, by their failures, betrayed their courageous countrymen who risked so much by cooperating with the soldiers to root out resistance cells, in going to vote despite the threats. Every person who cooperated- and their families, even the children- lives in danger; every day some are assassinated. Because of the failures of their government, their only security lies in our presence. What are these brave lives worth? Are you willing to answer “Not another dollar. Not another life.”?

There’s nothing new about this situation. Brave Cubans rose up in response to American promises and revolted against Castro... and America lost its nerve at the last moment and withdrew the promised support; they were slaughtered to a man at the Bay of Pigs. Fourteen years after that we left allies behind in our hasty retreat from Vietnam, and again there was slaughter- and our absence as a credible regional threat allowed Pol Pot to slaughter millions in the “killing fields”. Fifteen years after that we encouraged the Kurds to revolt in Iraq, then stood back and allowed them to be slaughtered. Ironically, some of these very victims of our sins of omission were part of the proof that Saddam had once had weapons of mass destruction, as their villages had been gassed. With this history, it is no surprise at all that sixteen years later some are once again declaring our national symbol to be the mark of Cain, our national motto “We are not our brothers’ keepers”- it is just disappointing seeing the President of the UUA chanting that motto.

When mistakes are made, they must be paid for. You can’t just say “Sorry ‘bout that, chief!” and walk away with a clear conscience. You must apologize, yes- but you must also make good what you have destroyed. We have not yet done that; we have barely made a good start. Yes, the cost is dear, but the failure to pay it will be dearer still. We can follow the tradition of the last fifty years- “When the going gets tough, America gets going- in the opposite direction”; or we can at least pretend we’re the men and women our predecessors were and do the right thing by the people who befriended us. It would be so easy to say, as I heard someone around here (not a Unitarian, thank God) say when told that without us, there would be civil war: “So what? The whole damn country isn’t worth a single American life. They’re not even Christian- Hell, they’re just barely white!” Easy- but immoral.

I have an axcuse this time...

for not posting recently- as you will have gathered if you've read the Chaliceblog, my beloved and I have been in Washington DC- a second mini-honeymoon to celebrate our tenth anniversary!

It was a wonderful trip all the way around. The flight, both in and out, was fine; clear weather and smooth, and as I had been warned ahead of time, I didn't think the pilot was drunk when we weaved around the Potomac and dodged the Washington monument before landing. As we landed in the middle of the afternoon, the shuttle to the Metro and the Metro itself were not crowded. We had dinner that night at Stars, which I highly reccomend.

We spent a day at the International Spy Museum, and I am now drinking tea from my new Smithsonian mug. (which I got a discount on- you are members, right?) We had our anniversary dinner at Zola's.

We spent a delightful Saturday evening at the Brickskeller with CC and the CSO. If you haven't met them, they speak exactly like they write- we both look forward to the next time we meet. GA, anyone?

I had some deep thoughts at the Spy Museum, but I'll share them later; today is a day for laundry, mail, and other return tasks. Oops- there's the dryer buzzer. Later!

There are no experts on Islam

These are thoughts I’ve had for some time, but were recently jumpstarted by a discussion of the compatibility of Islam and UU on CRAPonSundays . In the course of this discussion, Will says, “In the years since, I’ve tried to learn more about Islam, but to be honest, I’m no expert.” Of course not, Will- there are no experts.

This sounds silly at first blush- there are millions of experts on Islam; we see them everywhere. Even if you limit it to only Imams who speak the language of the Prophet and were raised in that culture, there are many, ready to talk on any subject. Modesty? Here’s an expert saying that many women went topless back in the day- what the Prophet meant was “Put your shirt on.” No, here’s an expert saying scarf and veil are needed... now here’s one saying she has to wear a full Hazmat suit, complete with respirator. Women’s rights? Here’s an expert saying that Islam has full equality between the sexes... but this one says their rights are equal, but different, like she can’t be an Imam... and this one says that they do not have rights, but protections. War? This one says that he’s seeking Conscientious Objector status, as Islam is a religion of peace... that one is declaring Holy War.

If there’s one thing I learned in the pointless forest, it’s that a point in every direction is the same as no point at all. There is no Islamic scholar so well renowned that there isn’t some other equally qualified scholar willing to call him a silver plated idiot. There’s no “Pope” of Islam, no central authority to get the definitive answers from. There’s no agreement on anything but the Five Pillars. No, wait, don’t the Shi’a have eight? So if by “expert”, you mean someone who knows what Muslims believe, then no, there are no experts on Islam.

So what, one might ask- UUs don’t agree on anything, either. But then, UUs don’t claim to believe anything as a creedal test of membership. UUs don’t demand that non-UUs dress and act as if they were. UUs don’t call for the arrest of cartoonists for blasphemy, as the government of Bangladesh just did , let alone calling for their death, as some Imams have. UUs don’t strap bombs to their bellies and blow up teenagers in pizza parlors. And yes, some Imams say that those who call for violence are not “real” Muslims- but who’s to say? There are no experts. How are we to know?

Intellectual rigor?

When debating the existence of God, the illogic of theism is always one of the first things to be brought up. Science, which has given us all the modern wonders is completely logical, internally consistent, and deals only with reality as we see it, not as we imagine it; faith, in the words of our own Davidson Loehr , (who is much, much kinder than many famous atheists), “lacks intellectual rigor”. Any discussion of the supernatural- that which is indefinable, undetectable, unprovable, and yet can still affect the real world- is simply irrational. To actually have theological debates- the classic (though apocryphal) example is “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin”- is just mental masturbation.

Or so it seemed for decades, until the Hubble Space Telescope was orbited. We could now see regions of space we had only imagined before... and that revealed a problem. The real Universe was not arranged the way our infallible math- the logic that traced reality and existence from the Big Bang to the present day- said it should be. The distribution of Galaxies was all wrong; the real Universe had betrayed us. How could this be reconciled?

A solution was found- “Dark Matter”. Dark Matter has gravity, we decided, so it can account for the flawed distribution of matter, but has no other attributes; we can’t see it, it doesn’t block our view of anything else, it doesn’t register on instruments, and in fact we can’t prove it exists at all- we only infer it must be there to make our theology- oh, excuse me!- astronomy work out right. How could I possibly have made a slip like that; it has much more intellectual rigor to it than theism!

Of course, as we are so certain dark matter exists, we can describe it perfectly. Dark Matter is cold, being made of slow, dense neutralinos; it sparked the creation of stars and galaxies in clumps, or “litters“... No, wait, it’s warm and zippy, it formed stars like pearls on a string... some of the debate can be seen here . That’s a lot of stew to make from meat that’s only inferred- I wonder how much Dark Matter will fit on the head of a pin?

But the problematical distribution of matter wasn’t the only shock Hubble had for them; the velocity of wandering stars and galaxies was off, too- way off. They are just moving too fast for the available energy to explain; there must be... wait for it... Dark Energy! Dark Energy is, yes, energy that shines on everything except the instruments that might detect it. It’s undetectable and unproveable, but it’s the only thing that makes the math work out right, so it must exist. Along with the other undetectable stuff. In fact, they might be one and the same!

Of course, these hypothetical constructs must only affect our understanding of the Universe around the edges, right? I mean, we couldn’t base all our understanding of physics on things that are, for all intents and purposes, supernatural, could we? Uh... “Dark matter and dark energy are two of the most vexing problems in science today. Together they dominate the universe, comprising some 96 percent of all mass and energy.”, according to Robert Roy Britt, senior science writer at Space.com . So evidently we have a firm understanding of... 4% of the Universe.

Or do we? Matter is made of atoms, which are composed of subatomic particles such as Protons, Neutrons, etc. And those particles can be broken into yet smaller particles... and in this world, normal physics no longer works; a new math called “Quantum Physics” had to be invented to explain it. The smallest of the theoretical particles are called strings , at 10 -35th meters. How small is that? If an electron were the size of our solar system, a string would be the size of a tree... strings have 10, or maybe 11, or possibly 26 dimensions. Yes, yes, we have no proof or even evidence of more than three physical dimensions, but it makes the math work out right; work with us! Why do I bring these up? because “Exotic but widely popular "string theories" of the universe explain dark matter as "supersymmetric particles" that bear no relationship to dark energy,” says Mario Livio, senior scientist at the Space Telescope Science Institute, here .
My point? Only that the layman whose knowledge of science comes from the odd course taken to fulfill the requirements of a liberal arts degree are the ones most likely to believe that science has all the answers, and that it lacks “intellectual rigor” to believe the unproven and unproveable, and then ridicule others for believing something else that’s unproven and unproveable. Theists have no corner on the “something must be out there” market, and science has no corner on truth.

Sweetheart deal for moveon.org?

Moveon.org bought a full page ad in the New York Times questioning the integrity of General Petraeus, accusing him of lying in a report he had not yet even given when the ad was written with the headline, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us? (I think a new word has to be invented here- we have “chicken hawk” for those who call for war, but never fought themselves; we need a word for those who loathe the military, and yet believe they know more about war than those who have put their bodies in harm’s way to defend them) Now it appears that “The Paper of Record” gave Moveon.org a 65% discount on the standard advertising rates for such an ad.

According to ABC News , Moveon paid $65,000 for the ad- but the New York Post quotes Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times as saying "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692." The Post continues , “A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.”

I’m sure there is some simple explanation for this other than that Moveon got a discount because the NYTimes was sympathetic to their position. That just couldn’t be; we all know there’s no such thing as media bias, or that if there is, it happens only at Fox News.

UPDATE

September 24 I quote from this article : “After two weeks of denials, the New York Times acknowledged that it should not have given a discount to MoveOn.Orgfor a full-page advertisement General David H. Petraeus.”

“The liberal advocacy group should have paid $142,000 for the ad calling the U.S. commander in Iraq "General Betray Us," not $65,000, the paper's public editor wrote yesterday.

Clark Hoyt said in his column that MoveOn was not entitled to the cheaper "standby" rate for advertising that can run any time over the following week because the Times did promise that the ad would run Sept. 10, the day Petraeus began his congressional testimony. "We made a mistake," Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis was quoted as saying.

The Times also violated its own advertising policy, which bars "attacks of a personal nature," Hoyt reported.”

Movie reviews: Moliere and Stardust

Moliere is a comedy-drama, and a fine example of a genre of book and film I quite enjoy: a tale in the life of a famous historical figure, set in a period of his life about which nothing is known; no “suspension of disbelief” is required. This story “explains” why Moliere was out of the public eye for a time when he already had a reputation as an actor, but was not yet known as a playwright.
Moliere is portrayed as an intense and witty young man, a superb comedic actor who despises his own success because he loves and respects only “serious” theater; this makes him manic and capricious, played with almost a touch of Jack Sparrow. (or as Ginger corrected me, “Jacque Piaf”) This is not the random dissonance of Sparrow, however, but the result of his devotion to his craft.

I cannot come up with a single complaint about this film. The story, though at times fantastic, is well written and well paced; combined with the best ensemble cast I’ve seen in a foreign film it can make you laugh and cry within a span of minutes. As one might expect of a period piece shot in the actual locations, set in a time of elaborate dress and decoration, the visuals are wonderful. Yes, it is a French-language film, but the subtitles were translated colloquially, not word for word, so you get the flavor as well as the content. So even if you don’t speak French, you should see this film before it disappears from your local art theater- but if you do speak French, run out and see it right now!

Stardust is another comedy, a fantasy. There’s nothing serious about this film, nor does it take itself seriously; it’s pure mind candy. but it’s good candy. It’s the kind of film where you just know the cast had a hoot shooting it. For example, from the first second Robert De Niro appears on screen, you know he’s playing a parody of a De Niro character... but as the parody gets more and more over the top, you begin to wonder if he paid the studio to be allowed to play this character. Supposedly a minor character, he should have been arrested for Grand Theft Movie. Michelle Pfeiffer is fantastic as the witch Lamia.

Yes, the plot turning points are all telegraphed; yes, there are holes in the story. Who cares? We’re not talking Shakespeare here, (unless you mean De Niro’s character), we’re talking a couple hours of pure entertainment. Go see it.

Remembering

I had thought to post about my memories of 9/11, my feelings as I watched it unfold live on television that horrific day, but more eloquent writers have done it better. so I thought instead that I would write of lessons that need remembering. I don’t quite hold with Santayana's quote about those who don’t remember their history are doomed to repeat it, but I do believe that those who don’t learn from history will face preventable tragedy.

For example, we had plenty of chances to learn that terrorism cannot be treated as ordinary crime. We could have learned that from the Munich Olympics, or the failure of Israeli police to stop their bombings, or from our own experiences with embassy bombings and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing... but we didn’t. When our nation was founded, in the days when a musket got off one round every thirty seconds, one could merely react to crime- but today that’s not good enough; we have to stop them before they strike. One can well argue about the exact provisions of the Patriot Act, but something like it had to be passed; we are way beyond the stage where it’s possible to have intelligence and law enforcement agencies forbidden by law to talk to each other, as they were before 9/11. Complaining about warrantless wiretaps is all well and good- but having the ability to place an overseas call to Osama Bin Laden without being intercepted is not liberty but insanity.

There is an old military aphorism that any resolution short of total victory is a defeat. That lesson is well proven by the killing fields of Southeast Asia, and our current troubles with North Korea, and our current predicament in Iraq is a direct result of Bush the elder forgetting that lesson. Maybe it was politically impossible for him to overthrow Hussein in the first gulf war as claimed, but at the end of WW II we were able to leave the Emperor of Japan in place without leaving a dangerously militaristic government behind as a threat- a way could and should have been found to do the same in Iraq while we had the good will of governments in the Middle East.

Another military aphorism is that absolute, overwhelming force is just barely enough; anything less than a total effort wastes men and material even if you win. Had Bush the younger remembered that lesson, all of his other mistakes in Iraq would have been meaningless. A soldier on every street corner, and non-stop reconnaissance and strike sorties would have closed the border and stopped the flow of men and equipment that are now fueling the insurgency. One must either fight a war or not fight a war- never half-fight it! Any leader who fears cries of “disproportionate response” at the expense of lives- both ours and theirs- is unworthy of leading.

One lesson we, as a people, must learn is to finish what we start; the losses in the long run are often higher for quitting than for continuing. Osama Bin Laden himself said that the reason for the 9/11 strike was that since we had cut our losses and run from Somalia, he believed a really big strike would make us run from the whole of the Middle East. There is precedent for this: we know from captured records that the reason for the Pearl Harbor strike was that Japanese military leaders believed that because of our foreign policy record and level of political rhetoric in the 1930’s that we were afraid of war- one debilitating strike and we would be too cowed to enter the war. Even if no future dictator or terrorist attacks because he believes us too weak willed for a long fight, what about our own future Presidents? What if the next President is afraid to go into Darfur because he or she believes that if it turns nasty, we haven’t the will to continue?

Other lessons have been learned. One of President Bush’s few laudable actions was to say early and often that Islam as a religion was not to blame; this helped defuse the xenophobia that normally accompanies a war. There has been no wave of anti-Islam hysteria; those attacks that have occurred are no greater in number than “ordinary” hate crime- in fact, in the last six years more Christian churches have been burned than mosques attacked. When I heard a man I knew who forty years ago called anyone of even vaguely Asiatic appearance “gook” differentiate between “regular Muslims” and terrorists, I smiled.

Another lesson learned is that we, as a people, can no longer go about our business and allow the government to run things unsupervised. I believe that a lot of the viciousness of politics today stems from deep feelings of guilt, that we allowed things to get to this state. My hope is that in future, the tone of political blogs and organizations will moderate as participation increases.

How we pick our Presidents

I’ve come to believe that most of what’s wrong with our country today stems from how we pick our politicians, from Mayor to President- and I don’t mean the electoral process, I mean how we, the voters, choose who we’ll vote for. To demonstrate this, I’m asking you to tell me the qualifications of your favorite candidates for President, within the following parameters:

Don’t tell me their positions. There are three reasons for this- first, positions are not qualifications; if they were, and you share those positions, you’d be equally qualified, wouldn’t you?

The second reason is that positions don’t tell you they can do, or will do, but only what they want. After all, Chamberlain wanted peace, and he didn’t get it. The lowliest Congressman has more say about whether a given position will be implemented than the President does; at least he can vote on it.

The third reason positions don’t matter is that no one knows what the issues will be during the next term, much less what the right position is. Notice that neither Gore nor Bush told us back in 2000 what they would do about the Patriot Act, or the Iraq War, or Hurricane Katrina.

Don’t tell me about their education. Contrary to popular belief, education does not impart wisdom- if it did, President Bush’s combined GPA and post-graduate degree would place him near the top in this century, ahead of Reagan, Eisenhower, and miles ahead of Truman. Don’t even speak to me to me about intelligence; again, contrary to popular belief, IQ doesn’t impart wisdom, either- according to this article recommended by Snopes , President Bush’s IQ is equal to JFK’s.

Do tell me about their character. George Washington said that character was the only important issue... but he didn’t mean “Does he go to church”, or “Is he a good husband”, or any of the other things that phrase has been twisted to mean in recent decades. He meant “How will the candidate react to the unexpected”, or as a modern politician once phrased it, “I am the most qualified to wing it.” The great challenges of almost any presidency are totally unexpected and cannot be prepared for; what in your candidate’s life leads you to believe that he/she will have the wisdom and courage to do the right thing in the face of an unexpected world class emergency?

Do tell me about his/her accomplishments. If in the legislature, what laws have they written and gotten passed? What positions of trust or leadership within Congress have they won? If in an executive position, how have they shown the type of character I described above? What do their careers in the private sector, if any, tell you?

Frankly, by the standards outlined above, the bullpens of both parties look pretty thin to me. I see several with charisma, which is a sort of qualification, I guess... but not necessarily a good one. I see some executive experience, but no governors from any state large enough to equate to a country. No one with any foreign affairs experience at a decision-level grade; no one who’s been a diplomat, or State Department head.

Nothing better displays the pitiful state of politics in America today than that with the Presidency wide open, no incumbent, no groomed for the job VP, no old war horse in waiting, we could have a list of candidates this long with no clear leaders on it. Never in the course of U.S. history have so many had so little to bring to so important a moment.