Random Fate

A poll for my regular readers

After working on the first blog-novella instigated by Christina at Feisty Repartee, I have discovered that for me to truly learn how to write fiction, I need external limitations imposed so that I can work within those limitations.

Oddly, the limitations free me in a way to finish what I start.

Perhaps one day I can impose those limitations upon myself, but until then, I will impose upon you, those who actually READ what I post here, to leave comments to help me decide what to write.

So, here's the deal:

I will put up a series of polls on what genre, theme, and other details for a fiction story that I will post in serial form here at Random Fate. I will do my very best to write and post something close to half a chapter a week. Through this I hope to both get the practice and the discipline necessary to write fiction that can actually be sold for money.

The first poll: What genre would you like my serial fiction on Random Fate to be? I will limit it to the areas I feel I can write within that do not require so much research that it would take me months to get a start.

So, choose from these genres (with examples):

hard science fiction (Arthur C. Clarke: 2001: A Space Odyssey)

science fantasy (George Lucas, et al.: Star Wars)

generic science fiction (Gene Roddenberry, et al.: Star Trek)

legendary fantasy (J.R.R. Tokien: The Lord of the Rings)

generic fantasy (any of the Dungeons and Dragons based books, the Robert Adams Horseclans books, the Thieves World compilations, a personal favorite for the early books of that series)

police procedural/detective fiction (it it ain't obvious to you, you won't know the references...)

alternate history (Harry Tutledove: The Guns of the South)

modern literary fiction (John Updike: any of the Garp novels)

historical fiction (none come to mind, but fiction set in events in actual history with no change of events, perhaps Ben Hur is the best example)

I will NOT try to write a Harlequin romance or something similar. I don't want to hone my skills using a bodice-ripper...

Nor will I enter the genre of the fanboy erotic science fantasy of the Gor series, not in public without a pseudonym anyway. If you don't know about those books, don't ask... It will take you to realms best not explored if you haven't already heard of them.

Leave your vote in the comments or by email. I'll post the results and the follow-up poll in a week, where I will ask about the theme of the work.

An important question

Tonight I am having for dinner a meal including one of my favorite dishes, something I have only been able to make after my parents sent me supplies from the US, because the ingredients are not easily available here in France.

As I prepare to eat, an very important question arises which if answered poorly could detrimentally affect the entire meal. This is a question that needs an answer before I start, a vital question.

What wine goes best with macaroni and cheese?

Quizzes

Since Boudicca took it upon herself to insist I take a quiz on music influences, here it is:

Your Taste in Music:

Classic Rock: Highest Influence

Progressive Rock: Highest Influence

80's Pop: High Influence

90's Alternative: High Influence

90's Pop: High Influence

90's Rock: Medium Influence

80's Alternative: Low Influence

80's R&B: Low Influence

80's Rock: Low Influence

90's R&B: Low Influence

As you can see, I'm a bit of a fan of older music (progressive rock has it's roots in the late '60s and early '70s) along with what is called classic rock, which is really just music I grew up with.

Since I was there, I took some of the other quizzes that have been making the rounds. First, here's how I speak:

Your Linguistic Profile:

60% General American English

30% Dixie

5% Upper Midwestern

5% Yankee

0% Midwestern

You can take the boy out of the South, but you can't take the South out of the boy (or at least out of his speech)?

American Cities That Best Fit You:

75% Denver

70% Portland

65% Seattle

60% Honolulu

60% Las Vegas

I've lived in Portland, visited Seattle often during that time, and I found both places quite nice. Denver came out on top because I insisted upon easy access to skiing, Honolulu because I wanted a beach.

Las Vegas? Damned if I know...

The unbearable lightness of being

A deliberately obscure message directed towards a few. Those for whom it is intended will understand. For the rest, think upon it a while, and feel free to comment or ask questions by email.

---

Not so long ago, a movie was released that had the title The Unbearable Lightness of Being, a story about seemingly lost souls caught up in the so-called Prague-Spring of 1968 and the subsequent Soviet invasion.

What does this title, even without the historical context, mean to you?

Think for a moment.

lightness - ephemeral

unbearable - refusal to accept

Perhaps tragic realization that in the end, we are nothing, resulting in an unbearable lightness of being?

Like the wind crying endlessly through the universe, Time carries away the names and the deeds of conquerors and commoners alike. And all that we are, all that remains, is in the memories of those who cared we came this way for a brief moment.
   -Harlan Ellison

Many in blogworld, aka "our thing", aka "the blogosphere" rant and rave, make pronouncements profound or profane, deep or petty, hateful or loving, poingient or pointless.

In the end, whether we get 20,000 hits a day or 20, what really matters?

Those who agree with what we say, or those who really truly cared that we came this way for a brief moment?

Regardless of the cold, hard logic of numbers, perspective matters more.

The soul matters.

Honor matters.

In the end, what else is there?

Technorati Tags: commentary, opinion, weblogs

Doing the math...

I have noticed that the vast majority of weblogs have been taking ideological stances rather than actually "doing the math," as I like to phrase it, on several important issues.

No surprise there, given what I have learned of the ultimate frailty of human nature over the past four decades.

Unfortunately, since I have day job AND a life, I've been unable to devote the time necessary to do the math for those who prefer knee-jerk reactions to actual THOUGHT.

I plan to make the time tomorrow or this weekend for those poor souls. If you want specific topics addressed, please leave a comment or send me an email.

Technorati Tags: commentary, opinion

More rage...

I feel a rage growing within me. An anger I do not welcome.

As I have posted before, I was once fueled by the fury, but now I fully understand the price paid for that ephemeral energy.

So, although provided with a seeming increase in vitality, I recognize the false promise in it and find it unwelcome.

Yet I need to vent this rage somehow.

Although tempting, trying to quench it with alcohol is a cure that is worse than the affliction.

Unfortunately, since the rage arises from the seemingly deliberate actions of others to ignore the precepts of logic and the weight of evidence, a simple release is inadequate in the long-term.

But I cannot stop caring about my country, a nation based upon impossible ideals that have somehow remained current, viable, and incredibly alive despite over two centuries of assault by the inevitable frailties of humanity that destroy all that is not venal or selfish.

How do I exorcise this demon, rid myself of the inexorable conclusion that perhaps the country I love does not deserve to survive because of the blindness displayed by the heirs of brilliance unknown before those in the New World in the late 18th Century showed the world what adherence to ideals could accomplish?

How do I keep hope alive?

I do not know the answer, I can only believe in what Abraham Lincoln said in a time that to me seems equally dark, "Where there is life, there is hope."

I can only hope.

Bloody Hell...

...I staged a happy hour for folks I work with this evening after work, and the waiter at the bar decides that this is the night to bring me a free glass of single-malt Scotch.

I had already had four on an empty stomach, so number five did a serious number on me.

One more post from me tonight, and that's it. That post will NOT be a thoughtful, insightful post, either.

Sorry... I'm reasonably intelligent and capable, but I do have limits, and I recognize when I have reached mine. Five generous measures of a strong single-malt on an empty stomach is more than even I can comfortably handle.

...on the endings of beginnings

Sluggy Freelance is an online comic strip I have enjoyed reading for several years, although some of the experimentation that the author, Peter Abrams, has indulged in recently is not quite as entertaining. Not that I begrudge him his attempts at stretching his creativity, but much of the fun factor is missing.

Pete himself has recognized this, and he now has a co-artist/author who is publishing one strip a week set during the "bikini suicide frisbee days." An example of the spirit of those early days of Sluggy Freelance can be found in this particular strip:

Read the following strips to find the pleasant chaos that made it fun.

The early days of Bloom County have a similar, quasi-anarchic and amicably subversive feel that is so hard to capture and so easily lost.

Some call it "jumping the shark" enshrining an infamous episode of the television sitcom Happy Days when Fonzie performed a motorcycle stunt a-la Evel Kenivel by jumping his bike over a shark tank.

Somehow, the fun goes away.

The endings of beginnings and the loss of innocence and naivete occurs with almost everything, not just comic strips and television shows.

Sometimes the end of the beginning is noticed at the time it happens, sometimes it is not recognized until well after the change in spirit has taken hold.

As with any loss of innocence there is a wistful longing for the pure, artless, fresh fun that is no more.

Another beginning has sadly ended; the "bikini suicide frisbee days" of blogging are over.

I suspect those carefree times ended with the election of 2004, when it became more important to post politics than silly quizzes, and it became more important to bash the infamous MSM instead of continuing to build a true community of strangers who became friends who had never met.

Where does it go from here?

That is up to us to decide.

Perhaps we should try to recapture some of the fun, some of the unaffected guilelessness, some shadow of the spirit of our bikini suicide frisbee days not so long departed, but already dearly missed.

Technorati Tags: weblogs

Notice - ISOU is temporarily offline

I have been asked by David Anderson of In Search of Utopia to announce that he is having some host-related problems and his blog will be offline for around 24 hours.

This ends the community service announcement. There is no need to be alarmed.

How I remember to keep perspective

I've posted this quote before, but it bears repeating:

Like the wind crying endlessly through the universe, Time carries away the names and the deeds of conquerors and commoners alike. And all that we are, all that remains, is in the memories of those who cared we came this way for a brief moment.
   -Harlan Ellison

What memories will you leave behind?

...on the wound that will not heal

On my bookshelf here in France is a book I brought with me when I first moved here from the US that I planned (and still plan) to read, The Fifty Year Wound: The True Price of America's Cold War Victory by Derek Leebaert.

I have not made time to read the book yet, but the title is very evocative of something I have long felt about the Cold War.

I lived through the latter part of that indirect combat, with all the fears of the cold, inexorable logic of MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction, giving my teenage hormone-heated dreams a nightmarish tinge, a fear of dying in a nuclear furnace before I had the chance to truly live.

Although the United States seemingly emerged intact from that conflict with no direct collision of the powers involved, a struggle by proxy with strange periods of seeming amity between the contestants, there was a price that was paid; a price not solely paid in the lives lost during the era, nor in the murders arising from the subsequent terrorist actions seeded by actions taken with no thought to a future with a change in the equilibrium of mutual destruction.

The price exacted was not only in lives, and not only in treasure, but also of the soul.

Those who lived in the era know; for those who did not, please ask those who did.

The old wound will not heal, for it was deep.

The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught.
   -H. L. Mencken

From old wounds honor dies.

Look at those who claim to be worthy of being our leaders now.

Look at how they assert they have a unique insight into what is "moral".

Look at their actions, and their explanations that "I did nothing illegal."

Nothing illegal...

Moral men they are indeed.

.
.
.

And yet, we need men of honor if we are to survive and thrive.

Even accounting for political posturing, the two are far from the same.

In our fifty year wound, honor seems to have bled out along with the blood and treasure sacrificed.

An age of irony is no substitute.

But we will be crushed upon the anvil of irony, because an honorable man can no longer survive to become a leader...

But a moral man will, if he proclaims his morality loudly enough.

All things, good and bad, come to an end.

To what end is up to us.

Choose wisely when a moral man comes calling, for the men of honor have already been sacrificed.

Technorati Tags: commentary, opinion

Are the inmates running the asylum?

A lot of bad bills are introduced with each session of Congress, but is the situation now getting out of control?

Read about the so-called "Academic Freedom Bill of Rights" at Point Progression and decide yourself.

Do our members of Congress even bother to think at all about the repercussions of the bills they propose if they became law?

Some opinions on the EU Constitution and EU membership for Turkey

GRENOBLE, France - I have started a new custom here, a Friday happy hour after work. When I first suggested it, I was asked, "What are you celebrating?" My response, "the end of the week, the start of the weekend, and the fact that we're alive!" Odd, I had thought that since what I have seen in Europe how socializing is a big part of life, the custom of a post-work-week happy hour wouldn't be that foreign.

It goes to show we often don't know what we don't know and assume things we shouldn't.

Because of various circumstances, only one colleague could attend the happy hour with me this last week, an expatriate from Germany, Marcus. Marcus is an expatriate from his home country, as am I, but he is under a "local contract" and does not have a limited stay in France.

After the customary discussion of work related topics his girlfriend, a Frenchwoman, arrived and although it was my first meeting of Katherine (pronounced Ka-ter-een here in France), she greeted me in the French fashion between friends with the two kisses, one on each cheek. After the introductions and a last drink at the bar, they kindly invited me to join them for dinner at a nearby restaurant.

We had a typical French meal, slow, many courses, good wine, and much talk. What was interesting was when the discussion came upon the topic of the European Union, the upcoming vote in France on the EU constitution, and the possibility of Turkey joining the EU. The attitudes and arguments expressed by Marcus and Katherine could almost be said to typify many of those heard in their respective home countries.

Both Marcus and Katherine believe it is important to approve the EU constitution, but for different reasons. At the risk of sounding like a cliché, Marcus made the argument that it would help increase unity within the EU. Katherine stressed the importance of bringing together the different cultures, especially those of the recently joined nations in Eastern Europe.

In general, it seems that the young in Europe are in favor of the EU, Marcus being 35 and Katherine just turning 30 this last year. I have heard similar sentiments from other young adults here.

When it came to discussion of the prospect of Turkey joining the EU, disagreement arose, again along what could be described as representative of their respective nationalities. Both Katherine and Marcus had visited Turkey at different times. Katherine felt strongly that Turkey should join the EU both to help strengthen the EU along with to help spread "European ideals" to Turkey.

Marcus replied to Katherine that she had only visited the far Western portion of Turkey, the wealthiest section that little resembled the poor regions to the East. His contention was that Turkey was not a Christian nation, where the foundations of European culture are Christian.

A brief aside is necessary here, for when a European discusses "Christian nations" and "Christian cultures" they are not referring to what is thought when partisans in the US use these same terms. Similar to the different meanings that the words "liberal" and "conservative" have between Europe and the US, the terms "Christian nation" and "Christian culture" refer not to the creation or maintenance of a "Christian" or religious oriented culture, but instead alludes to the foundations upon which a common culture that can be labeled "European" has been built.

In other words, Marcus believes that the Muslim foundation of Turkey is not compatible with the culture of Europe, which is based upon a Christian foundation, despite now being mainly a secular society.

The discussion passed back and forth, with brief interjections from me on topics ranging from how the citizens of the US referred to the United States in the plural before the Civil War and in the singular after that traumatic transformation, to how the US was founded by cultural rejects from England who then created a culture that while "Christian" in foundation has less in common with the current European culture than it may have with other, more religious oriented cultures such as those in the Middle East.

The discussion always remained civil, and in refreshing contrast to what I have seen in the US, agreement was not required nor expected. Perhaps there are still things we can learn from Old Europe.

Technorati Tags: commentary, EU, European Union, opinion

Addition to the blogroll, Point Progression

There is another addition to my blogroll, Point Progression, a weblog that has brought more than one topic to my attention that I will be writing upon in the next few days.

Check it out.

I lean left?

In response to some email from today, and in support of my contention that what is perceived to be the "center" has moved to the right because of the rhetoric and other excesses of the zealots, I quote from The New Republic Online:

Conservatism isn't over. But it has rarely been as confused. Today's conservatives support limited government. But they believe the federal government can intervene in a state court's decisions in a single family's struggle over life and death. They believe in restraining government spending. But they have increased such spending by a mind-boggling 33 percent in a mere four years. They believe in self-reliance. But they have just passed the most expensive new entitlement since the heyday of Great Society liberalism: the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. They believe that foreign policy is about the pursuit of national interest and that the military should be used only to fight and win wars. Yet they have embarked on an extraordinarily ambitious program of military-led nation-building in the Middle East. They believe in states' rights, but they want to amend the Constitution to forbid any state from allowing civil marriage or equivalent civil unions for gay couples. They believe in free trade. But they have imposed tariffs on a number of industries, most famously steel. They believe in balanced budgets. But they have abandoned fiscal discipline and added a cool trillion dollars to the national debt in one presidential term.

One reason for conservatism's endurance in the face of such contradiction, of course, is the extreme weakness--intellectual and organizational--of the opposition. Liberalism ceased being a vibrant force in the American public weal two decades ago. The left never recovered from the collapse of communism, the dismal failure of social democracy across Western Europe, and the demise of Japan's command economy in the 1980s. Domestically, a liberal claim on the presidency never recovered from Jimmy Carter and the first two years of Bill Clinton. Conservatism, broadly understood, has occupied the White House for 23 of the past 25 years. No unreconstructed liberal stands a chance of winning it in the near future--hence Hillary Clinton's moderate makeover.

After reading the first paragraph, can you truly say my cries of "hypocrisy" are unfounded?

Think about it.

Then read the prescription at the end of the article:

But that is not the prime reason for standing up for the conservatism of doubt in a time of religious certainty. Imagine if the Rove formula is actually a successful one. Imagine a dominant political party devoted to expanding government as a means of moral revival, using national security to achieve a tiny democratic majority. The long connection between Republicanism and the expansion of individual freedom could be severely compromised. The attractiveness of a conservatism of doubt rests ultimately not on its ability to corral majorities. It rests on its central insight: that politics is not religion; that the U.S. guarantee of freedom is for all, not merely the majority; that political freedom must mean economic freedom, and that freedom is imperiled by fiscal recklessness; that there are worse things than doing nothing, especially if that "something" is the imposition of a divisive moral agenda.

There may come a reckoning for this political moment--and it may soon peak or deflate or be undone by its own hubris. Or it may not. What has to endure is not merely a reformed liberalism that can one day take government away from its current masters, but rather a conservatism that does not assent to its own corruption at the hands of zealots. This doesn't mean hostility to religion. It means keeping religion in its safest place--away from the trappings of power. And it means keeping politics in its safest place--as the proper arrangement of our common obligations, and not as a means to save or transform our lives and souls. If we are fighting such a conservatism of faith abroad--and that is the core of the war on Islamist terrorism--then why should it be so hard to confront it in much milder forms at home? This was, once upon a time, the central conservative calling. Why not again?

The right has lost its way, even more so than the left. Unfortunately, they are in power now, and they have the potential to wreak incredible damage.

I will not remain silent, even if I am accused of being on the "left" when instead the rhetoric has made anyone not firmly on one side or the other an apparent "traitor" depending upon the side shouting the accusation.

Just because the rest of the world has lost their minds does not mean I will succumb to the madness.

Sadness

I was reminded of something I wrote nearly a year ago by two bloggers who were participating in the latest meme: Name two classic blog posts that deserve to be read and remembered.

Christina at Feisty Repartee linked to a post of mine, and WitNit repeated the link.

In part, what I wrote in my post:

My father was diagnosed with bladder cancer only scant days before I was scheduled to fly to France for a three year expatriate assignment. My father insisted I go to France and not stay in the United States for his surgery or the post-surgery chemotherapy. I will never forget the crack I heard in my father's voice when I called him from France shortly before he went into surgery and told him, "Thank you, everything I am is because of you, and I love you." I could tell he was happy, proud, and afraid. How could I ever forget hearing that in my father's voice?

Since that time, my father has endured chemotherapy similar to that undergone by Lance Armstrong. While my father has tried to hide from me the difficulties that this therapy has caused him, when I talk with him on the phone I can hear in his voice the pain and exhaustion, and my mother has told me of the many problems that he has chosen to not discuss with me because he does not want to "worry" me.

---

Lance Armstrong displays publicly same inner strength my father is showing now, privately. Lance Armstrong is exhibiting to the world that same inner strength that my father is quietly camouflaging by saying that things are "not so bad", an inner strength that I am not present to admire and support because my father did not want me to "miss an opportunity" or "derail my life" because of him.

What my father does not understand (and although I have told him, I will not try to teach him) is that he has given me all of my opportunities, he has laid the rails upon which I live my life. I want to be there with him, but he would feel guilty if I changed my life because of him, not realizing that it is indeed what I want, and so I must instead watch from afar in fear and hope.

So for me Lance Armstrong is a symbol of my hope, the hope that my selfish desire of being on the same planet as my father is fulfilled for many, many years.

Fortunately for me, my father seems to be recovered, but it has only been a year since his surgery that removed his bladder and prostate, and less than a year since the end of his chemotherapy.

With cancer, every year is a gift, not a given.

What was particularly poignant for me today though is that I may be seeing the back of someone as they walk out of my life.

Human connections are tenuous at best, a thin web that can tear even despite the best efforts at preservation.

How can they ever endure over an ocean, sustained only by the movement of electrons over wires?

Yet each rent is just as painful a loss whether those who depart are geographically near or far.

Whether the departure is from death or merely a parting of ways because of divergent paths, the loss is still there, and the emptiness left behind is still keenly felt.

Some voids can never be filled.

Rage

Long ago, I was filled with rage.

I was angry, and I used that fury to give me energy, to power my soul.

Every injustice I saw, every wrong, every idiocy, they all fueled me and drove me on.

Then I discovered that the vigor I thought I was getting from the anger was illusory, and instead the fires of rage were consuming me from the inside.

When I unmasked that chimera, I resolved to not allow myself to be ruled by the heart, to not fall prey to the false promises of emotion or logic, but to strive for a balance between the two.

I have spent the last eight years struggling and seeking that equilibrium. At times I feel I have found it, but then something comes along to upset the balance and I suppress an extreme emotional reaction and struggle to prevent an overly-logic-oriented response.

As is acknowledged in philosophy originating in the orient, balance is key, but it is difficult to achieve.

Unfortunately, the philosophy from the occidental side of the world does not recognize balance, but instead strains for the ephemeral ecstacy of complete, total victory of one side over the other.

But...

We need to endure the cold black night to appreciate the warm rose in the dawn of a new day.

We need the grey dearth of winter to cherish the verdant green life restored in the spring.

We need the horrid example of evil to comprehend the sacrifice made to gain the good.

We need our pain and loss, because it defines us as who we are and helps us recognize the joy.

The elimination of one diminishes the other.

Total victory is not a gain; it is a loss.

Stop a moment, and think...

.
.
.

What if both sides are needed?

What if emotion is needed to counterweigh the cold cruelty of logic?

What if logic is needed to counteract the hot reactions of emotion?

What if BOTH the philosophies of liberal AND conservative are needed to form a fair and strong nation?

Yet BOTH sides persist in their so-called strategies that are aimed at total annihilation of the other.

I see this, and my rage grows.

A rage I recognize as destructive, but cannot be suppressed or ignored any longer.

I cannot remain numb to this.

The old tinder that fed the fires inside alight again, and I cannot smother them.

The intemperate rage returns, with the same consequences and costs.

The best I can hope for is that the firebreaks I construct can keep me from being totally consumed.

They who are so ready to label those who don't agree with them 100% as "idiotarian" do not recognize that same flaw of self-destructive idiocy in themselves.

Those who don't get it don't get that they don't get it.

Boys, get out your Balzac, because this has been noted before: Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

And Orwell laughs, for he may have been wrong in the timing, but not in the result.

For want of a nail...

...the war was lost?

I don't want to minimize the crime committed here, but the headline from Foxnews.com seems to reek of hyperbole:

Witness: Akbar Attack Compromised Iraq War
Monday, April 25, 2005

FORT BRAGG, N.C. - A sergeant's attack on his own colleagues in the 101st Airborne Division in Kuwait sidelined key personnel the unit needed for its assignment in the invasion of Iraq, a commander testified Monday.

"Everybody knew this would be a big fight," Col. Ben Hodges testified Monday at a sentencing hearing for Sgt. Hasan Akbar, convicted in a grenade and rifle attack that killed two soldiers and wounded 14. "I never dreamed my first casualties would occur inside Camp Pennsylvania and they would be caused by one of my own soldiers."

Let's back the truck up here a minute.

This one "key personnel unit" was required to prevent a "compromise of the Iraq War"?

Eggs, solitary basket, bad idea...

Connect the dots.

I cannot believe that this one unit was required to properly conduct the Iraq War.

If we can't respond to this type of event, how can we expect to respond to the actions of the enemy?

Hyperbole, or a weakness in how we wage war?

You pays your money and you takes your pick.

So tell me, which is it?

Geese and gander? Kill 'em ALL!

I've had mixed feelings regarding the effort among the Republican leadership in the Senate to remove the option of filibuster with respect to judicial nominations with the reasoning that the President should have the judges (and other nominees) he picks without contention.

Then I recalled that the Democratic Party has blocked 10 nominees out of over 200.

In other words, less than 5% of the total.

Then, I think back to when Bill Clinton was President.

Did the Republican Party allow President Clinton a free pass when he nominated judges, cabinet members, or other appointed officials?

No.

So, according to the Republican Party, what was good for the goose is not good for the gander.

In other words, the Republican Party does NOT believe in our system of government.

Is that an extreme opinion?

Show me how it is not, given the Republican Party is NOT willing to play by the same rules they used against the Democrats when the Democrats held the Oval Office.

In other words, now that the Republicans are in power, they don't give a damn about the system, they just want to have their way, and they are willing kill BOTH the goose and the gander to get it.

I hate hypocrites, and the Republican Party is showing that they are filled with hypocrisy.

Non-random quotes of the political moment

Some thoughts in these days of changing long-held rules to fit the agenda of the party in power and rewriting recent history to avoid bad poll results:

Rogues are preferable to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
   -Alexandre Dumas

Any event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian.
   -Lee Simonson

Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary.
   -Robert Louis Stevenson

In great affairs men show themselves as they wish to be seen; in small things they show themselves as they are.
   -Nicholas Chamfort

Meme du jour

I was tagged by Boudicca, who says she is always curious about what is in my head.

Here is the description:

Immediately following there is a list of 24 different occupations. You must select at least 5 of them (feel free to select more). You may add more if you like to your list before you pass it on (after you select 5 of the items as it was passed to you). Each one begins with "If I could be..." Of the 5 you selected, you are to finish each phrase with what you would do as a member of that profession.

For example, if the selected occupation was "pirate" you might take the phrase "If I could be a pirate..." and add to it "I would sail the 7 Seas, dating lasses from around the world."

See how easy that is? Here's the list:

If I could be a scientist...
If I could be a farmer...
If I could be a musician...
If I could be a doctor...
If I could be a painter...
If I could be a gardener...
If I could be a missionary...
If I could be a chef...
If I could be an architect...
If I could be a linguist...
If I could be a psychologist...
If I could be a librarian...
If I could be an athlete...
If I could be a lawyer...
If I could be an innkeeper...
If I could be a professor...
If I could be a writer...
If I could be a llama-rider...
If I could be a bonnie pirate...
If I could be an astronaut...
If I were a dog...
If I were an inventor...
If I were a programmer...
If I were a genius...

Not so easy for me. I am a scientist and an inventor; it's what I'm paid for. I have been a writer (as in paid to write a book, it went out of print about 10 years ago, but it's still listed in the Library of Congress), and I still write papers that are published in technical journals. I'm now working on trying to write other stuff that I'll be paid for. I taught a class at a local university here in France, and the French use the word professeur for any kind of teacher. I probably shouldn't pick that one, either.

So...

I need five out of the list now that it has been shortened. No fair!

Well, to start, if I could be a linguist... I'd speak French a Hell of a lot better than I do now after living in France for a year. They have an expression here that French is "best learned on the pillow." Aside from any other considerations that prevent me from taking that route, relations between people are difficult enough even speaking the same language fluently!

If I were a programmer... I'd bathe a LOT more frequently than the intense programmers I've known, and I'd certainly make sure I developed social skills to go with the computer skills.

If I could be an architect... I'd take advantage of all the really interesting structures that modern construction techniques and materials allow, but I would make sure that I incorporated much of the beauty and aesthetics that were once routinely a part of any building. Too much pure functionality or cold reflection of modern life has been bad for our souls, along with making a lot of ugly buildings.

If I could be an astronaut... I'd stand up and make speeches about how we have lost our nerve, our willingness to take risks to explore. People die in breaking new ground, and we need to keep making that sacrifice else we will wither away while examining our navels. Then I'd make damn sure I was the first person to stand outside on Mars.

If I could be a musician... I'd try to write songs that express the beauty I see in people, and the sadness I feel when I see some people leave.

If I could be an innkeeper... I'd open up a bed and breakfast on the grounds of a winery where I'd make damn good wine. (This is the retirement plan, by the way...)

Some that weren't on the list:

If I could be a cartoonist... I'd try to draw and write a comic strip that captured the spirit of the early Bloom County mixed with Calvin and Hobbes. That would be good.

If I could be a sculptor... I would like to be able to sculpt what I see, especially in women. What I see isn't part of the physical world, but can be partially captured by a great artist. Ah, well, at least I am not too clumsy to type.

I may pass it on, but for now, I have too many things to do and not enough time.

I always wondered about that...

Perhaps this merits a caption contest?

My suggestion, from the first (i.e. 1977) Star Wars movie:

Aren't you a little short for an Imperial Stormtrooper?
   -Princess Lea

Scattershot random quotes of the moment

A learning experience is one of those things that says, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that."
   -Douglas Adams

The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true.
   -James Branch Cabell

If anything can survive the probe of humour it is clearly of value, and conversely all groups who claim immunity from laughter are claiming special privileges which should not be granted.
   -Eric Idle

Everyone has talent. What is rare is the courage to follow the talent to the dark place where it leads.
   -Unknown

Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study hard. Be evil.
   -Unknown

We have done worse

From graffiti in Ecuador, where there is a political crisis involving their President:

SpongeBob for President!!

I think it's an idea whose time has come!

Anyone want to help make a logo?

A quote on morality

Immorality: the morality of those who are having a better time.
   -H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Another issue, even less time, in this instance on the pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions

Something else that has been sapping my writing time, an ongoing comment stream at Pennywit.com discussing the rights of pharmacists to deny dispensing drugs versus the right of the patient to receive those drugs, namely birth control medication.

I've devoted far too many words to the weblog of another on this, so the least YOU can do is go read what I wrote there if you're interested in my views.

Finite time, infinite issues

Some days, especially after I write a post that required a lot of work, there are just too many things to write about.

So instead today I will post a list of links to things I would post about if I had infinite time and energy. You can draw what conclusions you will, but there is indeed a common thread to these.

Moussaoui: a window on terror trials
Suspect is scheduled to plead guilty Friday in a bizarre case raising questions about how justice system handles terrorism.

Soft vs. hard energy path: the political lines harden
House was set to pass a bill Thursday that supporters say will boost supplies, but critics worry about smog and ANWR.

The flat-tax revolution
Fine in theory, but it will never happen. Oh really?

Santorum reads nuke polls, applies the brakes
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a leading advocate of the "nuclear option" to end the Democrats' filibuster of judicial nominees, is privately arguing for a delay in the face of adverse internal party polls.

Taxing Experience
While the Moose is not an economist nor does he play one on the Internet, you don't need to be a Nobel Laureate to realize that there may be some hard times ahead

How Germans Fell for the 'Feel-Good' Fuehrer
Hitler not only fattened his adoring "Volk" with jobs and low taxes, he also fed his war machine through robbery and murder, says a German historian in a stunning new book. Far from considering Nazism oppressive, most Germans thought of it as warm-hearted, asserts Goetz Aly. The book is generating significant buzz in Germany and it may mark the beginning of a new level of Holocaust discourse.

War memories blur 60 years after
The 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe is being marked not just with commemorations - in Russia there are moves to rehabilitate Stalin and in Germany a debate has developed about how far Germans were victims as well as perpetrators.

Diebold Misled State Voting Officials
Formerly secret documents obtained by EPIC from Ohio reveal that Diebold misled state officials about the capability of its voting machines. Diebold claimed that its machines would last at least 20 years.

Smile. You're on candid cop camera.
In that most representative of public assemblies - the bustling House chamber of the New Hampshire State House - there's an old rebellious notion: In matters of personal responsibility, don't always err on the side of safety. After all, it's the only state not to require that adults wear seat belts.

Rove's Reading: Not So Liberal as Leery
Similarly, Rove attested that "most people I know on both sides of the aisle actually believe in the positions they take," and he proposed a rule: "Unless you have clear evidence to the contrary, commentators should answer arguments instead of impugning the motives of those with whom they disagree." But he did not square that with a White House that routinely challenges the motives of those who question Bush, calling them "partisan" and "petty.

Panel Delays Vote on Bolton Nomination to U.N.
"You have some Democrats who continue to raise unfounded allegations," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "Bolton testified for more than eight hours before the committee, responded to many follow-up questions in writing. . . . And we are happy to address any [other] questions the committee members might have. We look forward to him being confirmed and believe he will be."

I will leave it to the reader to find the common pattern in the white noise here.

Feel free to comment on what you see as the pattern.

An appropriate resolution using the court system

From CNet News.com:

Yahoo releases e-mail of deceased marine
Published: April 21, 2005, 12:39 PM PDT By Stefanie Olsen Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Complying with a court order, Yahoo agreed to give the family of a U.S. Marine killed in Iraq access to the soldier's e-mail.

On Wednesday, an Oakland County probate court in Michigan ordered Yahoo to give the contents of the e-mail account to the father of Justin Ellsworth, 20, who was killed in November by a roadside bomb in Falluja.

Yahoo complied with the mandate Thursday, despite the company's policy of not giving e-mail passwords to anyone other than the account holder.

"We are pleased the court resolved this matter," said Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako.

The case highlights uncertainty about the privacy of people's digital life in the event of their death, and about the responsibilities Internet service providers have toward family members.

Experts say there has yet to be a definitive court ruling on the status of e-mail as to whether it is an extension of the deceased's estate at the time of his or her passing. But, they say, it would stand to reason that e-mail account information and the data within the account would be treated equally to other possessions.

"If an ISP's terms of service run contrary to what would seem to be a reasonable holding by a probate court, then you would need to have a hearing to find which position would win out--whether the public interest is better served by releasing personal data or by upholding a privacy holding in an ISP's terms of service," said Ray Everett Church, principal for privacy consultancy PrivacyClue.

Still, privacy experts say ISPs are within their rights to ask the courts to make such a ruling. "If it turned out some shenanigans were going on, Yahoo would be in breach of its own privacy policy," Church said.

Some e-mail providers, such as America Online, allow next-of-kin to access e-mail accounts of the deceased by submitting documents proving the relationship and by faxing a copy of the death certificate. AOL does not require loved ones to go through the courts.

Yahoo's terms of service prohibit the company from disclosing private e-mail communications. Yahoo will turn over an account to family members only after they go through the courts to verify their identity and relationship to the deceased.

Despite its compliance in the case, Yahoo said it will not reverse its company policy, choosing instead to honor the privacy of account holders.

Yahoo delivered to Ellsworth's father, John Ellsworth, a CD of more than 10,000 pages, according to a spokeswoman. The company also plans to provide him with printouts of the communications early next week.

John Ellsworth could not be reached for comment Thursday. But in an interview with Detroit radio station WJR, he credited Yahoo for acting quickly and responsibly once the legal issues were settled, including helping him decrypt the information on the CD.

"I do appreciate Yahoo's take on this, and I'm glad we were able to come to an agreement," he said.

CNET News.com's Jim Hu contributed to this report.

Some issues must be adjudicated by the court system.

Far more often than not, the appropriate judgment is rendered.

Unfortunately, the extremists focus on the controversy, feeding on the sound and fury generated, advancing their radical and often nihilistic agenda that leads to fascism.

Perhaps we should tell them to STFU. If it works 99% of the time, it functions better than most things that the human race has made.

Hibernation inherent in all mammals?

There has been a development in biology I never expected. From MSNBC.com:

Scientists develop "hibernation on demand"
Technique could be used in hospitals to reduce fevers or buy time for organ transplants, researchers say

By Robert Roy Britt
Senior writer
Updated: 2:20 p.m. ET April 21, 2005

A new trick could one day put humans into hibernation without all the frigid antics of an Austin Powers movie or an Arthur C. Clarke story.

Using a natural chemical that humans and other animals produce in their bodies, scientists have for the first time induced hibernation in mammals, putting mice into a state similar to suspended animation for up to six hours and then bringing them back to normal life.

The breakthrough suggests that humans along with other mammals might harbor a mostly unused ability to hibernate on demand. Further research into the phenomenon could lead to medical advances, such as buying time for humans awaiting an organ transplant, scientists said.

"We are, in essence, temporarily converting mice from warm-blooded to cold-blooded creatures, which is exactly the same thing that happens naturally when mammals hibernate," said lead researcher Mark Roth of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

During the induced hibernation, cells virtually stopped working, reducing the rodents' need for oxygen.

"We think this may be a latent ability that all mammals have - potentially even humans - and we're just harnessing it and turning it on and off, inducing a state of hibernation on demand," Roth said.

The results are detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

I'll think about the implications of this for a while and post on it later.

I truly hope this isn't something that ends up being found to be impractical in the end.

If we can truly induce hibernation, this could be huge.

Holy cow!!!

More later.

Family values?

From Fox News:

16 Breast-Feed in Protest at Public Meeting
Thursday, April 21, 2005 Associated Press

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. - A city commission candidate was criticized for breast-feeding her daughter during a public meeting, so 16 other mothers turned up and nursed their children at another gathering as a show of support.

Gabrielle Redfern apologized for offending anyone, but says she won't stop breast-feeding her child when necessary. She had been criticized by some for breast-feeding her 1-year-old daughter, Elsie, during Mayor David Dermer's recent State of the City address.

"Elsie's been coming to public meetings since she was 2 weeks old," said Redfern, who is in her first bid for public office. "I shouldn't have to choose between being a publicly involved citizen and being a good mother."

On Wednesday, 16 women held a "nurse-in" in support of Redfern, breast-feeding their babies at a Miami Beach Commission meeting.

"How is she supposed to raise her child and have a career if she isn't allowed to breast-feed her child when she attends meetings?" said Ellen Sandoval, who came to show her support. "I quit working because I didn't know or have the courage to do what she is doing."

State law says a woman can breast-feed her child anywhere she is otherwise legally allowed to be.

But even in a city where topless sunbathing is common, others say there should be limits.

"I think it's a beautiful and natural thing, but there's a time and a place for it," said Joe Fontana, who regularly attends community meetings. "It's distracting. Why inside? Why not step outside to do it?"

Question: If you claim to believe in "family values" and say "it's a beautiful and natural thing" then why is it so tremendously distracting?

I'm a normal, healthy, fully heterosexual male, and I am not distracted by it (full disclosure, I like and enjoy seeing ALL parts of women, not just one particular part like "legs guys" or other categories I will leave to the reader to imagine).

Perhaps there is some other reason; one best dealt with by Freud?

At least try to be philosophically consistent, if you're going to say you promote "family values"...

Trapped in a Prisoner's Dilemma with fools playing a zero-sum game

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.
   -Herbert Spencer

Have you heard of the phrase "zero-sum game" before?

It is likely you have, but perhaps you do not know the origin of the terminology.

It arises out of game theory, which is the study of human interactions through the use of what the mathematicians like to call formalized incentive structures but what the rest of us would call games.

A zero-sum game is one where the gains from winning exactly offset the losses in losing. In other words, there is no net gain or loss, the sum is zero. The vast majority of sports are zero-sum games, where there is a winner and a loser. Generally, the team with the most wins advances towards the championship. Poker is another zero-sum game, where if played long enough, the winner walks away with all the cash, and the other players have completely lost the stake they brought to the game.

People in Western cultures generally think of life in terms of zero-sums: I win, you lose.

Given that prevalent mode of thought, it is unfortunate for us that the world does not operate according to the principles of a zero-sum game. More often than not, situations arise where there is a win-lose, lose-win, or win-win scenario possible.

With surprising frequency, real life follows the Prisoner's Dilemma. From the classic description of the Dilemma:

Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and having separated both prisoners, visit each of them and offer the same deal: if one confesses and the other remains silent, the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence and the confessor goes free. If both stay silent, the police can only give both prisoners 6 months for a minor charge. If both confess, they receive a 2 year sentence each.

In other words, if both cooperate, both suffer, but the sum total loss is less than if one cooperates and one defects, or if both defect.

Now, take a moment and think. For a society such as that in the United States, can anyone who is rational enough to comprehend that they themselves do not hold all the answers truly say that total destruction of those who think differently is a Good Thing?

Expend the brief time needed to fully comprehend the implications.

While you think, consider this example of a non-zero-sum situation, from the Wikipedia article on the Prisoner's Dilemma, a timely illustration given the recent announcement by 6-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong:

Another interesting example concerns a well-known concept in cycling races, for instance in the Tour de France. Consider two cyclists halfway in a race, with the peloton (larger group) at great distance. The two cyclists often work together (mutual cooperation) by sharing the tough load of the front position, where there is no shelter from the wind. If neither of the cyclists makes an effort to stay ahead, the peloton will soon catch up (mutual defection). An often-seen scenario is one cyclist doing the hard work alone (cooperating), keeping the two ahead of the peloton. In the end, this will likely lead to a victory for the second cyclist (defecting) who has an easy ride in the first rider's slipstream.

To further illustrate the true extent of the Dilemma, another example:

In political science, for instance, the PD (Prisoner's Dilemma) scenario is often used to illustrate the problem of two states engaged in an arms race. Both will reason that they have two options, either to increase military expenditure or to make an agreement to reduce weapons. Neither state can be certain that the other one will keep to such an agreement; therefore, they both incline towards military expansion. The irony is that both states seem to act rationally, but the result is completely irrational.

In the Prisoner's Dilemma, the small price paid by each individual for cooperation in the long run results in the lowest price paid by ALL.

Defecting, if the other party cooperates, gains the defector a clear victory with no price paid by the victor, but the cooperator loses much.

Mutual defection costs both parties more than the sum of the prices paid by each party if both cooperate.

Mutual cooperation results in the least total cost.

In a society, can one say that a large loss by any significant fraction of the society actually ADDS to the benefit of society as a WHOLE, if one wishes to adhere to a fundamental morality and avoid the "final solution" path that was shown to be so despicable?

Think about this for a moment.

Now, think about the recent history of the United States, as recent as the Reagan era or the first President Bush, or even the early Clinton era, where liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, actually cooperated and negotiated compromises to fashion laws, recognizing there is a larger responsibility than having one wing or the other gain complete and total victory, destroying the other wing.

Next, think about the current events in the United States.

Think about the tactics used by President George W. Bush, where he says he wants to cooperate, but in the end settles for nothing less than his original positions.

Think about the tactics used by the majority Republican Party in the conference committees meant to resolve differences in bills passed in the two houses of Congress that exclude any ideas from the minority party, the Democratic Party.

Then, read and think upon this:

The old aphorism, "Is this any way to run a railroad?" seems to apply here.

BOTH parties, BOTH wings, have reverted to zero-sum tactics in a non-zero-sum game.

We are all trapped in a Prisoner's Dilemma with fools playing a zero-sum game.

As I have said repeatedly, we ALL have to live together, or balkanize and become as weak as the nation-states in that tragic region.

Which do you prefer, living together in an admittedly uneasy compromise, or the aptly acronymed MAD of Mutual Assured Destruction?

More importantly, which do you feel is the true heritage given to us by our Founders, who created the concept of a bicameral legislature in a compromise between the concerns of large states versus small states?

Who did YOU vote for in the last election?

Did they use the rhetoric of the zero-sum-game?

Are they now acting exactly as their rhetoric promised?

Are you satisfied with that result?

Who is ultimately responsible?

In the United States, for now, YOU, the voter are responsible.

Recalling the words of the most intelligent of the Founders when asked after the Constitutional Convention whether the American people had a republic or a monarchy, the reply:

A republic if you can keep it.
   -Benjamin Franklin

Keeping it requires more than sending our soldiers off to die as strangers in a strange land.

Keeping it requires a moral courage to not react according to the gut, and the tenacity to wade through the bullshit to find the RIGHT people to represent us.

Are you willing to show that moral courage and tenacity?

Quasi-random quotes of the moment

Character, or the lack thereof, is revealed in how someone with power treats someone without power and without the capacity to retaliate.
   -Mark Shields

Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes.
   -Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)

There are two types of people--those who come into a room and say, 'Well, here I am!' and those who come in and say, 'Ah, there you are.'
   -Frederick L Collins

There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.
   -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832)

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
   -Voltaire

We live in a Newtonian world of Einsteinian physics ruled by Frankenstein logic.
   -David Russell

France and the EU - more notes from a stranger in the strange land

You can find my first post on the upcoming referendum in France on the EU constitution at The Moderate Voice.

GRENOBLE, France - Although I am a part of a three-company alliance in the semiconductor industry, the primary aim of that alliance is more on the development and manufacturing side rather than on the research side where I work. Hence, primarily people from the French component of the alliance surround me.

Today, I was able to spend some time discussing the referendum on the EU constitution that will be held here in France next month with a young man (he is 24) in the office who works as a contractor, writing software to model the results of the research. It was a conversation held in both French and English. We regularly talk to each other using the two languages, he helps me with my French and I help him with his English.

He is probably about as politically aware as the average French citizen, and he is remarkably humble and gentil (how the French say "kind," but more accurately if not the French-English dictionary definition, gentlemanly), especially for a 24-year-old.

He plans to vote "oui" on the EU constitution, but he fears that the referendum will result in a defeat for acceptance. He feels it is important that France is a part of the larger European community and culture.

Repeatedly shaking his head as he spoke, he described what he felt was a common sentiment, best vote "non!" out of fear of losing control over the social benefits provided by the French government for unemployment, health care, retirement, and all the other "social" programs as he described them.

As we talked, he revealed his annoyance that there are people in France who abuse the system of social benefits, never having to work yet receiving money from the government, sounding remarkably like what is described in the US as "right-wing", although I continually have to remember that in politics here the words liberal, left, conservative, and right ALL have different meanings than I am accustomed to.

When I asked him about the appearance of French President Jacques Chirac on television last week, he again shook his head and said that he felt Chirac did not make a good showing and had made several poor responses to the "young people" who questioned him and, remarkably in my friend's eyes, interrupted the President.

My friend discussed the larger implications of how if one of the "big two" in Europe, France and Germany, rejected the EU constitution, it could be a fatal blow to the continuance of the EU. What was interesting to me while we talked was the impression I received that he had arrived at this conclusion on his own; he was not parroting something he had read or heard.

He also said that despite his view that France needed to be a part of a larger Europe, many of his fellows felt that France had to pay too much in supporting less wealthy nations in the EU such as Spain, Portugal, and the recently joined nations of Eastern Europe. Describing a zero-sum game, he said that the wealthy nations had to be pulled down in order to raise up the poor nations. When I said it was better to pull the poor nations up to the level the wealthy now had, he agreed that was a better solution, but extremely difficult to achieve.

Then we began to talk about the differences between Europe and the US. I brought up the point that in Europe, within the individual nations, there was in general an agreement upon the role of government. For example, in France, there is no discussion about the propriety of government being involved in providing health care or retirement benefits to the population, the main debate is on how to raise the money to pay for these government provided services.

Despite the language barriers (he and I both speak the other's language equally well, or rather, equally poorly) needed to be overcome to describe complex issues and ideas, I explained to him how the debate in the US tends to be over the more fundamental question of how much government involvement should exist in these areas, he seemed taken aback. Once I explained the historical basis for the suspicion towards government in the Founding Fathers who wrote our Constitution, he said that their reaction at the time made sense, but he said that he still felt that acting as a larger society was better than the focus on the individual as promoted by certain groups in the US.

Even after discussing the history of the referendum in France for acceptance of the common European currency held over a decade ago, a vote that appeared to be against the government of the time and the common currency until the last votes were counted, he was still pessimistic regarding the possibility of an assenting outcome in France for the EU constitution.

I told him of a statement by a famous American wise fool, Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'till it's over," and we were both able to return to our work with smiles, if not an excess of hope.

The forgotten man behind the iconic image

From The Guardian newspaper, Tuesday 19 April 1955:

We much regret to announce the death at Princeton, New Jersey, yesterday of Dr Albert Einstein. He was 76. Dr Einstein had entered hospital on Friday for treatment of arterio-sclerosis.

A Record of Goodness
David Mitrany

Even a layman can tell what made Albert Einstein famous as a scientist. But what was the secret of his truly amazing fame as a man - and fame is not the right word. For it was not anything like the gaping of the humble at some awe-inspiring oracle, or like the cheering of some mighty personage by an excited anonymous crowd. Rather it was something quite simple and human, a genuine personal affection by many thousands for someone they never knew or were likely to know personally. They may have heard that he was a great man, but somehow they seemed to know that he was a good man.

---

And of course he was utterly uncompromising when it was a matter of scientific truth - uncompromising above all with himself. I used to tease him with the suggestion that he had chosen me as a walking companion because I had no mathematics at all and so he was safe from prying questions, but in fact now and then he did used to tell me about what he was doing - and how clear and simple it all seemed when he spoke! On a such an occasion, in 1937 or 1938, he told me in some excitement that he thought he had found the key to unified field theory, but some six months later during a walk he said quietly that calculations had proved his hypothesis to be all wrong. "What are you going to do now?" "I am going to publish it." "But why if it is wrong?" "Why! To save perhaps another fool from wasting six months on the same idea?"

It so happened that I was spending the evening at his house some two years ago, after the death of Dr Weizmann, when a telegram arrived from the Israeli Ambassador in Washington asking to be received on the following day - we knew what it meant, as there had been a rumour that Mr Einstein would be offered the Presidency of Israel. Mr Einstein was obviously greatly moved, but after a brief conference he insisted on telephoning himself to the Ambassador at once, for his main and urgent thought was how to spare the Ambassador the embarrassment of his inevitable refusal.

He was in all circumstances endlessly considerate for the position and problems of others. And with all this it is still difficult to say what made him so beloved, so simply accepted on trust, by an endless number of people everywhere. One can only say that it is itself a tribute to the decency of the mass of the people everywhere who recognised and loved goodness in a man above all other things.

There was a man behind those deep set eyes, beneath that wild corona of uncombed hair.

We often forget the humanity underlying our icons.

Relevant song lyric of the moment

Well I'm standing by a river
But the water doesn't flow
It boils with every poison you can think of

And I'm underneath the streetlight
But the light of joy I know
Scared beyond belief way down in the shadows

And the perverted fear of violence
Chokes the smile on every face
And common sense is ringing out the bell

This ain't no technological breakdown
Oh no, this is the road to hell

   -Chris Rea, The Road to Hell (part II)

Raw material prices - it's not all about oil

From an editorial at Financial Sense Online published January 14, 2005:

Since our last update, some metals prices - gold and silver in particular - have been off, but some others keep pushing ahead. Last month we mentioned the stunning rise in the price of molybdenum. It was then trading for $32 per pound, up 1,262 percent in three years. But "Moly" traded last week at $35 per pound.

Another example of a metal that continues straight up is selenium. That's one of those toxic metals that can be so plentiful at times that it becomes hazardous waste. It is then a disposal problem for the mines that produce it as a by-product. Last week, however, selenium saw a high of $50.00 per pound. It averaged $2.76 in 1999. Also, and to a somewhat lesser extent, we are experiencing dramatic price rises for tellurium, and tungsten.

While these metals have demonstrated continuing, even frenzied price rises, most all metals have been very much higher in the last couple of years. Still, current prices do not reflect anything much other than the early days of an unfolding bull market with years of "legs" on it. Demand for many raw materials continues to rise, and suppliers are years from being able to catch up, if ever. That means rising prices will continue into the foreseeable future.

Oil is not the only consumable raw material where the price has risen steeply in the past several months.

Why is this important?

Multiple reasons, not the least of which are two of the origins of the price increases.

One is the decline in the value of the dollar. In the current world economy, the dollar has lost absolute hegemony, so when the dollar declines, prices for raw materials no longer stay constant in dollar terms. Instead the prices rise.

Yet, it appears that US economic policy regarding the value of the dollar is still based upon the dollar having economic hegemony. Is this wise?

A second reason prompts even more troubling questions. Again quoting from the January 14, 2005 editorial at Financial Sense Online:

The overriding influences here are related to the stunning growth being experienced by China and India, though that is not obvious to many observers. They are replacing the United States as the largest consumers of natural resources, and, while this is happening, industrial commodities are in higher demand than can be supplied, with many types of materials reaching or exceeding "peak" production in planetary term. Therefore, we have to expect that there are not enough raw materials available to feed Asia's growth without also taking something away from the formerly dominate producing/consuming nations who can no longer compete as effectively for markets and resources.

The demand for oil in China was one of the factors that analysts attributed the recent instabilities and price rises in the petroleum markets.

One can argue that China and India replacing the United States as the largest consumer of natural resources merely reflects the shift in the US economy from manufacturing to services. However, that view may be too sanguine.

The major powers of Europe were blindsided by the rise of the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The new power wasn't taken seriously until World War I, and even then the "Great Powers" of Europe did not see their own decline in relative terms.

Are we being blind to the rise of new powers in the late 20th and early 21st centuries?

---

Thanks to Barb at Righty in a lefty state for providing the link to the Financial Sense Online editorial.

A fine line indeed

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the fine line between sanity and madness gotten finer?
   -George Price

Another downside to globalization

Prices for tungsten have significantly increased in the past several months.

Why is this important?

Tungsten is used in everything from semiconductor computer chips (I know personally about that) to hardening drill bits used to fabricate everything from cars to ships to tanks to anything else built out of steel.

It could reasonably be categorized as a "strategic material".

Why has the price risen?

From an article from The Economist magazine.

It hardens anything from saw blades to turbine blades. It goes into light bulbs and weaponry. America's government has a stockpile that could meet all that country's demand for the next three years. It is tungsten, and its price has gone crazy. Why? China controls 85% of world output, uses maybe 35-40% of it—and as demand has risen, has taken steps that cut supply.

Inside China, prices rose sharply last year, by some 70% for the concentrate that leaves the mine. But this year they have rocketed. As 2005 began, exporters were offering APT—ammonium paratungstate, a “downstream” compound about 80% made up of the metal—at around $9,000 a tonne; last week, $19,000; this week, nearly $22,000.

China's own demand, up by 20-30% last year, was one reason. Others, says Philippe Lavagna, at Specialty Metals in Brussels, were more unusual. China's government has been trying for years to close down the many small, illegal mines. Last year it got tough, blocking deliveries of mining explosives to them. Most of them shut. On top came electricity shortages, hitting large mines too. Meanwhile, China Minmetals, a giant state company, took over one of the biggest producers in Jiangxi province.

The resultant Jiangxi Tungsten has done much to “stabilise” the market, says one of its executives. Really? According to its own figures, in 2004 other Chinese miners raised output by 17% but Jiangxi only by a bit under 5%. Some small miners began to stockpile and, ignoring contracts, refused to supply Chinese processors except at higher prices. And the export quota set by the government was actually cut.

Russia apart, the world has few other potential sources: a large Canadian mine, closed in December 2003 because its customers went off to buy cheaper elsewhere; a smaller Tasmanian one, also idle; one in Portugal; and a few tiny mines here and there. A big opencast mine in Vietnam planned by another Canadian company is likely to come on stream only in late 2007.

Then ask yourself, what are the larger implications of China having control over such a large percentage of the world output of this metal?

If you can keep it

When asked at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 when Ben Franklin was asked whether the American people had a republic or a monarchy, the reply:

A republic if you can keep it.
   -Benjamin Franklin

Are we keeping it?

In light of recent developments...

...this quote seems appropriate:

The trouble with born-again Christians is that they are an even bigger pain the second time around.
   -Herb Caen

Bill Frist Veers His Party Into New Dangerous Theocratic Waters

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is not only apparently planning to use the nuclear option to ban the use of the filibuster in opposing judicial nominations, but he is now getting ready to join forces with folks who will be contending that Democrats are "faithless" for daring to oppose President George Bush's judicial nominees. Is the U.S. on the edge of a new era of theocratic McCarthyism?

The Case For A Latin Pope?

For years it was assumed that the "next Pope" would be Italian. And then, in recent times, Pope John Paul II broke that mold.

And, now, some are hoping the mold will be broken again....only this time by picking a choice outside of Europe. The Christian Science Monitor reports:

The cardinals don't gather in the Sistine Chapel to select a successor to Pope John Paul II until Monday, but Ana Virginia Echeverria says she doesn't need to wait for a puff of white smoke to know what's in store.

"It's Latin America's time," says Ms. Echeverria, perched in the front pew of Iglesia Santa Lucia, an 18-century church here in Honduras. A member of the church band, she tunes her guitar, strumming an F-sharp chord, and adds, "I feel it in my knee."

And others feel it elsewhere: it COULD happen. Prominent Italian names are being tossed about, but there's increasing talk that the Powers That Be (on earth that is) are looking into other options as well. The CSM again:

For many Latin American Catholics, it is indeed their time. As many as 450 million of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics live in Latin America, leading many here to say that the next pope should - and will - be one of them. But their preference is about more than sheer numbers. While the top issues in the US and European Catholic communities are things like homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, and the sex-abuse scandal, Latin Catholics are focused on poverty, corruption, gangs, and drugs - not to mention the competition for believers with successful evangelical churches. In Africa, disease, war, famine, and the spread of Islam can be added to that list of concerns.

There is a growing clamor for a different kind of pope, says the Rev. Jose Jesus Mora, spokesman for the diocese in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa. The next pontiff, he says, should not only understand the issues that affect most Catholics today, but come from among them.

"Some of the European cardinals visit and empathize," says Father Mora. "But more often they fly in and out for a ceremony, if they come at all. They are not truly familiar with us and our villages of the faithful."

Indeed, as the church moves into the 21st Century it brings to the end the reign of a foward-looking Pope who symbolically and literally helped the church reach beyond its Italian headquarters. So why not reach out to Latin America (or elsewhere) now?

"The future of the Catholic Church is in the southern hemisphere," agrees David Carrasco, professor of Latin American studies at Harvard Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass. "And if the new pope does not come from that future, then the church will continue to lose ground to movements and churches that speak to the long, unrelenting agony of many types of colonialism."

Pope John Paul II's selection was a surprise nearly 30 years ago. More surprises could be in store this time.......

The Passion of The Commissar

I have friends in town (a rare occurrence when you live in a different continent than the vast majority of your friends), and I had asked a prominent blogger, Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice to guest-post while I focused on more important things.

However, despite the late hour in my time zone...

Someone who I respect immensely, although he is farther to the right on the political spectrum than I am, is under attack from those who prefer to say that their opinion is more important than his in the matter of "creation science" versus "evolution".

The Commissar of The Politburo Diktat, a right-leaning blogger (some would call him moderate-right to far-right-wing, I prefer the term right-leaning) has been pointing out the hypocrisy of Paul at Wizbang, not only on the subject of evolution, but also upon Paul's deletion of comments and trackbacks that do not align with his view of the world.

I haven't directly commented upon the distasteful tendencies of Paul at Wizbang for a number of reasons, including the fact that criticism from the center or the left would be completely ignored (more than solidly based upon the responses I have gotten to comments I have left at Wizbang), along with the desire to not wallow in the mud with the pigs in the sty.

Hence, my lack of links to the offending weblog or particular posts to the author in question.

However, I will express my support for The Commissar in his quest to point out not only the hypocrisy of Paul in the matter of evolution versus creationism, but also in the willingness of The Commissar to point out egregious offenses committed by someone on his side of the political spectrum, in terms of deleting comments and trackbacks.

If we want weblogs to be taken seriously, we cannot participate in these high school level shenanigans such as deleting opposing views in which Paul at Wizbang indulges, and Kevin, the supposed owner of Wizbang allows.

Otherwise, the accusations of the so-called MainStream Media will stick, and collectively we don't deserve to be taken more seriously than any ranting idiot on the street corner since we choose not to police our own.

Additional not-so-random quotes of the moment

When things go wrong, it is comforting to pin the blame on bad men. To do so implies that the world is a kind, gentle place and that if it weren't for a few nasty, selfish types we would all be happy.
   -unknown from The Economist magazine (articles unattributed)

Often justice comes only for people who are rich.
   -Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga

It's true, there are congressional checks on the judiciary, but we expect you to exercise them responsibly. The really effective congressional check, however, is the Senate's power to confirm.
   -Ann Althouse

Newspapers' Future And The Internet

Newspaper circulations in many parts of the country are either stagnant or falling. Is there something newspapers should be doing? Some think newspapers need to look at the Internet and not fear it. That's pretty forward-looking advice and it's coming from....Rupert Murdoch.

So W.C. Fields Was RIGHT

The late, great comedian W.C. Fields used to talk about how disgusting water was given what fishes did in it.

And now there are signs that he was right: drinking water may be hazardous to your health...or life (in a race). Science Blog reports:

Drinking water during a long-distance race may do serious harm rather than keep you safe from injury if you're drinking too much, according to a cardiologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center.

Runners or any long-distance athletes who drink too much water during a race could put themselves at jeopardy for developing hyponatremia, a condition marked by a loss in the body's sodium content that can result in physical symptoms such as lethargy, disorientation, seizures and even respiratory distress.

Wait a minute:"..lethargy, disorientation, seizures and even respiratory distress..." that sounds like a typical teenager being asked to do the dishes. And more:

In a perspectives article in the current issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Benjamin Levine, professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern, said competitive runners are less likely to suffer from hyponatremia.

Dr. Benjamin Levine, professor of cardiology at UT Southwestern, writes in a perspective article for The New England Journal of Medicine that excessive water consumption said that excessive water consumption during exercise may be dangerous.

"Those who are running to finish the race very fast don't have time to drink a lot of water along the way," Dr. Levine said. "Those who are not running the race competitively tend to stop at every water station and take a drink. Over the course of a long race, they can dilute themselves."

That's called "self-dilution" -- but we digress:

In addition popular sports drinks don't always include enough sodium to offset the body's loss of the mineral during exercise. The drinks often carry more water with smaller concentrations of salts than are normally found in the human body; therefore, they do not replace salts adequately, said Dr. Levine, medical director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine, a collaboration between UT Southwestern and Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas.

How about this solution? Try bourbon instead. More:

The NEJM perspectives article accompanies a study in the same journal by researchers at Children's Hospital in Boston and Harvard Medical School. The study evaluates the blood concentration of sodium in runners both before and after a long race and examines their risk factors for developing hyponatremia. It recommends individualized fluid-replacement consumption by all competing athletes.

"Researchers of the study found a surprisingly large number of runners had actually gained weight during the race and their sodium concentrations were very low - some were dangerously low," Dr. Levine said. "The recommendations listed in the study that fluid-replacement schedules be individualized for all athletes competing in long-distance events should be taken seriously by all competitors."

People lose water and salts from their bodies at different rates during exercise, he said. Heat and humidity also play a role in the rate of this loss. Calculating fluid loss is as simple as weighing yourself before and after exercise and comparing that number to the amount of fluid you consumed throughout.

"All serious distance athletes should find out what their rate of fluid loss is and individualize their fluid intake prior to a distance event," Dr. Levine said. "It's also good to accept some mild dehydration during a long race. There are plenty of Web sites available now that show how to customize your fluid intake."

And porn sites that help some people customize their fluid..(we won't go there..)

He also added that taking along salty snacks to eat during the race is a good way of combating hyponatremia. Generally, athletes of all types are instructed prior to activities that water consumption is necessary to prevent illness from heat and to maintain performance levels.

And now you know the rest of the story.....

Did You Ever Hear Of The Texas Political Two-Step?

Well, it's being done now and President George Bush and House Majority Leader Tom "Attacks - On - Me - Are - Attacks - On - The - Conservative - Movement - The-GOP - And - Life - As - We - Know - It" DeLay are the ones doing it.

I'm Baaaaaaaaack....

I guest blogged for Jack many many months ago, which proves how much of a hit I was.

In any event, Jack has been a hugely popular Guest Blogger on my site so for the next two days I'll shamelessly link to some of my posts and give you some original ones (that will be equally shameless). Stay tuned. And check back (and neck, and feet..)

Representative democracy, yes, but WHO is being represented?

Pennywit has some commentary on the current state of Congress, and how it is not likely to change.

In a world turned upside-down, it almost appears as if the Congressmen are working for the lobbyists.

Chilling reading, which is why it is recommended.

To hear DeLay talk about judges...

...you'd think these were not exaggerations:

There's software to do almost everything

I find this somehow oddly amusing:

Press Release Creator

Our brand new software will help you create a press release, It's a great tool whether you know how to write one or not. Enter the information prompted for and out comes a press release at the click of a mouse.

I'm not exactly sure why I find humor in it, other than now not only are reporters not writing their stories (instead repeating press releases), but HUMANS are no longer writing the stories.

I have an odd sense of humor sometimes...

Another not-so-random quote of the moment

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.
   -William James

Guest poster

I have friends in town, a rare occurrence when you're an expat in another continent! Therefore, I am taking advantage of their presence and won't have much time to write.

Joe Gandelman from The Moderate Voice has kindly agreed to fill in. The Moderate Voice is high on my recommended reading list not only because I guest-post there, but because Joe always has a non-ideological take on things. I hope you enjoy reading his posts as much as I do.

What means the color of our skin?

David Anderson at In Search of Utopia has concerns about The Conservative Brotherhood, an association of minority weblog authors who hold views that are self-described as "conservative", or in my personal terminology, right-leaning.

David has often posted on race issues on his weblog, as is his right.

I have often considered responding to some of his posts, either in comments on his weblog, by email, or by posting here at Random Fate. I have hesitated because these issues and problems are among the most complex I have ever encountered, even including when I was learning statistical mechanics (the foundation from which we Physicists derived all the thermodynamics that engineers universally bemoan as their hardest class in college) and relativistic quantum mechanics (believe me, you do NOT want to discuss that area of Physics...).

This last post wasn't by any means "the straw that broke the camel's back", but the aggregate did compel me to leave a comment, which I include below:

David, it is often said, "A cynic is nothing but a broken-hearted idealist."

I have had my heart broken many times.

I am a white boy who grew up in Memphis, Tennessee, living there when MLK was murdered, living there when the race of a person was more important than the fact that the person is HUMAN.

Living there and breaking up a KKK rally when I was a teenager using my car as a weapon, running over the burning cross and chasing after the lost souls wearing pointy hoods covering their pointy heads...

More than half a lifetime ago.

Not understanding the hatred between white and black, I saw no difference, because white kids hated me for my intelligence, and black kids hated me for my skin color.

Both hatreds seemed idiotic to me then, and no more sensible to me now, even with the leavening of time and experience.

Yet, I am still an idealist, one whose heart has been broken far, far too many times.

I am human.

You are human.

What are we working towards?

I try my best to be color blind.

How do we *all* get there?

How do we achieve the society that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr had his dream about?

I don't know for certain.

All I know, what my heart tells me, is forget "brothers of skin color" because that perpetuates the divisions.

Search for brothers and sisters of the *heart*.

Forget those of the same skin color who are polar opposites in the heart (you know of whom I speak), they are not "brothers" or "sisters" lost, they are just people who think differently than you or I do.

Yet they are still people, and we should not forget this.

If we can all remember these things, then perhaps my broken heart can heal, and perhaps the Reverend's dream will become a reality.

I do hope that one day we can live in a truly color blind society.

Unfortunately, I do not see how we will arrive there if we continue down the path that we are now, a path jointly traveled by those of all skin colors.

I always am searching for my brothers and sisters of the heart. I don't give a damn what color their skin is or the shape of their eyes or noses or mouths are.

In this, as in most other things, it appears I have little if any company.

Navel-gazing

Between a forthright, honest, upstanding right-leaning blogger (one who has only gained my respect in recent weeks even though I disagree with some of his views) and a particular author at a prominent rabidly-right-wing "big blog" there is a particularly unpleasant conflict underway.

Does this mean that those on the left who write weblogs should be cheering because their ideological opponents have some who are "going off the reservation"?

No.

Instead, they should mourn.

Why?

Read on...

Navel-gazing:

na·vel-gaz·ing n. Slang

Excessive introspection, self-absorption, or concentration on a single issue: “The optimistic trend masks a looming problem, which has sent the travel industry into a renewed bout of navel-gazing” (Financial Times).

Joe Gandelman moderated a panel discussion at Stanford's Bay Area Law School Technology Conference Saturday, and he had this to say in at the end of his statement opening the panel discussion:

Yesterday Slate magazine looked at this case and asked if bloggers were “citizen journalists” or “partisan hacks.”

Not a good sign — if blogs want to go beyond preaching to the choir. Journalists issue complete, unconditional retractions and move on. They don’t issue part of a retraction — then raise new issues and go on a new attack.

I want to get to our other panel members, so let me sum up:

#1: Blogs in 2004 preached to the choir.
#2: Blogs are polarized.
#3: Blogs are often so partisan that unless you totally agree with them or don’t mind big doses of partisan analysis and demonization (which I actually enjoy reading) it would be hard to get a thoughtful argument that could persuade you and change your mind.

BUT:
--blogs do help partisans with their world view, organization, campaign information and morale.
--Blogs are a NEW form of journalism rapidly gaining some respectability — but unless they begin to pay more attention to maintaining their CREDIBILITY by admitting mistakes and searching for even-handed TRUTH versus strictly partisan advantage they will remain marginalized…an exciting, exotic form of citizen journalism with RESTRICTED impact.

A lot of the stir about weblogs involves politics and political opinions.

How do we define politics in the United States?

We use the words "conservative" and "liberal" to represent certain political views, but these words have other meanings in different parts of the world, along with older meanings in the English language.

Here are the traditional meanings:

conservative:

con·ser·va·tive adj.

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

liberal:

lib·er·al adj.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

Neither is exactly what we casually use the words to mean, especially in that special preserve known as the blogosphere, are they? (I prefer the term blogworld, by the way)

Although I find a danger in allowing our political demagogues to define our words, one could argue that although the word "liberal" has had an unpleasant stench about it for decades now, the word "conservative" is now gaining a similar odor, especially in light of the recent actions in the name of "the culture of life" and deflecting attention from the troubles of one of the most prominent leaders of the "conservative movement" in Congress.

It brings to mind a comparatively old quote:

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
   -John Kenneth Galbraith

At this point, it is difficult to think differently about the self-described "conservatives" in power at the moment, for multiple reasons. Inconsistencies with previously stated fundamental principles, defense of behaviors loudly decried in others, and a refusal to listen to those within their ranks who are saying, "Hey, wait a minute, aren't we acting exactly like those liberals we damned just a decade ago?"

Yet any dissent, however feeble, is met with threats.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
   -Aristotle

Sadly for us all who care about our nation, the "conservatives" or right-wing as I prefer to call them, are not alone in this fascism of thought. The liberals, or preferably named left-wing, also brook no one from within casting the seed of doubt upon actions aimed at winning at any and all costs, including violating the supposedly fundamental principles that are held oh-so-dear.

Then, for either wing, when caught with their pants down, making vicious and unfounded accusations on their weblogs, what do we find of those who so readily condemn the mainstream media?

Mealy mouthed "explanations" of their formerly shouted cries of "J'accuse!!!!!"

It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one.
   -George Washington

Those so ready to condemn others refuse to acknowledge their own faults.

It is only human nature.

However, for us to succeed, we must rise above mere human nature.

We must understand that these petty fights, these imbroglios that seem so vital, so telling to our self-images, are really unimportant in the long run.

Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.
   -Immanuel Kant

Patience is not a virtue of the big bloggers in blogworld.

Neither is humility.

Unfortunately, perspective has been lost.

Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
   -Mark Twain

Any of us who write weblogs have our readership mostly through accident.

From a recent article in CNet News.com:

The growth rate of blogs is impressive. Technorati, a search engine that monitors blogs, tracked more than 8 million online diaries as of March 21, up from 100,000 just two years ago. A new blog is created every 7.4 seconds. That adds up to 12,000 new blogs a day, 275,000 posts a day and 10,800 updates an hour. "At its most basic level, it's a technology that is lowering the cost of publishing" and turning out to be "the next extension of the Web," says Wharton legal studies professor Kevin Werbach. "Blogging is still in its early days. It's analogous to where the Web was in 1995 and 1996. It's not clear how it will turn out."

Think about those numbers for a moment.

For the vast majority, our readership is through accident. For those fortunate few who have gained a reasonably wide readership, they should remember, their readership still does not match that of a major newspaper, much less a broadcast network.

There is more, though.

Rigid, inflexible opinions are not a good thing.

I am always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught.
   -Winston Churchill

If we cannot learn, we are doomed.

If you need more explanation than that, all I can do is repeat a signature from an email I received once: Those who don't get it, don't get that they don't get it.

Change your thoughts and you change your world.
   -Norman Vincent Peale

If we are unwilling to have our ideas and ideals challenged, are these ideas and ideals truly worthy of our faith? If they cannot withstand questioning, then how true are they?

Then there is the problem of not joining in with the pigs enjoying wallowing in the mud.

It is easier to stay out than get out.
   -Mark Twain

Often, I make this choice. I stay out.

Every "issue du jour" does not merit comment, not if you feel your commentary is truly worth something.

How does this all tie into what I started with for how left-leaning blogs should be mourning the internecine posting between right-leaning blogs?

It is simple.

If we truly want what is the best for our nation, what diminishes one, diminishes all.

We may have our differences as to the path to take, but those who are true patriots want us all to succeed because our nation succeeds.

Winning ephemeral "political points" counts for nothing if our nation fails.

Think...

Non-random quotes of the moment

People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid.
   -Soren Aabye Kierkegaard

The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
   -Paul Fix

Some rainy winter Sundays when there's a little boredom, you should always carry a gun. Not to shoot yourself, but to know exactly that you're always making a choice.
   -Lina Wertmuller

You do not need to be loved, not at the cost of yourself. The single relationship that is truly central and crucial in a life is the relationship to the self. Of all the people you will know in a lifetime, you are the only one you will never lose.
   -Jo Coudert

Hardness shatters; strength endures.
   -Robert Jordan

If the world were a logical place, men would ride sidesaddle.
   -Rita Mae Brown

I get up every morning determined to both change the world and have one hell of a good time. Sometimes this makes planning my day difficult.
   -E. B. White

Death and taxes

The Bull Moose discusses with satire the anticipated elimination of the estate tax, aka the "death tax" (talk about effective negative marketing).

I happen to oppose the elimination of this tax, because it does indeed only affect those who have most benefited from our system, the top 0.3% specifically.

Besides, according to those in the right-wing who decry it, don't they also say you should make your own way in the world, without government assistance? Why should you get a leg up because of who happened to be your parents?

The petty economies of the rich are just as amazing as the silly extravagances of the poor.
   -William Feather

Writing...

You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
   -Jack London

If you want to become a writer (and make a little money at it), you have to write.

Obvious? No, not really.

The speedbumps to writing are many. Writing well is work. To write well you have to work, you must practice.

A professional is a person who can do his best at a time when he doesn't particularly feel like it.
   -Alistair Cooke

You have to write when you are tired.

You have to write when you are uninspired.

You have to write when simply do not feel like writing.

You have to write when you don't give a shit.

I'm writing now.

I'm not happy with how it is coming out, but I'm writing the damn thing anyway.

I hope to have it posted in a few hours.

Not enough hours in the day

I have visitors in town, and there's not enough hours in the day for me to see old friends, get my work done, and post.

Guess which one is on the bottom of the list?

I have another long post that no one will have the patience to read all the way through in the works. Perhaps tomorrow.

Severely annoyed...

...is how I feel after getting my iPod back from repair, and having it lock up my Mac when I tried to sync, then having it go completely dead.

I had to wait a month, because I had to ship it to the US, have my father ship it to Apple, wait for the "repair", then wait for it to be returned to my father, then wait for it to get to France after my father re-shipped it.

Now... because they couldn't fix it properly the FIRST time, I have to do it all over again.

I am severely annoyed.

This is unacceptable

I don't particularly care for Patrick Buchanan or his politics, but it is completely unacceptable to throw pies, salad dressing, or anything else other than words at him or anyone else. From CNN.com:

Michigan (AP) -- Commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan cut short an appearance after an opponent of his conservative views doused him with salad dressing.

"Stop the bigotry!" the demonstrator shouted as he hurled the liquid Thursday night during the program at Western Michigan University. The incident came just two days after another noted conservative, William Kristol, was struck by a pie during an appearance at a college in Indiana.

After he was hit, Buchanan cut short his question-and-answer session with the audience, saying, "Thank you all for coming, but I'm going to have to get my hair washed."

The demonstrator, identified by authorities as a 24-year-old student at Kalamazoo Valley Community College, was arrested and faces a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace. He was released on a $100 cash bond, pending his April 14 arraignment.

"He could have faced a felony assault charge, but Pat Buchanan decided to not press that charge," university spokesman Matt Kurz said.

Buchanan's visit had evoked controversy on campus because it fell on the birthday of the late Mexican-American labor leader Cesar Chavez. Buchanan favors tighter controls on immigration.

The idiot assaulting Buchanan is lucky that he wasn't charged with felony assault. He should have been.

The food throwing so far seems to be exclusively at speakers on the right side of the political spectrum, presumably from assaulters on the left. While it may seem humorous to those on the left, I repeat, this is completely unacceptable.

...on the death of a man who was called "Pope"

When CNN International was reporting on the masses viewing the body of Pope John Paul II this past week, they had in their bottom "headline bar" (I don't know what else to call it, right above the ticker, but at the bottom of the screen, summarizing the images on the screen for those with the sound turned off I expect) the text, "Adoration of John Paul II Continues".

The choice of the word "adoration" disturbed me, possibly because of how it was used in the context of the churches I attended as a child.

I looked up "adoration" at dictionary.com and received this result:

ad-o-ra-tion (noun)

   1. The act of worship.
   2. Profound love or regard.

The first definition was the one I was most accustomed to from my history with religion, with my take on the second definition reserved for an extraordinary romantic love that is rarely felt and even more rarely expressed.

Hence my discomfort in the use of that word for the viewing by masses of people of a dead body.

Now, another fly in the ointment of recent amity in matters religious engendered by the death of Pope John Paul II, ironically arising because of an issue that he did not properly address, whether due to illness or from an unwillingness to see the greater harm I cannot say:

A support group for sexual abuse victims has condemned a decision by the Vatican to choose Cardinal Bernard Law to lead a Mass for Pope John Paul II.

Cardinal Law resigned as Archbishop of Boston in 2002 following accusations that he covered up sexual abuse of children by priests.

Members of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests are flying to Rome to protest at Monday's service.

Cardinal Law is scheduled to lead one of nine memorial Masses in Rome.

The decision to have Cardinal Law lead a Mass for the recently deceased Pope is mysterious to those of us not members of the Catholic Church, and possibly to those members not "in the know" of the politics behind the decision.

It would seem obvious to those of us on the outside that this is an issue easily avoided.

Apparently not.

Sources in the Church say the decision on Cardinal Law probably only reflected the importance of his current post as archpriest of St Mary Major Basilica.

Cardinal Law is also eligible to vote for the new pope.

Pope John Paul II was an extraordinary man, put in an extraordinary position, in an extraordinary time. That convergence resulted in the ordering of history in a manner that may have ultimately resulted in less bloodshed than would otherwise have occurred in the inevitable fall of the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe.

Despite this convergence, however, he was still a man, with all the flaws that go with the legacy of being human.

Flaws that exist in the Church he was the titular head of for so long, flaws that continue today.

We are all flawed, bad goes with the good, just as good goes with the bad.

We should choose very carefully who and what we choose to "adore", and when we choose to do so.

A brief interlude...

...to show that not all is grim and hopeless:

Cheering crowds of well-wishers welcomed an excited bride who arrived for her wedding at Windsor Guildhall just an hour after the royal nuptials.

Grace Beesley, 33, looked amazed and laughed with her bridesmaids over a welcome which was fit for royalty.

Wearing a tiara and white fur collar, Miss Beesley waved to the crowds who were still gathered behind crash barriers.

---

Miss Beesley posed briefly on the steps where Prince Charles and the new Duchess of Cornwall had earlier greeted the public following their marriage.

She told reporters she was "very excited, very excited", about her own wedding day and her marriage to Fraser Moores, 34.

The couple's friends and family arrived for the wedding in a vintage double decker bus.

One of their guests, Helen Kirkby said the wedding of the young couple from Windsor was not going to be outshined by the earlier event.

She said: "The way it has kicked off already, there is no way they were going to be upstaged.

"They have got a double decker bus, the royal couple have gone, they're doing their thing and we are going to do ours."

The wedding of Prince Charles had to be delayed a day for the funeral of Pope John Paul II, so needless to say, the others being married at Windsor Guildhall were not expecting the collision of their lives with royalty and the associated crowds.

Somehow, I find hope in the crowd cheering for the new bride, a woman who had nothing to do with the royal family in the UK.

Just an ordinary woman, doing an ordinary thing, getting married, and yet, receiving good natured, well intentioned cheers from those there to get a glimpse of modern "royals".

A woman who received accolades for just reminding everyone that we all sometimes deserve cheers.

A useful reminder to not lose one's self in the apocalyptic visions of darkness and death.

Jumping to contusions

The recent imbroglio over the "Schaivo talking points" that has subsequently been revealed to have been written by the legal counsel to Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) is one of those rare instances where the mirror of an earlier event is far more complete than usual. The earlier event is the forged National Guard memos showing a very unflattering portrait of the service of George W. Bush that Dan Rather pushed as authentic, and that both Rather and CBS were too slow for some bloggers to admit were most likely fake.

The mirror? Many of those same bloggers who pursued Rather and CBS for not admitting a bias are now reluctant to admit their own bias in refusing to admit they were wrong in their cries of "fake" regarding the source of the Schiavo talking points paper that was indeed out of a Republican Senator's office and was indeed distributed to other Senators.

Unfortunately, this hypocrisy is now tarring all bloggers. From a vicious, but accurate, commentary in Salon:

"Citizen journalists"? Try partisan hacks

Right-wing bloggers shrieked that the GOP Schiavo memo was a "liberal media" fraud. Now that they've been proven wrong, are they apologizing? Why, no!
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert

April 8, 2005 | This time, the hoax was on them.

Still gloating over their role in unmasking CBS's faulty National Guard memo story last September, right-wing bloggers launched a new memo-based crusade against the so-called liberal media last month, one that turned out to be completely phony. But unlike CBS and its tarred former anchor, Dan Rather, who eventually admitted their mistakes in the Memogate affair, these bloggers (many of whom were also involved in the CBS campaign) haven't had the guts to apologize for their blunder.

---

These "citizen journalists" obviously aren't interested in documenting facts. They're ideological bullies masquerading as media critics who want the press to stay away from stories (and images) that they deem unacceptable. And the sooner the mainstream press understands that, and stops anxiously amplifying bloggers' conspiracy of the week, the better off it will be.

For proof of how irresponsible bloggers and their enablers in the conservative press can be, here's a list of Schiavo memo greatest hits: "Talking Points Story Imploding?" Power Line headline, March 22.
- "Cliff Kincaid, editor of [Accuracy in Media], said evidence suggests that the memo may have been manufactured as part of an effort to make Republicans look bad," Accuracy in Media, March 24.
- "Apparently the explanation is [that the memo] was forged! The memo was made up by Democrat staffers," Rush Limbaugh, March 24.
- "There is not a bit of evidence connecting the memo to any Republican, and, for all of the reasons we have repeatedly spelled out on this site, there are excellent reasons to believe it is a hoax perpetrated by still-unidentified Democrats," John Hinderaker, Power Line, March 26.
- "I still believe the [mainstream media] has no basis for implying over and over again that the memo was distributed by Republicans," Michelle Malkin, March 28.
- "But his [the Washington Post reporter's] stated reason for believing the memo is not a hoax -- 'senators had it on the floor' -- is laughable," Hinderaker, Weekly Standard, March 28.
- "ABCNews.com still hasn't retracted its unsubstantiated characterization of the memo as 'GOP Talking Points,'" Malkin, March 30.
- "So rather than an example of aggressive reporting, the [Schiavo] memo story turns out to be yet another instance of crude liberal bias, in this case against both Republicans and those who fought to have Schiavo's feeding tube restored," Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes, March 28.
- "Closer examination by The American Spectator, talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, The Weekly Standard, and Accuracy in Media (AIM) indicates that the memo is a fraud -- a political dirty trick, if you will, specifically aimed at causing public revulsion at Republicans," Newsmax.com, March 31.
- "The only basis for blaming Republicans was the unsubstantiated allegation that the memo was spread among Republican senators. Yet no senator stepped forward and said, 'Yes, I got that memo,'" Barnes, Weekly Standard, April 4.

And this from Power Line Wednesday night, just four hours before the Post debunked the whole charade: "Some already suspect that the memo is a Democratic dirty trick. The inability of Democratic staffers to speak accurately about the matter does nothing to dispel that suspicion."

Despite that dismal record, on Thursday bloggers showed very little appetite for self-reflection. In fact, scanning the blogs involved in the memo story, readers found few corrections or references to lessons learned.

According to Glenn Reynolds of InstaPundit, which helped hype the story early on, the take-away from the episode was about the mainstream press and how it "will publish stuff without much in the way of authentication."

That's an art some bloggers have already perfected.

I am glad he said SOME bloggers.

While this opinion is fed in no small part by the professional jealousy that those who "paid their dues" to become paid journalists hold towards the upstarts in blogging, a heart of truth is found within it.

There are a few honorable bloggers on the right side of the political spectrum who have been taking their brethren to task over their lack of forthrightness on this matter.

Unfortunately, men of principle such as Stephen (aka The Commissar) of The Politburo Diktat are all too rare on both sides of the political spectrum, and now ALL bloggers are being tarred with this broad brush.

Other bloggers are commenting on the hypocrisy being displayed as well, if not calling it out by that name.

The crowing on the left is making matters no better, for they have been just as guilty of reckless accusations and muted retractions or refusals to admit any error.

This is why from the very beginning I was inherently suspicious of the claims of the "self-correcting nature" of weblogs, for the people who write weblogs are human, with human egos, human pride, and human weaknesses.

Earlier today, I posted this quote:

Fortune does not change men, it unmasks them.
   -Suzanne Necker

The Rather/forged memo affair showed the power that some weblogs had in pursuing a story, a power that gained these weblogs wide audiences, a power that infected some egos as was shone when they beat the horse long after it was dead and the blood was spraying from each blow, exposing the bones.

Not a pretty image? Neither was their behavior, and neither is their behavior now.

This is why I do not try to make Random Fate a "breaking news" weblog.

This is why I do not comment on every event of the day but instead spend some time thinking about the larger implications and trends.

If you don't know where you're going, you might not get there.
   -Yogi Berra

Or as I like to say: Jump to conclusions and soon you find yourself jumping to contusions, wounding either your ego or your honor.

Take your pick, and accept the consequences of that choice.

Rhetoric, appearances, and unintended outcomes

In the wake of the Schiavo matter, there are many on the far-right-wing who are making some statements that could reasonably be interpreted as beyond the pale.

For example, the remarks made in the Senate by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX):

I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have.

(source - The Washington Post)

The remarks by Senator Cornyn could be an expression of concern, not an encouragement of action against judges, but the backpedaling that followed gave less credence to the benign reading. As Glenn Reynolds (no liberal activist he) noted, "Though if there are no links, why did he raise the subject?"

Ann Althouse comments:

It is really a shame how little people understand of the reasons judges decide cases the way they do. DeLay and Cornyn, like many others, signal to the public to think that the judges are simply out of control and the cases are inexplicable as the serious work of deeply thoughtful persons steeped in the legal tradition. It wouldn't be wise just to assume that judges are unerring oracles of law, but to leap to the opposite conclusion and decide they are frauds is even more foolish. And for a public figure even to hint at violence as a solution is completely unacceptable.

She has more to say on the matter worth reading (be sure to read all the updates as well). Joe Gandelman has the usual roundup of links to different opinions as well as some comments on the subsequent rationalizations at The Moderate Voice.

Then, in a recent report on the NPR program All Things Considered, Representative Steve King (R-IA) threatened to cut the budgets of any federal courts that did not rule according to what Congress desired. (note, link is to a web page that allows you to listen to the streaming audio)

That sounds like the beginnings of a full-scale assault on the independence of the judicial branch of government. When coupled with the infamous remark of Tom DeLay, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," which could be referring to answering to God, given the constituency he is playing to, the sum is not comforting.

Pennywit points to an article in The Washington Post for what he terms "A Quote to Qonsider: Satan in Black Robes":

Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.

I think we're past the "potential" stage to the "is" stage when it comes to discussing "ugly"...

Those in power should tread carefully, however, for the majority of the citizens are noticing this rhetoric of apocalypse and taking it seriously.

The far-right-wing is in danger of being perceived this way:

Aren't we fighting to spread democracy and combat dictatorships of all kinds, including religious ones like the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan?

Are we in danger of acquiring characteristics of those we are fighting?

A mirror is a handy thing to use on occasion.

Could the judicial system in the US stand to be re-examined? Yes, it could be and should be at several levels, but that re-examination should be taken seriously, with much thought and real debate (not the Bush style of "my way or the highway") devoted towards it before any action is taken.

Otherwise, we could suffer from the curse of unintended outcomes as noted by Jane Galt in a post on the evolution of marriage in society at Asymmetrical Information. She also pointed out an observation by G.K. Chesterton:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

In other words, understand why things are they way they are before you tear them down instead of focusing solely on what you find detestable.

We all have to live together, so there is a larger responsibility than pandering to a single constituency or changing the rules to suit those in power.

Changing times

I spotted this bit the other day:

Congress may extend daylight-saving time

Thursday, April 7, 2005 Posted: 1416 GMT (2216 HKT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- If Congress passes an energy bill, Americans may see more daylight-saving time.

Lawmakers crafting energy legislation approved an amendment Wednesday to extend daylight-saving time by two months, having it start on the first Sunday in March and end on the last Sunday in November.

"Extending daylight-saving time makes sense, especially with skyrocketing energy costs," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, who along with Rep. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts, co-sponsored the measure.

The amendment was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee that is putting together major parts of energy legislation likely to come up for a vote in the full House in the coming weeks.

"The more daylight we have, the less electricity we use," said Markey, who cited Transportation Department estimates that showed the two-month extension would save the equivalent of 10,000 barrels of oil a day.

While I doubt he intended it this way, the final statement sounds like Representative Markey believes that daylight-saving time creates more daylight, rather than shifting the clocks to accommodate our regimented, clock-driven lives to the natural changes in sunrise and sunset times during the course of the year.

Of course, given this is Congress, perhaps they DO believe they can pass a law that gives us more daylight...

Before we talk about hubris...

...we should consider this thought:

Fortune does not change men, it unmasks them.
   -Suzanne Necker

A key patent expires

From The Economist comes this news:

What the dominance of Microsoft Windows is to personal computers, the dominance of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is to biotechnology. PCR enables genetic material to be amplified in quantity both quickly and reliably. The procedure is used in all aspects of the life sciences, from paternity tests and cloning to decoding the genome and detecting disease. And it has transferred large numbers of dollars from the pockets of its users to those of its patent holder, F. Hoffmann-La Roche. But on March 28th, the gravy train began to dry up. The original patents on the technology expired in America (they expire in March 2006 in Europe). This means that the core PCR technique is now in the public domain.

For years, the high cost of PCR was the source of grumbles by businesses and researchers. Yet it became the standard method for genetic diagnostics and research, and alternatives never caught on. Now that the basic technique is free to use, many people expect the price of the equipment and enzymes involved to decline. The expiration of the PCR patent, in other words, marks the end of an era, and will have terrific consequences, according to Roger Brent, the head of the Molecular Sciences Institute, a non-profit research laboratory in Berkeley, California. New research areas, such as discovering drugs for tropical diseases, will now be open to PCR. In the past such work was too costly.

Interesting...

I don't know how much the licensing fees for using PCR techniques were, nor how many additional patents are associated with improvements to the process (the additional patents are mentioned later in the linked article), so it is difficult to say how the technique moving into the public domain will affect the expense of its use.

However, given that with the advent of the Mac Mini it is possible to build a massively parallel supercomputer for less than the price of a mid-range motorcycle, the decrease in the cost of using PCR could lead to more profound implications relating to DNA analysis, genetic computing, and custom tailoring biological forms in general,

Bloody hell...

...just as I'm going to bed, James Wolcott points out that as we are claiming we are promoting democracy in the MidEast, we appear to be encouraging the suppression of democracy in one of our nearest neighbors, Mexico.

Damn it.

I'm too tired to research this.

A final thought before bed here in France...

...something I wrote back in January:

It is the falsehoods masquerading as truth that fear the light of scrutiny.

I'll add something else:

Beware of those who proclaim that they themselves are the voice of morality.

Make your own conclusions.

...on a larger responsibility

Pennywit posts on some partisan breast beating (as he terms it) that reminds me of a post I have been meaning to write.

Commenting upon the referenced imagery of "sycophantic readers moaning with the exquisite pleasure that comes only from having one's biases expertly stroked" is far too good to pass up.

Unfortunately for me, I can only seem to pull off one substantial post a day, and sometimes not even that, not while simultaneously holding down my day job when it consists of searching through hundreds of patents to make sure the technology I am trying to patent hasn't already been covered.

My brain, along with the rest of me, isn't as young, durable, flexible, and indefatigable in a perceived good cause as it used to be.

However, before I forget, I do want to briefly discuss again the larger responsibility that the vision evoked reminded me of, a topic upon which I have posted before.

We all have to live together.

As I linked to earlier today in a long piece that I fear few will read, people of good faith can balance competing principles differently without being evil.

We ALL have to recognize the larger responsibility.

The larger responsibility of recognizing that not everyone thinks alike, and it is not our task in life to force them to think the same.

The larger responsibility to respect the beliefs of others.

The larger responsibility of not only accommodating the beliefs, but making room for them, sometimes at some small expense to our own cherished beliefs.

The larger responsibility of recognizing we are a community with far more in common than we have with those who want to destroy what we represent.

I like quotes, because they capture in a few words what can often take paragraphs to explain.

Here are two of my favorites that are the MOST relevant in this time and place:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
   -William Shakespeare, "Hamlet", Act 1 scene 5

We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.
   -Benjamin Franklin

Don't REACT...

Winning partisan points is not the be all to end all...

Think...

Hubris?

Time to take a step back and breathe.

A lot has happened in the last few weeks, emotionally charged occurrences that do not lend themselves to the vital necessity of connecting events to extract the order underlying the chaos, to seeing patterns in the white noise.

Please bear with me. This is long, but I do have a point.

Via the desk of Jane Galt at Asymetrical Information, I start with this from The Buck Stops Here (NOTE-emphasis and links that of the original author):

One of the odd things about the Schiavo affair is the argument that "if you care about federalism, you wouldn't favor Congress's involvement in granting federal jurisdiction for Schiavo's parents to have one more day in federal court." One sees this argument in many contexts: "If you really opposed abortion, you'd support the death penalty for women who have abortions," or "if you really wanted to clean up the environment, you'd agree to ban all automobiles," or "if you really supported bringing democracy to Iraq, you'd support war in about 100 other countries," or "if you really supported free speech, you wouldn't be in favor of hate crimes laws." In short, "If you really believed in Principle X, you'd follow that principle to all extremes without ever letting another principle override it."

But that sort of reasoning is often wrong. People often accuse their opponents of being hypocrites when, in fact, they may simply have been balancing competing principles. We all do this constantly. And the mere fact that someone reaches a different balance than you, or that they decline to treat one principle alone as being absolute, does not prove that they are being hypocritical.

In other words, those who don't think exactly the same as you do are not evil (this emphasis is mine, since I have said this many times before...).

Next is from a commentary from the Los Angeles Times:

I once worked in a philosophy department in which one of the professors was active in NAMBLA, the controversial North American Man/Boy Love Assn. The secretary, a deeply religious woman named Judy, was assigned the task of typing up his man-boy love book manuscript and sending it off to the publishers.

She came close to quitting, but she was the sole provider for three children. Finally, she held her nose and typed one-handed.

I think of Judy when I think about the issue of whether pharmacists should be permitted to refuse to fill prescriptions at which their conscience balks. The conscience of some pharmacists balks at birth control and morning-after pills.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on April 1 issued a 150-day emergency order requiring pharmacists to fill contraceptive prescriptions after a Chicago druggist refused to dispense birth control pills. Elsewhere, reproductive-rights groups are pressuring lawmakers to establish professional-duty laws for pharmacists.

I personally am no opponent of birth control of any sort or, for that matter, of abortion rights. But people whose jobs require them to violate their own deeply held convictions ought to refuse to do the job, and any politician who upholds freedom or dignity must uphold their right to do so.

What you should ask yourself in this case is not whether you think people should have access to birth control, but whether you should be required to do things that violate your deepest convictions. Should a soldier be required to torture prisoners, for example? Should he refuse to do so if ordered? Should a liberal corporate peon be required to contribute to the Republican Party? Should a Christian secretary have to assist in the advocacy of man-boy love?

Sadly, these sorts of questions cannot be answered according to whether the act involved is objectively right or wrong because, in every case, that's the heart of the dispute and irresolvable by organizational policy, legislation or court proceeding. They are questions that are answerable only for you as you face the decision, as you face yourself.

---

If you claim the right to behave in accordance with your conscience, then you also must accord that right to all others, even pharmacists.

Nothing else is compatible with human dignity, decency, individuality and truth.

The key statement: If you claim the right to behave in accordance with your conscience, then you also must accord that right to all others...

Think upon that concept for a moment.

Then, think about this series of events.

First, from The Washington Times asked, before certain information became available, "Was the Schiavo memo a fake?":

All 55 Republican senators say they have never seen the Terri Schiavo political talking-points memo that Democrats say was circulated among Republicans during the floor debate over whether the federal government should intervene to prolong her life.

A survey by The Washington Times found that every Republican said the memo was not crafted or distributed by him or her. Every one of them said he or she had not seen it until the memo was the subject of speculation in major news organs, particularly ABC News and The Washington Post.

---

Sen. Bill Nelson, Florida Democrat, who is up for re-election next year, is specified in the memo as someone who could suffer political damage if he opposed saving Mrs. Schiavo.

Asked whether he'd seen the memo, Mr. Nelson said to talk to Mr. Harkin.

"Ask Senator Harkin. He saw it, and he told me about it because my name was on it," Mr. Nelson said.

Mr. Nelson's fellow Florida senator, Mel Martinez, a Republican, also has been the focus of some scrutiny in press accounts because passages of the disputed memo appear to have been lifted from a press release posted on his Senate Web site.

He denied any involvement.

"Senator Martinez has never seen the memo and condemns its sentiments," spokeswoman Kerry Feehery said. "No one in our office has seen it, nor had anything to do with its creation."

In the furor, one of the most honorable conservative-leaning bloggers chided a liberal blogger on jumping to conclusions about the infamous piece of paper. IMPORTANT NOTE-The Commissar has been more than open with admitting he was mistaken in his original, chiding post, and in a later post to his fellow travelers on the conservative side he urges them to face the facts. I would like to repeat here I have a lot of respect for The Commissar, even before his most recent admission to making a mistake in this particular instance. His honesty and forthrightness gives me hope that I often lose sight of.

However, his original post was made and is a part of the white noise. From the original post by The Commissar:

I have a neologism, "sollience," which is defined as "the silence of Oliver Willis when one of his favorite topics has blown up in his face."

Remember how hard he was pushing the so-called "GOP Schiavo Talking Points Memo?" As the story has started to unravel, nothing but silence from the "original liberal bomb thrower."

Then, the story unravelled in a fashion not pleasing to the far-right-wing. From Yahoo News:

The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, the senator said in an interview last night.

I don't need to insult your intelligence and explicitly do the math here.

Apparently though, because The Commissar felt the need for his second post, some bloggers do need help with the math:

"You got to know when to hold 'em; know when to fold 'em,
"Know when to walk away; know when to run."

C'mon guys. The infamous memo came from GOP Senator Mel Martinez' legal counsel, now 'discredited' and fired.

The deal is done.

Trying the desperate rear-guard action of "Mel Martinez is a freshman, not a party leader." is just embarrassing. The operative words in the WaPo story that we had seized on: "distributed to Republican senators by party leaders." Fine. Martinez is not a party leader. He sure isn't Bill Burkett, either.

There is more fallout, however, especially when looking at the opinion polls from before the news on the origin the infamous supposed Republican "talking points" on this tragedy became public. From USA Today:

The controversy over Terri Schiavo has raised concerns among many Americans about the moral agenda of the Republican Party and the political power of conservative Christians, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds. (Related: Poll results)

In the survey, most Americans disapprove of the efforts by President Bush and Congress to draw federal courts into the dispute over treatment of the brain-damaged Florida woman. She died last week.

Some old stereotypes about the two parties have been reversed:

• By 55%-40%, respondents say Republicans, traditionally the party of limited government, are "trying to use the federal government to interfere with the private lives of most Americans" on moral values.

• By 53%-40%, they say Democrats, who sharply expanded government since the Depression, aren't trying to interfere on moral issues.

The debate over Schiavo has spotlighted the central role "values" issues — abortion, stem-cell research, same-sex marriage and the right to live or die — now play in politics.

Mark Rozell, a professor at George Mason University in Virginia who studies religion and politics, says the case has created a "clear backlash."

"It's one thing to look at religious conservatives as part of a broad coalition that makes up the Republican Party," he says. "It's entirely another if people think that religious conservatives are calling the shots in the Bush administration for what was a deeply personal situation."

But Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition says a poll his group commissioned shows wide support for those who sought to preserve Schiavo's life when the issue is placed "in the broader context of protecting the rights of the disabled."

As the last sentence in the above quote indicates, there is more complexity here than a simple headline or single sentence "talking points" can encapsulate, or the attention-deficit media can comprehend.

Ultimately, though, there was strong disapproval indicated by the public towards the intervention of both the Congress and the President in a family matter that had been handled by the state courts in Florida.

What ties this all together into a pattern that can be extracted from the cacophony of white noise?

Focusing on a single issue, especially when voting.

How exactly?

This is how.

Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice (a weblog where I am privileged to guest-post) has commented several times upon what he (and Glenn Reynolds, incidentally) calls the hubris of power that is being exhibited by Tom DeLay and the Republican Party in general, most recently and most visibly in the Shiavo matter, but also in the rallying cries to defend Tom DeLay at all costs against questions regarding his arguably flexible ethics.

I disagree with Joe in this, I do not think this is the hubris of power. Instead, my conclusion is that these politicians gained power to advance this very agenda.

This behavior is not because of their power, but why they sought that power.

In other words, they are doing exactly as they said they would do, but most took what they said as rhetoric rather than their intended reality.

Why did those who believe in this agenda (including their leader, George W. Bush) gain so much power through the 2004 election?

Because people were voting on a single issue, fear of terrorism.

I cannot count the numbers who have confided in me they do not agree with much of the agenda of the Bush administration, but they voted for him anyway because they felt he would "better conduct the War on Terror."

It is apparent that most citizens of the US oppose how the Congress (as led by DeLay) and President Bush intervened in the Shiavo affair.

Yet, these politicians are acting in a manner exactly as they had campaigned they would act if elected.

I have to give the radical-wing of the Republican Party credit for that consistency, at least.

No one, I repeat, NO ONE, should be surprised.

If the citizens do not like it, then they need to do some soul-searching for why they did not listen to the entirety of the positions of those they were choosing to form our government.

This is not the hubris of power, it is the peril of single-issue voting.

That is the pattern.

Do the math.

I can do metaphors, too

The Bull Moose opines:

At the end of the day, it will take a coalition of lefties and moderates for the Democrats to prevail. But this valuable Pew survey should put an end to the suggestion that the lefties are the ideologically pure representatives of the rank and file of the Democratic Party.

The Moose avers that it takes two wings to fly.

I agree that it takes two wings to fly, but I disagree with the wings he has chosen.

It does take two wings to fly, the left-wing and the right-wing, with the heart of the bird in the middle, sometimes leaning left or right to turn, but usually level.

We are seeing what happens when one wing dominates.

Do YOU like what you see?

Suggested text for a living will

I'm sure this is making the rounds via email (which is how I got it), but it's worth posting anyway.

---

Living Will

I, _________________________ (fill in the blank), being of sound mind and body, do not wish to be kept alive indefinitely by artificial means. Under no circumstances should my fate be put in the hands of peckerwood politicians who couldn't pass ninth-grade biology if their lives depended on it.

If a reasonable amount of time passes and I fail to sit up and ask for a cold beer, it should be presumed that I won't ever get better. When such a determination is reached, I hereby instruct my spouse, children and attending physicians to pull the plug, reel in the tubes and call it a day.

Under no circumstances shall the members of the Legislature enact a special law to keep me on life-support machinery. It is my wish that these boneheads mind their own damn business, and pay attention instead to the health, education and future of the millions of Americans who aren't in a permanent coma or vegetative state. Under no circumstances shall any politicians butt into this case. I don't care how many fundamentalist votes they're trying to scrounge for their run for the presidency in 2008, it is my wish that they play politics with someone else's life and leave me alone to die in peace. I couldn't care less if a hundred religious zealots send e-mails to legislators in which they pretend to care about me. I don't know these people, and I certainly haven't authorized them to preach and crusade on my behalf. They should mind their own business, too.

If any of my family goes against my wishes and turns my case into a political cause, I hereby promise to come back from the grave and make his or her existence a living hell.

Since I'm too tired to think for myself...

...I'll give you some cynical thoughts from others:

I sometimes think that God, in creating man, overestimated His ability.
   -Oscar Wilde

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.
   -Ashley Montague

It was a book to kill time for those who like it better dead.
   -Dame Rose Macaulay

There's a difference between a philosophy and a bumper sticker.
   -Charles M. Schulz

People seem to enjoy things more when they know a lot of other people have been left out of the pleasure.
   -Russell Baker

You probably wouldn't worry about what people think of you if you could know how seldom they do.
   -Olin Miller

The parting shot is from the master...

Martyrdom covers a multitude of sins.
   -Mark Twain

Some veiled clues to my sordid past...

...can be found in this quasi-frivolous list stolen from LeeAnn (I'm not sure what the answers say...).

Have you ever:
(X) snuck out of the house
(  ) gotten lost in your city
(X) saw a shooting star
(X) been to any other countries besides the United States
(  ) had a serious surgery
(  ) gone out in public in your pajamas
(X) kissed a stranger
(X) hugged a stranger
(X) been in a fist fight
(X) been arrested
(  ) done drugs
(X) had alcohol
(X) laughed and had milk/coke come out of your nose
(X) pushed all the buttons on an elevator
(X) made out in an elevator
(  ) slept in an elevator
(  ) swore at your parents
(X) kicked a guy where it hurts
(X) been in love
(X) been close to love
(X) been to a casino
(  ) been skydiving
(X) broken a bone
(  ) been high
(X) skinny-dipped
(X) skipped school
(  ) flashed someone
(X) saw a therapist
(X) done the splits
(X) played spin the bottle
(X) gotten stitches
(X) had an IV
(X) drank a whole gallon of milk in one hour
(  ) bitten someone (well, they asked for it...)
(  ) been to Niagara Falls
(X) gotten the chicken pox
(X) kissed a member of the opposite sex
(  ) kissed a member of the same sex
(  ) crashed into a friend's car
(X) been to Japan
(X) ridden in a taxi
(X) been dumped
(  ) shoplifted
(  ) been fired
(  ) had a crush on someone of the same sex
(X) had feelings for someone who didn't have them back
(  ) stole something from your job
(X) gone on a blind date
(X) lied to a friend
(X) had a crush on a teacher
(  ) celebrated Mardi-Gras in New Orleans (DURING Mardi-Gras, no... but I've celibrated Mardi-Gras at OTHER TIMES in New Orleans, and they played along...)
(X) been to Europe (ummm, I live there now...)
(  ) slept with a co-worker
(X) been married
(X) gotten divorced
(  ) had children
(X) saw someone die
(  ) been to Africa
(X) driven over 400 miles in one day
(X) been to Canada
(X) been to Mexico
(X) been on a plane
(X) seen the Rocky Horror Picture Show
(  ) thrown up in a bar
(  ) purposely set a part of yourself on fire (but I have set other people on fire... on purpose... and it wasn't a joke...)
(X) eaten sushi
(X) been snowboarding
(X) met someone in person from the internet
(  ) been moshing at a rock show
(  ) cut yourself on purpose
(X) been to a moto cross show
(  ) lost a child
(X) gone to college
(X) graduated from college
(  ) done hard drugs (other than cask-strength Scotch???)
(X) taken painkillers
(X) love someone or miss someone right now

Freudians, speculate at will...

There is throwing good money after bad...

...and then there is cutting money off from a good investment

Can we really trust that this particular cut is wise, given both the previous success and the (relatively) low cost of seeing it through to conclusion?

In a cost-cutting move prompted by President Bush's moon-Mars initiative, NASA could summarily put an end to Voyager, the legendary 28-year mission that has sent a spacecraft farther from Earth than any object ever made by humans

The probable October shutdown of a program that currently costs $4.2 million a year has caused consternation among scientists who have shepherded the twin Voyager probes on flybys of four planets and an epic journey to the frontier of interstellar space

"There are no other plans to reach the edge of the solar system," said Stamatios Krimigis, a lead investigator for the project since before its launch in 1977. "Now we're getting all this new information, and here comes NASA saying, 'We want to pull the plug.'

NASA officials said the possibility of cutting Voyager and several other long-running missions in the Earth-Sun Exploration Division arose in February, when the Bush administration proposed slashing the division's 2006 budget by nearly one-third — from $75 million to $53 million

---

Dick Fisher, NASA's deputy director for the Earth-sun division, acknowledged that Voyager's looming demise is a direct result of the new budget. He said the agency based its proposed cuts on a "senior review" by outside experts who in 2003 gave Voyager a low priority among the division's 13 "extended" missions.

"If we use that set of goals, we would be looking at certain missions that would have to be terminated," Fisher said in a telephone interview. "We have to [decide] whether to sweat the rest of the budget to pay for this."

An extended mission begins when a spacecraft has finished its original task but is still able to contribute new science. The best known one underway is that of the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity, which are exploring the Martian desert a year after the end of their 90-day "design" mission.

Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, destined originally for a five-year journey to Jupiter and Saturn, have been extended repeatedly ever since. Most systems are functioning well, and both spacecraft are expected to provide usable data until their plutonium power sources are used up — probably in 2020.

For some perspective, reflect on the original argument for the missions

"I think it was the science adviser at the time, and the NASA administrator, who went to visit [then-President Richard] Nixon," Krimigis said, noting that Nixon was lukewarm on the mission. "They told him that the opportunity only arose once every 175 years — 'and Jefferson missed it.' " Nixon signed on.

Think about it for a while.

Cut off money for a mission that will not be repeated in our lifetime, nor the lifetime of any of our children currently alive, or pay the comparatively small amount to see it through to the end.

Are we willing to pay to "boldy go where no one has gone before"?

I hope we are.

Cross-posted to The Moderate Voice.

Sometimes, all you can do is despair

I am frustrated. I read a post on the situation in Zimbabwe, the dictatorship with the facade of democracy (which the CIA World Factbook misleadingly calls a "parliamentary democracy") under the reign of Robert Mugabe. This post had the sentence, "Sometimes all you can do is despair," in describing how the relatively peaceful revolution in Ukraine and even more recent widescale expression of public disgust with the rigged election Kyrgtzstan cannot happen in Zimbabwe because of the willingness of Mugabe to kill everyone who opposes him.

I cannot find the post with that striking sentence. If you know who wrote it, let me know, please!

Now, I'm left with the responsibility of pointing out that despite our navel gazing in the Schiavo matter, despite the collective obsession with the rituals surrounding the recent death of Pope John Paul II, there are still people dying in Africa to sustain tyrants, and there is still genocide being perpetrated.

Is the genocide of these thousands less worthy of note than the death of one brain-damaged woman, or of one man who readily acknowledged he had reached the end of his days?

Is their blood less crimson than that of those whose vows to the Church is represented in the vibrant robes of the cardinals electing a new Pope?

Is their murder less worthy of arguably Constitution-circumventing action than the fate of a single individual where state courts had already thoroughly reviewed the case?

Congress convened a special session and passed a special law in the Schiavo matter, while thousands still are murdered in Darfur, while dictatorship hides beneath a cover of ostensible "elections" in Zimbabwe and people starve to death, with NO ACTION special or ordinary on either of these matters.

The so-called "news" networks obsess over the number of well-fed pilgrims queuing in Rome to view the dead body of Pope John Paul II, while Mugabe continues in his reign that has converted Zimbabwe from a country that exported food to a nation of famine in a botched "land reform" scheme without comment from those same "news" networks, while more massacres are underway in Darfur with the assistance of a so-called government, far more murders in a shorter period than were committed in Iraq, where we now say, "Oh, we didn't invade to get the Weapons of Mass Destruction that we can't find, we came to stop the murders of the dictator and bring democracy to these people," with nary a contrary commentary from those who purport to be "fair and balanced."

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

Where is our "culture of life" and our oh-so-moral members of Congress, led by the immaculate DeLay?

Where is our special session of Congress?

Are only white women in Florida meriting special attention while thousands of those darkies we don't give a damn about die in Africa?

Does the "culture of life" only apply to 'Mericans?

A true "culture of life" would be concerned with ALL life.

So, where are they, those advocates of the "culture of life"?

Sometimes, all you can do is despair.

A troubling bill...

...is before Congress, and I write about it at The Moderate Voice.

The FEC is not alone in trying to regulate electoral blogging

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will soon vote on an ordinance that would require local bloggers to register with the city Ethics Commission and report blog-related costs when they exceed $1000 total.

This is being driven by local politics, and some perspective is provided by Chris Nolan.

The irony: Campaign spending regulations in principle are aimed at reducing the distorting influence of money from the wealthy (individual or corporate) on elections. Blogging is a development that arguably improves democracy by making the opinions of individuals widely available at relatively low cost, reducing to some extent the distortions of money. It is revealing that among the first governmental acknowledgments of blogging are attempts to regulate it in a manner that would be more suppression of speech than encouragement.

The mistrust of the power of government held by the authors of the US Constitution was, and still is, well-founded.

A request

I'm still updating my blogroll, so if I'm on your blogroll and you're not on mine, please let me know so I can reciprocate (the email is prominently displayed to your right).

I want to get in all the changes at once, rebuilding two blogs (I have my blogroll as a second blog that Random Fate calls upon to build the blogroll) is a huge pain, so I want to get the updates done in one fell swoop.

Thanks!

Confirmation bias...

...is discussed and confessed to at The Probligo and commented upon by Dave Justus. The Pobligo summarizes his conclusions as follows:

Any site, any blog, any commentator, that consistently presents only one side of an argument; that consistently presents the same sources as "evidence"; that persists in discounting any sources or evidence to the contrary without examination; obviously suffers from a very bad case of confirmation bias.

However, you should read his entire post to understand how he arrived at this seemingly obvious but usually neglected danger that we are all guilty of at least once.

UPDATE: Made a correction in authorship due to my reading the linked post too quickly.

One big, dysfunctional family

Boudicca is angry over one aspect of the Schiavo matter, and one of her commenters provides an insight that was lost in all the political grandstanding:

That's what happens when we allow the news idiots to drag us into a dysfunctional family argument! That's what the entire thing was/is - a very dysfunctional family being dysfunctional for national attention.

This applies to more than just the Schiavo matter; at times, Congress seems to resemble a dysfunctional family argument rather than a debate over principles and an attempt to find what is best for the country.

In the end, Shakespeare said it best:

A plague o' both your houses!

More blogroll additions

A day for updating the blogroll.

Middle Earth Journal, written by a retired engineer who is pursuing other paths in my old stomping grounds of Portland, Oregon.

CommonSenseDesk, a centrist weblog that includes discussions of science and technology policy in addition to the political furor du jour.

Both well worth a read.

Some thoughts on life and politics

A lifetime is more than sufficiently long for people to get what there is of it wrong.
   -Piet Hein

Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatalbe.
   -John Kenneth Galbraith

Added to the blogroll

TeaFizz, with a tagline I find appealing, "Life sucks... now run along."

Check it out.

Incidentally, this is the first blog I've seen use the Random Fate link logo that I so painstakingly made long ago:

...on lives and deaths

For the culture in the United States, issues of life, and especially of death, are rarely dealt with in proportion to the whole, to the larger picture.

I attribute part of this inadequate and anti-survival response to the tendency of Hollywood to always provide us with happy endings, a feel-good termination of the stories they present so they can make more money. We want to go see something we can walk out of the theater feeling happy about, because learning things is too much work.

Our modern myths, our archetypal tales, they all now end happily. The boy gets the girl, the hero's best friend isn't really dead, the bad guys wear black so they are easy to recognize and in the end they never win.

Real life isn't like that.

Real stories often don't have endings, they just fade into memory and eventual forgetfulness...

Any endings that we do have are messy, inconclusive, with always many of those involved unsatisfied and angry if not completely unaccepting of the ultimate outcome, fighting beyond all reason.

What few victories we have to point to are ephemeral, incomplete, and unsatisfying...

Emotions always rule over a reasoned analysis of priorities and relative weights...

The heart is important, but it should NOT ALWAYS overrule the mind.

As I have written before, the cultural heritage of the West, and of the United States in particular is missing a balance, a yin and yang; instead we are a culture of absolutes.

Absolutes always require definitives, notwithstanding that the messiness inherent in life denies us that comfort of unambiguity.

Absolutes betray us with their seductive certainties that force us to ignore wholes in favor of pieces.

Even the most fundamental of sciences, Physics, has an acknowledgment of the uncertainties of the universe, hence the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and probability clouds of quantum mechanics.

You don't believe in probability clouds and uncertainty? Stop using your computer displaying this text then because it is based upon these very principles.

Determinism died in the early twentieth century, there is no more clockwork universe. It is all clouds of uncertainty.

Uncertainty which gives hope for the existence of a soul.

A cold, clockwork universe leaves no room for a soul, no room for self-determination, no room for free will.

Until it was discovered that having an observer affects the result of what is observed and the clockword gears vanished.

A more definite statement of free will cannot be made.

I strive for rational analysis of all issues, even if they directly affect me. My goal is always a cold, clear determination of the facts and the most probable outcomes.

There is more to life than rational analysis.

I always try to temper my reasoning with a recognition that the heart does matter, and not all hearts see things the same.

This is why EACH life is valuable.

Like I have written repeatedly here on Random Fate, it is all of ONE piece. Respect for life doesn't just involve a mass of cells slowly self-differentiating, or a non-sentient mass of cells living on because the reptile brain we all have refuses to die...

Life is the single mom holding down two jobs with no child care beyond her oldest child watching the younger, a woman who has to choose between paying the house note and buying shoes for her son...

Life is the teacher who has to choose between buying groceries and paying for the supplemental insurance to cover the "pre-cancerous lesions" that her uterus has, a possible complication that is not covered by her pitiful, public health insurance from the school board because it's a "pre-existing condition"...

Life is the pregnant woman who has no health insurance through the custodial company she works for because although she works over 40 hours a week, she's called "part time" and not covered by the company plan, so she gets no prenatal care...

These are all stories from people I know.

A true "culture of life" does not ignore these facets, these LIVES already here; a true "culture of life" does not instead choose to focus solely on making sure that no abortions are ever performed or feeding tubes removed from those whose brains have been replaced by fluid while making grand gestures in the name of publicity.

Hence my cries of "Hypocrisy!"

Lack of recognition by the so-called "culture of life" of the ENTIRETY of ALL lives is inconceivable to me, but this lack becomes blatantly obvious when the other actions of those who claim to be trying to establish this "culture" are considered...

It drives me mad.

Therefore, my lack of lengthy posting on serious issues in the past days until this evening.

I have been mad in both senses of the word, insane and angry.

The heart does matter.

However, sometimes, we have to ignore our hearts when they cry out in pain for the individual, because there are larger matters.

Sometimes, we have to look at helping the many rather than the one.

A vocal minority, if not most, apparently are not capable of this fundamental survival trait of differentiation, and I fear they will drag those of us who are capable of this horrific but necessary triage down into Hell with them.

Our priorities

The announcement has finally been made, Pope John Paul II has died.

This culminates weeks of media, public, and political obsession with the lives and, in a manner more ghoulish than respectful, the deaths of two individuals, the Pope and Mrs. Schiavo.

Meanwhile, thousands and tens of thousands die in Darfur, unnoticed and unmourned by those of us in the oh-so-compassionate West, supposedly having learned our self-inflicted lessons along with our recent crimes of inaction, and now trying to form a so-called "culture of life" where no non-Christians, non-citizens, poor, or faggots need apply.

Josef Stalin, a man to abhor, once said, "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."

Sometimes, even evil can speak the truth.

I am not trying to minimize the pain or the loss from either death, but my math in this matter is apparently different than that used by some.

Priorities.

They matter.

So much for "never again!"
.
.
.
How will our priorities as illustrated by our actions be judged in the harsh light of history?

Radicalization increased in part because of gerrymandering?

The Economist magazine in an article titled "Social conservatives after Terri Schiavo" makes the following note:

What matters far more for Republican members of Congress is that religious voters are disproportionately influential in their local parties. A study in 2002 by a magazine, Campaigns and Elections, found that, of the 31 states Mr Bush won in 2004, the Christian right was strong in 15 and weak in none. In all, its influence had grown in 15 states and fallen in only eight. It has probably grown further since then.

For Republicans in the House of Representatives, gerrymandering has made this even more important. Their seats are safe from Democrats, so they have no wish to offend people with the power to deselect them in primary contests.

I'm somewhat shamed to say this consequence of gerrymandering of Congressional districts had never occurred to me, but now that it has been pointed out, I can readily see the effects on BOTH the Republican and Democratic parties.

Gerrymandering of "safe" districts promotes pandering to the extremists by avoiding the need of the "safe" party in the district to even try to appeal to the middle.

Now, districts are fabricated that have no true shared regional concerns, but instead twist like snakes after having their heads cut off, satisfying the desires of whatever party is in the majority in the state legislature. My own district in Austin after the DeLay intervention is now one of those Mandelbrot exercises in forcing the desired electoral results, with few shared concerns among the inhabitants of the areas definied by twisting lines that cut small towns in half. (NOTE: see the bottom map)

I find this a frightening thought, for in the vast majority of states, gerrymandering is the rule (see the DeLay intervention in a second redistricting in Texas for a good example of how corrupt with power politics the process has become).

Why am I concerned? Before the Civil War, politics in the United States had become radicalized in a way that is not too dissimilar to what we can observe now. At the time, no deliberate gerrymandering was required because the differences readily divided upon regional lines, with the regional cohesion enhanced because fast, long range communication in the form of the telegraph was just coming of age.

That radicalization almost destroyed the country, and it undeniably changed our government into a form that would be almost unrecognizable to those who wrote the Constitution.

Although we will not have a repeat of that conflict, do we really want another radical change in our government because of a conflict arising from the lunatic fringes?

The Schiavo matter shows the dangers of pandering to the extreme, where Congress and the President intervened directly in a matter that by the Constitution is reserved to the states, passing a law aimed at a specific, individual case, and setting a precedent that is unwise to put it mildly in its potential, long range effects. The pandering was ridiculously obvious given the polls that were taken shortly after the action, where the vast majority were against the actions taken by the Congress and the President.

Yet the "leadership" in the Congress (notably DeLay) feel no fear in promising retribution towards those who opposed them.

I doubt a better argument for re-examining how we undertaking drawing Congressional districts can readily be found.

Unfortunately, I do not expect that re-examination to happen until we have a complete breakdown in our system somewhere.

Be careful in making assumptions

The Christian Science Monitor notes that just because calls for democracy in the MidEast seem to be gaining ground, any results will not necessarily be pro-US:

There's no question that the freedom rhetoric of the US and President Bush has helped crack the door for political activism in the Middle East. A look behind the slogan, however, reveals a complex web of secular and Islamist activists who say they share Bush's zeal for democracy, but expect real political change will lead to a repudiation of the US.

In Lebanon, largely pro-Western demonstrators saying enough to the Syrian occupation of their country have been met by demonstrators led by Hizbullah, saying enough to what they view as US meddling in Lebanese politics.

In Bahrain last week, the largest protests in memory saw the country's politically disenfranchised Shiite majority saying enough to pro-American King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa's policies. And in Cairo Wednesday the chants included "Enough to Mubarak, Enough to Bush, Enough to Blair,'' along with "We will not be ruled by the CIA" and "Down with the White House."

It was a reminder that while the US has contributed to the shift in climate in the Middle East, a real democratic opening, in the short term at least, may not serve US interests. Most in the region appear angry at America's close relationship with Israel and its invasion of Iraq, and say that statements prodding allies to reform haven't overcome decades of support for Arab dictators.

"There seems to be this assumption that if you're pro-democracy then you're pro-US foreign policy, and that's incredibly misleading,'' says Marc Lynch, a political scientist and expert on the Middle East at Williams College in Massachusetts.

I recommend reading the article in full. The potential consequences bring to my mind at least one old saying, don't count your chicks before they're hatched.

Don't mistake my meaning here, I'm not saying that emergence of a movement towards self-determination in the MidEast is a bad thing, but we should NOT assume that it will result in regimes that are friendly to us.

Recall that in the Cold War one of our Presidents (either Truman or Johnson, I can never remember which) said of our support for unsavory, undemocratic regimes, "They may be sons of bitches, but they're OUR sons of bitches."

The outcome of our large amounts of aid to the undemocratic regime in Egypt could result in a remarkable backlash against us, because we supported the "sons of bitches" and the newly minted democratic voters may not be entirely happy with that support given to a regime that suppressed democracy for them, contrary to our stated aim of spreading that philosophy.

Also recall what was proved in the run up to the war in Iraq: democratic does not equate to unconditional, unquestioning support for all US actions.

Caveat emptor...

No April Fools post from me...

...sorry, it's not in my nature.

I'm damned to be too fucking serious 90% of the time, and the 10% I'm not, other people just don't get the humor I see.

Instead, I'm too tired mentally to follow up on the things I feel need to be commented upon.

Sorry, there's not enough beer in the world.

That is one of my favorite lines ever from any movie, given by a woman to a particularly unappealing man in the film Mystery Men.

It has far wider applications.

It's been a tough week.

Some days, there's not enough beer in the world to make the wrong go away...

I'm getting too old for this shit...

Off for a needed drink

I'm off to a happy hour with some co-workers. We'll see if my French improves after a few drams of Scotch.

I hope to post something that's been incubating for a few days.

I need a drink after this week...

Breaking news on the health of the Pope

Although Random Fate is not intended to be a news source, the television news here has announced that the Pope has been given the Last Rites. According to reports, the Pope's health took a sharp turn for the worse on Thursday night (European time) when he suffered septic shock and circulatory collapse. This news does NOT mean the Pope has died or will definitely die in the next hours, but the decision of the Pope to remain in his Vatican apartments during this decline may have more meaning than first apparent.

While not unexpected, this turn of events is not welcome.