Random Fate

Project Valour-IT is still ongoing

Follow the link by clicking on the image to get more information about this project, and if you feel it is worthy, donate.

Project Valour-IT is still ongoing

Follow the link by clicking on the image to get more information about this project, and if you feel it is worthy, donate.

Twenty-five years ago, the first cracks in the Iron Curtain appeared

The 25th anniversary of the founding of Solidarity in Poland is approaching. Spiegel Online (the web site of a German magazine) has an interview with a French sociologist who was the confidante of many of the early leaders of the movement that resulted in the formation of Solidarity.

It can be argued that the Solidarity movement in Poland was the first crack in the Iron Curtain that ultimately resulted in the disintegration of the Soviet empire. As that age fades into history, it is important that we gain what understanding is possible of the time and the people in it.

It is important to learn from history; we repeat it often enough as it is.

Technorati Tags: history, recommended reading

As I said before...

...regardless of how you feel about the war in Iraq, if you say you "support the troops" you need to do more than install a car magnet.

Here is a way to directly benefit those who have been severely injured in their military service:

Follow the link by clicking on the image to get more information about this project, and if you feel it is worthy, donate.

Magnets stick to metal. True support requires sticking to something more.

Technorati Tags: general, recommended reading

Lasers - the light is still fantastic

In an interesting case of similar advances being made almost simultaneously in two different places:

Quantum Cascade Lasers Key To Handheld Gas And Liquid Sensors
---
Tiny Infrared Laser Holds Promise As Weapon Against Terror

A "quantum cascade laser" sounds like some kind of technobabble from Star Trek, but it is the real deal. However, unlike what we see on Star Trek or other television shows, sensors that can detect and identify an arbitrarily wide range of substances do not exist. Much of the development of chemistry in the early days even up until recently has been focused on the identification of unknown substances and ultimately, their molecular structure.

The parallel development discussed in the two articles linked above is in the area of lasers. Again, contrary to popular perception, a laser cannot be changed to any color you like, and the color, or wavelength, of the light coming out of the laser is important when the light is used in a detection system, because certain wavelengths are needed to detect certain chemicals. There are some lasers, such as dye lasers, that can be tuned to different wavelengths within a limited range, but these are large systems that are very awkward to deal with, including coping with toxic and carcinogenic materials that usually have to be pumped in a recirculating system so the dye does not overheat and degrade more quickly, and after all the effort involved the power of the resulting laser beam is very low.

A tunable laser that is small, portable, and powerful will be very important in developing sensors for many different materials, as is discussed in the articles above.

In another development involving lasers, this time in the field of biology, carbon nanotubes, a hot topic in solid state science for well over a decade, apparently can be modified to stick to cancer cells, creating a way for lasers to be used to literally burn the cancer out without affecting the normal cells surrounding the cancer:

Nanotube-Laser Combo Selectively Targets Cancer Cells, Study Shows

This is possible using a technique similar to the one used by the anti-cancer "smart bomb" recently announced, by adding certain chemical structures to the outsides of the molecule you want to attach to the cancer cell, like puzzle pieces those structures lock onto the corresponding structures that exist on the cancer cells but not healthy cells. The recent spate of developments in this field show the huge progress that has been made in chemical synthesis in the past few years.

In the chemical and biological engineering fields we may be benefiting from a similar acceleration to that seen over the last three decades in electronics. Each advance enables two or more other developments, which then provide the foundation for others, increasing the rate of technological progress at an almost exponential rate.

Technorati Tags: science, science & technology, technology

Putting your money where your mouth is...

The name/acronym is a bit awkward: Project Valour-IT (Voice-Activated Laptops for OUR Injured Troops)

Despite that, the project is worthwhile, "a rose by any other name..."

From the project website:

Project Valour IT, in memory of SFC William V. Ziegenfuss, provides voice-controlled software and laptop computers to wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand and arm injuries or amputations at major military medical centers. Operating laptops by speaking into a microphone, our wounded heroes are able to send and receive messages from friends and loved ones, surf the 'Net, and communicate with buddies still in the field without having to press a key or move a mouse. The experience of CPT Charles "Chuck" Ziegenfuss, a partner in the project who suffered hand wounds while serving in Iraq, illustrates how important this voice-controlled software can be to a wounded service member's recovery.

Read more...

I have the software they are planning to use. It works.

There are a number of folks working on fund raising for this worthy project who can give you more details than I can from here in France.

Get more information, and then please donate if you can.

Regardless of whether you supported the war or not, here is a chance to directly "support the troops" that accomplishes a good that can be pointed to, much more than a car magnet or a mouthed platitude.

In other words, you can put your money where your mouth is; this is non-political, this is simply doing some good for some people who deserve better from us.

Technorati Tags: recommended reading

It's nice to see I'm not the only one

Continuing a theme upon which I have written before and plan to write upon again before this evening is over, Sarah the Penguin at her new blog Use a Pencil has written a post I recommend highly:

Hate To The Left! Hate To The Right! Stand Up Sit Down Fight, Fight, Fight!

It originates in her experience in radio, and provides a valuable perspective not often heard.

Recommended reading, 'nuff said.

Technorati Tags: recommended reading

The only thing that matters

In a post that starts well but unfortunately gets a wee bit inchoate at the end, the author at Bloggledygook (sorry, I don't know the name of the blogger...) writes:

The Outcomes-Based War.

I must admit to a certain confusion as to the administration's strategy in Iraq at the current time. Even as more evidence mounts that the war--which I support-- has been a brilliant success in its initial execution and a qualified failure in its aftermath, a stay-the-course mentality appears to have gripped the White House.

There is still time for things to improve, and I am cautiously optimistic that the outcome will be worth the cost. But then again, so far my own personal cost has been nil. I have not fought, I have not seen the battlefield first-hand. I have not lost a friend or loved one. So that means that I have no stake in this fight, right? Well... wrong. The stakes are for all high and real, whether soldier, reporter, demonstrator or supporter.

The war itself has been thrown into the background as supporters and opponents each vie for position as to what would constitute victory or defeat. This war has become, in the parlance of mid-nineties education policy, an outcomes-based war. Simply put: the only thing that matters to many partisans is who ends up being right. If Iraq ends up democratic and at peace, the pro-war side will have their day. If the country descends into chaos, civil war and Shari'a, the anti-war crowd will bring out the I-told-you-sos.

I suggest you read the entire post to get all the messages intended to be conveyed, there is much more to it than the part I am commenting upon.

I am focusing on what I feel is the most important point made: "Simply put: the only thing that matters to many partisans is who ends up being right."

This is a topic I have addressed repeatedly here, but which bears emphasizing yet again.

Is "being right" more important than what is right for the country?

For far too many, it appears that "being right" or "winning" or "scoring points" is indeed the most important thing, beyond everything else, and I fear it will cost us all.

What is more important for you?

Technorati Tags: opinion, recommended reading

This is what determines whether societies live or die

I have written this warning before.

Here it is from another, at Kung Fu Monkey:

The President and Intelligent Design

Technorati Tags: recommended reading

Jumping on the latest news can lead to jumping the shark

The Commissar of The Politburo Diktat illustrates how jumping on the latest hot news to score partisan points is not necessarily the best way to help "your side" in its credibility.

Technorati Tags: recommended reading, weblogs

Are the recent efforts at restricting violent games from children and teens...

...aimed at the right game?

Read it, and think about it.

Technorati Tags: commentary, recommended reading

And what exactly ARE our priorities...

...when much ado is made about a hidden part of a video game that requires both owning the game AND getting an unauthorized hack to unlock it?

As is pointed out by Alan Stewart Carl at The Yellow Line:

The outrage over all of this has bordered on absurd. Talk about a completely contrived issue. First of all, anyone who has the technical skills to download and install code from the Internet can easily access all manner of pornographic material that would make anything in Grand Theft Auto seem tame. Secondly, does anyone honestly think that graphic sex somehow turns this bloody, sadistic, vulgar game from a family title into an adult title? This is a game where you can blow people’s heads off, kill cops, pimp prostitutes and wage gang warfare. Really, how much more adult can it get?

Fact is, parents' groups seized on this to perform one of their usual overreactions and demands for censorship while politicians like Hillary Rodham Clinton opportunistically jumped on board to shore up their pro-family credentials.

Read the rest of his post for his opinion of the game and what real message is hidden in the fabricated imbroglio.

Thanks to Sarah the Penguin at Because We Have Thumbs for the link.

Technorati Tags: commentary, recommended reading

Such is the way of the world today

John of Argghhh! was afflicted with the harsh light of now today, in a very personal way.

Fortunately, he was and is capable of handling such situations in a way that causes no new harm, and he comports himself in a way that I can only hope to dimly emulate if ever confronted with a similar circumstance.

Sadly, it is a note of our degenerate times that the occasion had to "be handled" with kid gloves in the first place, exemplifying yet another tragedy that comprises the harsh light of the now.

Technorati Tags: recommended reading

Balancing principles with practicality

Ann Althouse has an interesting post on a recent ruling on the limitations of First Amendment rights and the obligations of law enforcement that I recommend you read and consider.

Technorati Tags: recommended reading

Uncomfortable reading...

...but necessary none the less.

James Wolcott condemns our insular outlook, especially as it has been shown in the wake of the terrorist attacks in London, and he makes his point well.

Technorati Tags: recommended reading

The more things change...

...the more they stay the same.

Technorati Tags: commentary, history, recommended reading

Choices and consequences

In catching up on things upon my return from my travels, I encounter a tale that Harry Boswell at The Kudzu Files pointed to, a story of a personal turning point that throws in stark relief how shallow the daily politics that flood blogworld really are when we are confronted with the reality of suffering and death, consequences arising not from violence but from poor choices.

Read it.

Technorati Tags: recommended reading

A good cause

I usually dont post whole post from other blogs, but this is a worthy cause that all of us should be willing to help on. From Wizbang:

I've mentioned in passing the story of Manuel Gehring, the New Hampshire man
who killed his two children, then hanged himself in his jail cell
before his trial.

But for some reason I kept neglecting to mention what may be the most tragic element. Gehring shot the children in his minivan, then started driving across the country. Somewhere along Interstate 80 between Pennsylvania and Iowa, he pulled off the highway and buried his son and daughter. But their bodies have never been recovered.

Authorities are convinced that the Gehring was telling the truth before he killed himself. They report that all the details are accurate, and all the physical evidence (the purchasing of the shovel and other materials he says he used to bury them, the overwhelming evidence in the van that it was a murder scene, and so on) backs it up. Gehring himself retraced his path several times with law enforcement officials, but couldn't find the scene.

Terri Knight -- Gehring's ex-wife and mother of the missing children -- has been to the Midwest several times, and is planning yet another trip soon. She's hoping that this time she will find the bodies of her son and daughter, and bring them home for a proper burial.

The FBI has taken a most unusual step. They have posted transcripts and audio clips of Gehring's account on their web site here and here.

Please do the trackback dance and get this story noticed.

Crossposted to ISOU

Benign labels do not make it right

I cannot recommend more highly reading this entire post by John Cole: Durbin Wrap Up. To provide an incentive, I give you a quote that encapsulates what I have been trying to convey about the prison at Guantanamo:

The fact of the matter is, we just don't know the whole story. And no matter what the blowhards and the administration apologists (and I used to be one) say, it isn't liberal ACLU pro-terrorist anti-military crazinesss to demand the facts and to demand that we behave better than we have in the past. It isn't anti-soldier to question policy and to demand that abuses and torture aren't being conducted under our flag, even if we benignly label them 'approved interrogation techniques.'

And one more thing- Dick Durbin didn't do anything wrong- he used some stupid rhetoric. He could have used a better example, and it was stupid to include regimes as murderous as the Khmer Rouge and the Nazis in that speech, even though he didn't compare our troops to those guys. But that doesn't give us any excuse to ignore his message.

And just because I have to say it given the idiotic political climate we currently have to live in- I think the severe allegations and the deaths are an aberration, not the norm. I don't think all of our soldiers are evil and sadistic torturers. I don't know what is true and what is not, and I don't know what is considered acceptable under international norms. I, in fact, love the military and think it is the best way that we as a society spend our money. But I don't think it is stupid or slanderous or unpatriotic to have the idea that everything isn't kosher.

I wish I had the time to comment both on what Cole has written and to elaborate on my earlier writings on this topic.

This is important, and Cole provides some much-needed perspective from someone who leans to the right on the political spectrum.

Take the time necessary to do it well...

...and if it doesn't need to be done well, does it need to be done at all?

I'm a wee bit busy, so in lieu of a long post that I don't have time to write well, I'll refer you to some posts that even if you disagree with their points and politics, at the least they are well-written.

Because they are well-written, with at least some indication that time and effort were both put into the writing, I find their positions at the least worth considering and not dismissing out of hand, as I am inclined to do with a similar level of partisanship that is not well-written.

satire used to make a political point

rampant partisanship that is still entertaining to read

asking a question and not turning it into a diatribe

explaining simply why an idea is bad without name-calling

I'll spare you the countless counterexamples of good writing that I encounter every day.

Technorati Tags: recommended reading

Setting standards, and staying faithful to them

From the Dartmouth 2005 Spring Commencement address by Tom Brokaw:

I am humbled by the sacrifices that so many of you have made to help you to this promising place in your lives. Your family, your teachers, and some that you may not have considered, especially on a sunlit morning here in Hanover in early June. As we gather here today there are young men and women your age in uniform, in far-off places, in harm's way, dedicating their lives to your security and you must remember them on this occasion as well.

I am envious of what you will carry from here - more than the degree or honors, what you will come to treasure are the friendships and the fellowship, some of which will accompany you all the rest of your days. I envy you as well, of course, the thrill of exploring frontiers of knowledge while rediscovering and re-examining ancient truths.

Most of all, I envy you the road ahead on the 21st century, with its transformation technology, emerging democracies, developing economies, shifting power centers and yes, lethal cultural conflicts that demand attention and resolution.

These are the themes of commencement speeches across a broad spectrum of campuses this spring and I am fully prepared to expand on them momentarily. But first, I am compelled to offer somewhat lofty, but I hope useful, observations. You have been hearing all of your life about this moment - your first big step into what you have been called and told is the real world. What, you may be asking yourself this morning, is this real life all about? Ladies and gentlemen of the Class of 2005 at Dartmouth, it's not college - it's not high school. Real life is junior high.

The world you're about to enter is filled with adolescent pettiness, pubescent rivalries, the insecurities of 13-year-olds and the false bravado of 14-year-olds. Forty years from now, I guarantee it, you'll still be making silly mistakes, you'll have a temper tantrum, you'll have your feelings hurt for some trivial slight, you'll say something dumb and at least once a week you'll wonder, "Will I ever grow up?"

You can change that. In pursuit of passions, always be young. In your relationship with others, always be a grown-up. Set a standard and stay faithful to it.

I really like his comments about what they world they are about to enter is filled with... "adolescent pettiness, pubescent rivalries, the insecurities of 13-year-olds and the false bravado of 14-year-olds."

In my 40 trips around the sun, that's what I've seen far more often than not, only getting worse as time passes and society supposedly "progresses".

There is more to this, however.

I know I frustrate many people much of the time.

I have personal standards that I try my best to stay faithful towards, and I have standards I was taught when I was a child that my nation is supposed to hold, standards that when violated that I cry havoc.

Be careful what you teach the children, because some of them believe in ideals, and grow up into people like me who are willing to point out when the emperor has no clothes.

---

Thanks to Goemagog at Incite for the stimulation of thought by his(?) linking to the speech.

Technorati Tags: personal, recommended reading

An eternal ache verbalized

From Bloggledygook:

Few, if any, women realize how profoundly they affect their men; whether sons or lovers, fathers or brothers or husbands, we are much more vulnerable and attached than we care to admit. Women connect. And once those connections are made, distance becomes both an illusion and a formality.

I have nothing to say other than read it all...

Technorati Tags: recommended reading

Is USA Today taking a cue from Drudge?

Teresa at Technicalities deconstructs an article on traffic fatalities from USA Today that has a screaming headline unjustified by the subsequent text, showing that a news report on even as apolitical a topic as traffic statistics seems to have drama-spin added, likely simply to grab the eyeballs (and as a consequence, the revenues).

Technorati Tags: recommended reading

Tradition! It's not just a song...

At The Politburo Diktat, the Commissar engages in some ironic satire that reminds me of the song "Tradition!" from Fiddler on the Roof.

I suspect the ironic satire will be lost on those who could benefit the most from it.

Technorati Tags: recommended reading

Us versus the-rest-of-the-world

In an article discussing the move of Apple from PowerPC to Intel based processors I read this of all things:

(The Macintosh sycophancy) ...reminds me of another self-justifying group of Americans that will approve anything their party does, no matter what (apparently its leadership believes it's reasonable to frame all discourse as us versus the-rest-of-the-world; the rest of the world now including all dissenting Americans).

It seems you cannot get away from politics these days.

However, some others have noticed the same tendencies of "us versus the-rest-of-the-world, with the rest of the world now including all dissenting Americans". For example, the Commissar at The Politburo Diktat takes to task a prominent right-wing blog for using rhetoric that the Commissar feels is hateful:

Recently, here and here, I harshly criticized Captain Ed and other Main Stream Floggers. As far as this post today of Captain Ed's, a post whose tone matches the worst of Charlie Rangel, Howard Dean, and dKos, I regret what I said the other day. I regret that I did not denounce this hateful rhetoric in strong enough terms.

Another blogger asked me recently, "Do you still consider yourself a Republican? Yes, I do. And I ask in return, "Is Captain Ed's post Republican?" Is that what the GOP stands for? Waving the bloody shirt? Tarring anyone who disagrees with intransigence as a lyncher?

I suggest you read the entire post by the Commissar and the links he refers to, but please take his remarks in context. He does not necessarily agree with what follows.

Here is where I ask about fundamentals:

As I ask repeatedly, is this how we really want things to work?

Can we not frame things in any way other than "us versus the-rest-of-the-world , with the rest of the world now including all dissenting Americans"?

This seems to be the fundamental tactic of the current administration, with deliberate nominations of controversial figures for the purposes of both explicitly demonstrating the power of the administration in getting what it wants, and in rewarding those who have been personally loyal to the man who is currently President.

In other words, personal loyalty to George W. Bush is apparently perceived to be a more relevant qualification than any experience or other factors for any position.

Excuse me, but isn't this how any two-bit dictator, including the late yet unlamented regime in Iraq, operates?

Loyalty to an individual, NOT to the system.

Take a step outside of your partisan prejudices for a moment and look at the bigger picture.

Look at history, look at where we have been, and in light of that, look at where we appear to be going.

The current administration is pushing for making the USA PATRIOT Act permanent, and Congress is attempting to even expand the ability of the FBI and other government agencies to conduct searches with no judicial review. The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee holding hearings on the renewal isn't even willing to hear dissenting voices.

The current administration has signed the RealID Act, a bill passed without any kind of public hearing or input, which provides an easy way for large corporations to gather information on and track any individual along with increasing government surveillance of individuals, not to mention what the identity thieves will be able to do in terms of invading privacy (oh, and by they way, this ill-thought out bill was sponsored and pushed by the very same man who refused to listen to any dissenting voices on renewal and extension of the USA PATRIOT Act).

How long before I, a patriotic American, am regarded as a "person of interest" because I am an expatriate in France?

Will I have to give up any semblance of privacy in order for me to return to my country of birth?

How long before you, who posts on a weblog, is regarded as a "person of interest" because you wrote something that didn't conform with the government line?

The preamble to our Constitution states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This was written by men who had not so long before fought and risked death for treason to establish their liberties.

What are the Blessings of Liberty?

Do those Blessings include establishing an extra-legal prison?

Do those Blessings include establishing the precedent that the President can declare anyone, US citizen or not, an enemy combatant with no recourse to any review, and no right to counsel?

Do those Blessings include establishing a mandatory national ID card that is machine readable, as outlined by the RealID Act?

Do those Blessings include establishing a system where dissenting voices are ignored and cut off?

Men fought and died to give us the Blessings of Liberty that we have enjoyed.

Men fought and died to defend the honor of our nation.

Are we honoring their legacy?

My answer: No, we are not, instead we are throwing it away and most don't even notice, while others who claim to be patriots cheer.

Technorati Tags: commentary, opinion, politics, weblogs

Abstractions are fine unless it is your ox being gored?

An unexpected conclusion is presented by Pennywit at his eponymous weblog:

That's something you don't hear very often: That Justice Scalia does not apply his incisive views of the Constitution when his personal ox is being gored. Actually, other justices, and indeed, other judges, are far more guilty of this offense; differing strands of the law become more, or less, acceptable, depending on the judge's political proclivities.

Except for Justice Thomas, who, while conservative, has demonstrated an almost dogmatic adherence to his interpretation of the Constitution, regardless of where it might lead him. There's something to be said for this sort of justice, just as there's something to be said for Justice O'Connor's brand of narrowly tailored pragmatism; different approaches are appropriate for different cases. But a justice who adheres first to his political preference, and second to the law, is truly a "judicial activist," for good or for ill.

NOTE: link to definition added

I suggest you read his entire post for the sometimes abstruse legal issues involved

What can one man do?

Courtesy of Eric, The Straight White Guy, I have been reminded that I missed an anniversary, one written about eloquently by Kathy at The Cake Eater Chronicles.

She writes:

I don't think I'll ever forget this man.

No one knows who he is. No one knows if they should really be using the word "was" instead of "is" when they write about him. No one has any idea about anything in regards to him.

Yet everyone remembers him.

He was the one who screamed through his actions that you will have to get around me if you want to do this. The world will be watching. Just go ahead and try it on for size and see what happens.

I wonder about him. I know this is hardly new stuff. Half the world has seemingly speculated on what this man was about when he stepped in front of a row of tanks, tightly grasping what looks to be the fruits of his Saturday morning shopping. But I can't really help myself from wondering about him. Who he was. Why he did what he did. What happened to him. What his name is. All of it fascinates me.

I would like to think that this man is the one who gave a massive boulder a good hard shove and started it moving down a hill. Even if his own country didn't benefit from his actions, I think he's the one who led people to say, just like he did, that enough is enough. He showed them they could be brave. He showed them you didn't need to have a party membership or a position of power to make a memorable effect. All you really needed was the will to make that statement. To say, in effect, "no, you're not going to do this because I am here. I will try and stop this. Because I believe your actions to be wrong. I am going to make a stand, right here, right now, because this is what I believe is needed."

Even more than usual, I recommend you read her entire post.

We can all learn from this simple, yet incredibly brave act by this one man.

Even if China was not fundamentally changed by his action, it still serves as an inspirational act of courage.

If it's in the news, don't worry, but if it is not in the news it's time to take it seriously...

There is an interesting article from The Register on the possibility of a world pandemic:

You may think this is overblown. But discussion of the possibility of a flu pandemic has fallen out of the news. And as the security consultant Bruce Schneier says: "One of the things I routinely tell people is that if it's in the news, don't worry about it. By definition, 'news' means that it hardly ever happens. If a risk is in the news, then it's probably not worth worrying about. When something is no longer reported - automobile deaths, domestic violence - when it's so common that it's not news, then you should start worrying."

The risks posed by an outbreak of flu passed from chickens in the Far East, in countries such as Vietnam and Thailand, burst into the news in February. But now they've passed out of the news. Since then we've had more important things, like the Crazy Frog ringtone, to concern us.

Time to worry. And the scientists are. In fact, they're edgier than I've seen them since the BSE outbreak was in its earliest days and people were wondering if it might pass to humans. Quite a few scientists stopped eating beef at that point. Oh, you didn't know?

Now, their reaction is to write papers and watch what's happening, very closely. If you read the scientific journals (we do, so you don't have to) the articles are piling up. Last week the journal Nature pulled together an entire online resource on the threat of avian flu.

That's the trouble with scientists. They get an idea into their heads - CFCs and ozone, carbon dioxide emissions and the greenhouse effect, the transmission of BSE to other species such as humans - and they worry away at it until they determine what the answer and the mechanism is.

I find the comments on the news and what to worry about are right on target.

I hope to write more about this later, but for now, I have to run.

I am short of time...

...because I'm leaving soon for a dinner with a German man, a French man, and his English wife.

I expect an interesting evening.

However, I cannot leave without recommending you read this post by the Commissar at The Politburo Diktat:

Questioning Patriotism

Think seriously about what he has to say.

More on this later.

The more things change...

...the more they stay the same.

The Commissar at The Politburo Diktat points to a failure of the MainStream Media, version 2.0.

A collision between the death penalty and a chance at life

At The Kudzu Files, hboswell has written about a situation that could have been presented as a hypothetical case in arguments over life and death.

A woman in need of a liver transplant has a close relative on death row in Indiana who has offered to donate, but the procedure that will be used to execute the inmate will essentially poison the liver, rendering it unfit to transplant. Apparently, the Indiana Department of Corrections is being very uncooperative.

One cannot help but wonder where all those who recently were proclaiming that life is sacred are now.

Go to The Kudzu Files for the details.

UPDATE: Thanks to Holly in Cincinnati who left a comment in the post at The Moderate Voice, there is more to the story. From The Indianapolis Star:

Doctor: Inmate's liver not needed
Condemned man's sister should easily get transplant once she's on list, specialist says.

By Vic Ryckaert and John Strauss
vic.ryckaert@indystar.com

MICHIGAN CITY, Ind. -- An Anderson woman waiting to hear about a liver transplant from her brother on Death Row should have no trouble finding an organ even without his help, according to an Indiana University transplant specialist.

The brother, Gregory Scott Johnson, on Monday asked the Indiana Parole Board to spare his life or at least delay his scheduled execution next week, so he can donate all or part of his liver to his sister, Debra Otis. The parole board will have a hearing Friday, and Gov. Mitch Daniels will have the final say.

---

But Otis, a former waitress, should have no trouble finding a donor organ and may be better off without taking part of her brother's liver, said Dr. Joseph Tector, director of transplantation at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis.

"If this were my sister and I could give part of my liver to her, I still would rather that she got a whole organ because it's a better graft," Tector said.

"It will give her better function, with a better long-term result."

Otis is not on the transplant waiting list because she is recovering from fractured vertebrae and an infection, her family said.

There are additional details in the linked story.

Rhetoric from the left and the right

The Average Tobacco Chewing Joe and I are engaged in a debate in the comments on rhetoric, actions, and judicial nominations over at his weblog, Cadillac Tight, if you want to go read and possibly join in.

Technorati Tags: opinion, recommended reading, weblogs

Some outstanding thoughts on "our thing"...

...aka "blogging" are to be found at Pennywit.

Why are you still here? Go read it!

Technorati Tags: recommended reading, weblogs

Another reason to question exactly who the government serves

I considered posting an extended commentary about the recent introduction of a bill aimed at stopping the publicly funded National Weather Service from publishing in easily accessible and understandable form their data and forecasts, but burnout slowed me down.

Instead, I recommend you read this post at Centerfield: And the Winner,...

Perhaps more later on this, because it is an unintentional metaphor for the Republican Party and how it caters to the interests of those who have money over those who do not.

Is that freedom?

Is that liberty?

The public has already PAID for this data, for the analysis, for the predictions.

Yet... It is proposed that the data, the analysis, and the predictions should NOT be made publicly available in an easily accessible form so that private corporations can make more money by using this data (the companies in question are already profitable).

Think about it a while.

Is the government still "of the people, by the people, and for the people"?

Technorati Tags: opinion, patterns in the white noise

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

The most cogent analysis of the tragedy and object lesson presented by Michael Jackson...

...is found at Varifrank.

Thanks to King of Fools for the link.

The ends and the means

I rarely do this for sites that do not require registration, but this commentary from the Bull Moose sums up the current situation in a way that I cannot and merits quoting almost in full:

All pretenses of limited government conservatism have been cast aside with congressional intervention in the Schiavo case. The era of big government conservatism is in full swing. That is, if it can be called conservatism, at all.

At its heart, conservatism had reverence for process and order. But what we are witnessing now is the triumph of ends over means. That is exactly what the right loathed about the left. In the eye of conservatives, the left would stretch the Constitution and the law to serve its so-called noble ends. Liberals would turn to the federal courts to nullify the judgments of localities. In the end, according to the right, the law of unintended consequences would prevail and the rule of law would be obliterated.

Process no longer matters to the right - after all they are on the side of the angels. Whether it is pork barrel spending , the Senate filibuster or federal intervention in a family dispute, modern conservatism knows no boundaries. The right is now intoxicated with power - process is for wimps.

When it comes to federal intervention on behalf of the disadvantaged, the conservative response is to leave it to the states and the "mediating institutions" of community and locality. However, when it involves pandering to the religious right, federal power in the pursuit of righteous aims is no vice.

A few brave souls such as George Will and Andrew Sullivan attempt to hold the right to its principles. But the right is now aping all that it loathed in liberalism - the arrogance of power.

Look in the mirror conservatives - you have become your own worst enemy.

Long ago, before the Internet, I wrote, "The ends cannot justify the means, the means ARE the ends, for if you betray principals along the way, what is the point of the ends?"

I can face myself in the mirror in the harsh, unforgiving light of the dawn of a new day.

Can you?

A new Odyssey

LeeAnn has had a horribly bad day.

Go and sympathize with her in the comments to her description of her journey, please. Anyone who can make what was obviously such a miserable time so entertaining to read deserves far better from life.

Finding humor in such a situation and giving others joy from it is too rare a gift, I am glad LeeAnn has it and shares it with us.

Evil is not just a word for evangelicals anymore...

The Christian Science Monitor has an article that upon reading the title and tag line appears extremely intriguing:

Calling Evil by name
A word once reserved for atrocities is now used liberally. But does the rude guy at the airport deserve the label?

The article itself indeed follows up on the title and is well worth reading. A taste to prompt further reading:

"You need to ask why is it that we're so surprised when the alleged BTK killer [in Wichita] ends up being someone who lives among us and works in our church and is a Cub Scout leader," says Daryl Koehn, an ethicist at the University of St. Thomas in Houston and author of a new book, "The Nature of Evil." "We want evil to be monstrous," she says, "because if evil is monstrous, then by definition it doesn't look like us."

On some level, it's appropriate for people to be able to name evil when they see it, to help identify behaviors that are profoundly destructive, says Professor Schmidt, an ordained Episcopal priest. But he cautions that such labeling should be done carefully - and humbly.

"The difficulty is that that kind of language can obscure a more sophisticated analysis of people's behavior," he says. "To call people evil potentially dehumanizes them and therefore makes them potentially the object of punitive actions taken without regard to their humanity."

It also may shift the gaze away from considering society's own responsibility for events, and for their causes.

"For example," he says, "what are the roots of racism? What are the dynamics that cause someone to become a suicide bomber? What are the dynamics behind those kinds of activities; how do you address them?

There's much more, all extremely thought provoking, so read the whole thing as they say..

---

Cross-posted at The Moderate Voice.

The question: Do we fight terrorism or protect liberties?

The question: Do we fight terrorism or protect liberties?

Is that really the question?

In Hamlet, Shakespeare had the eponymous protagonist say, "To be, or not to be: that is the question." However, the tragic end of Hamlet's tale shows that asking the wrong questions may lead one astray more than a wrong answer to the right question.

According to many of the participants in the recent anti-terrorism conference held in Madrid last week, with the site chosen in commemoration of the train bombings in that city a year ago, the question itself (as reported by The Christian Science Monitor) is framed incorrectly, and instead we should start with the premise that "The best way to fight terrorism is to protect liberties."

Some will disagree with this premise on the face of it without thinking. However, look deeper:

"Compromising human rights ... facilitates achievement of the terrorist's objective, by ceding to him the moral high ground and provoking tension, hatred, and mistrust of government among precisely those parts of the population where he is more likely to find recruits," he added.

Scrupulous respect for the rule of law "wrong-foots the terrorists, forcing them to campaign not against a regime but against democracy itself, which means the rule of the people," agrees Phil Bobbitt, the US law professor who led the conference deliberations on democratic responses to terror. The terrorists can take on democracy, "but I think it's a losing strategy," he says.

The measures that compromise civil liberties may prevent terrorism in the short-term, but in the long-term view, as Benjamin Franklin pointed out, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Never forget, terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. Do not succumb to the same fears that ruled when anarchists and communists first appeared. Rarely are wise decisions made when fear is the overriding factor.

I have said this before, and I will repeat it here, terrorism in and of itself is NOT an existential threat to the United States, certainly not in the way the former Soviet Union was a threat in our balance of terror, appropriately acronymed MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), that we maintained for nearly 50 years.

While the Cold War was not terrorism in the way we currently define it, it was indeed a true balance of terror, even a cursory examination of the films put out by the Civil Defense Agency in the 1950s illustrates the terror in a way that is all the more eloquent for being in the same black and white photography that is associated with the "Greatest Generation's" war that ended in 1945.

Before I am proclaimed naive, I do want to point out that yes, terrorism has the potential to kill a lot of people, and that is a horrifying prospect, but terrorists can NOT kill the entire country, nor can they destroy our democracy though nuclear annihilation of every major city, as could the threat from the Soviet Union.

Only we can kill our democracy, and that will be from within, and to some extent we are doing exactly that in the slow poisoning of our democratic heritage arising from our reaction to the threat of terrorism.

While we are still far from the fascist state that some far-left-wingers in their fevered writings and proclamations decry with overwrought hyperbole, there is indeed a slow, subtle chipping away at freedoms that, while not necessarily directed and coordinated by some dark force like in Star Wars prequel movies, is indeed endangering our liberties and privacy nonetheless.

The far-right-wing, with their frenetic use of inflammatory rhetoric, denouncing anyone who questions actions that may limit freedoms with words such as "treason" and "traitorous", are of little help and in fact are serving as catalysts to destroy the very institutions they claim to want to preserve.

All hope is not lost, though, there is indeed still time to for a pause with a slow, deep breath, time to think before we take further steps down that road paved with good intentions, having nary a landmark, but leading directly to Hell.

A final note, the meeting in Madrid was not all pie-in-the-sky theorizing, with acknowledgment of reality as shown here:

He cautioned, though, that "intelligence cooperation is almost an oxymoron. Intelligence by its nature does not lend itself to cooperation."

Sadly, institutional infighting seems to still rule the day within the US intelligence agencies, which lends credence to the above statement. How can we hope for true cooperation between the intelligence agencies of different nations if we cannot get our own internal house in order?

In the end, though, we need to learn to ask the right questions to find the answers. The question is not "Do we fight terrorism or protect liberties?"

The question is "How do we protect liberties from dangers both external and internal?"

Ask that and strive for the answers, and if liberty and freedom are all that we say they are, the rest will follow.

Damnit, where's the fun anymore?

As a mental break from the patents I'm working on, I've been reading message boards for different computer sites, enjoying the idiotic flame wars that break out over which OS is supposedly better, and Star Wars-related message boards enjoying how incredibly over-focused people get over an imaginary universe.

Then, when catching up on the weblogs I read regularly, thinking about how a lot of posts on different weblogs resemble the moronic things I've seen at the computer and Star Wars sites, except the bloggers are talking about politics and things that truly affect peoples lives, and I get horrified at human nature.

Fortunately, I read The Reality Stick, where he has a link that proves not only is there hope for humanity, but that the Finns at least still have a sense of humor...

If you have time (and a fast connection, this isn't for dial-up), follow his link, it's worth it.

Thanks, Doug!

The opposition can have good ideas, too

Talking Points Memo has set up a "special bankruptcy bill edition" to cover that specific bill currently before Congress. The parent blog is definitely partisan on the Democratic side, and I would expect nothing less from the child blog, but this is indeed an important issue with potential wide ranging effects that may not be directly related to bankruptcy.

Even if you are a staunch Republican supporter, that does not mean you should not look at the view from the "other side", because you just might gain some understanding and discover some things you may not have thought of before.

Instead of steroids, surgery?

There is an article at Wired News on the use of surgery to enhance performance in sports. The specific example is of an operation first used to repair a torn tendon in a pitcher's arm that ended up improving his pitching. This surgery has now been used by some pitchers to improve their game without having torn tendons beforehand.

Before an immediate reaction of "that's no different than using steriods" is declared, the question is asked: Laser surgery is used to improve eyesight for many players with no "injury" to the eyes beforehand, just less than perfect vision. How is that acceptable but improving the functioning of tendons that are less than perfect any different? The article is well worth reading in full.

It is an interesting question, and brings to mind a whole host of questions:

LASIK surgery for improving eyesight is well accepted. How would other types of surgery be any different?

If surgery to "improve" various aspects of life is accepted, what are the implications for using genetic engineering to "improve" the lives of our children?

What are the long-term implications for society with these "improvements" surgical or genetic?

We already have a system in professional sports where people who have natural abilities that are far beyond those of the average person are rewarded immensely for those natural abilities. What would artificially enhanced abilities change in that equation?

Are we headed towards the world envisioned in the movie Gattaca?

Definitely something to think about.

Sometimes simple turns of phrases say more than paragraphs

Boudicca has had a rough week:

We were on our way home tonight from a soccer meeting. From the back of the car I hear Son#3 (Bones) say… “Mom… sometimes in my head, I cry for you.”

Me: What? Why do you cry for me?

Bones: Because I love you so much, I don’t want you to ever die.

Me: Oh. So when do you do this crying in your head thing?

Bones: At snack and play. (That would be in school.)

Well the whole conversation went downhill from there. I am just NOT the person they should be coming to when they are having some sort of spiritual crisis. I don’t know the answers. At all. I wing it and I do OK, but its going to come back to haunt me.

There were questions about how my grandmother died 2 years ago. Then questions on how THEIR grandmother died 5 years ago. Then what is a stroke? What is old age? Why doesn’t God protect us from disease? And on and on it went… and I just answered all the questions very matter of factly, but then… but then… I had two little sobbing boys in the back of my car. Son#1 was just listening, but Sons2 and 3 were now melting into two small salty puddles.

I was aghast.

I pulled in the garage and when I got out of the car, Bones hung around my neck, as if I were going to spontaneously combust right then and there and leave this earthly existence. Son#2 wasn’t doing much better. Imagine my husband’s surprise when in we walk and two of them are crying messes.

Blech. Sometimes the questions they ask are too deep for me. What fits right in my head would not fit in theirs. I need to just defer all these questions to their Dad.

There's more, but you should go read it at Boudicca's Voice. Even this short excerpt should fully explain why I read her regularly.

Two sentences struck me deeply. The first:

What fits right in my head would not fit in theirs.

Something we could all do to remember anytime we are speaking to anyone. Just because it fits our head, our preconceptions, our ideas, our beliefs, our biases, does not mean it's the right answer for everyone.

The second:

...sometimes in my head, I cry for you.

Out of the mouths of babes come words expressive and poetic. That simple phrase conveys something that I feel that has always been too complex for me to describe adequately until now.

Sometimes in my head, I cry for us all.

A satirical piece that is sharper than usual

Start with a political stance, such as "I support the troops but oppose the war in Iraq," invert it to "I support the occupation of Iraq, but I don't support our troops," and then consider the opposite stance in a satirical piece.

Then think about what you are feeling, and then what you would feel if it was NOT intended as satire.

Think about what is written, and think about some similar things you may have read elsewhere, in spirit if not in wording.

Think about the points "made," including the ones that would make you the most uncomfortable if it was not a satirical piece, and why there is a discomfort associated with them.

Consider it an exercise in stretching your mind.

When even the book reviews are thoughtful, perhaps the magazine is worth a look

One of the reasons I really enjoy reading The Economist is shown by the opening paragraphs of a recent book review:

Walk into any major European art gallery and you are likely to see soldiers, cavalry and cannon spread across huge canvases. In some, the troops line out across the plain under the watchful gaze of a general. Others show the battle up close, often in a moment of conspicuous heroism-the capturing of a standard, say, or a cavalry charge.

This genre dates from the period between the French revolution and the end of the Victorian era, but after that time it suddenly disappears, killed off by new, more scientific ways of writing history and by fundamental changes in how warfare was imagined. The battles that Tolstoy describes in "War and Peace", which was published in the late 1860s, were neither tidy nor heroic. Even less so were the muddied struggles of the first world war. Treating them as if they were suddenly seemed naive.

This is the opening of a book review!!! They don't even mention the book until the third paragraph.

A magazine that has this level of contemplation in book reviews is well worth the time it takes to read.

Some trends that may affect the computer you can buy in 2012

For some perspective on the challenges of my job this page, which is part of a larger description of past trends and future evolution in microprocessor development, give a reasonably good description of the problems I am trying to overcome.

I recommend reading the entire article, which is part one of a series on "The Quest for More Processing Power".

What is interesting is that I didn't see really any note in the parts I skimmed regarding how in the next few years we will be undergoing a transition from where process technology (which is the way we actually make the microprocessors, using different processes to put films down and selectively remove them to make the transistors and the wires that connect them together) and the improvements in the process technology are paramount in the increase of capability of microprocessors to where the design of the microprocessor itself becomes the key to continued increase in processing power.

Most of the improvements in electronics (specifically processing and memory capacity) have been due to improvements in process technology. In my career, which started in 1991 when I was working on state of the art technology of the time, we have gone from the thinnest layer we make (which happens to be the heart of the transistor, and the part that I have consistently worked on) going from a thickness of roughly 9nm (a nanometer is 1E-9 meters, a meter is a wee bit over 3 feet long, and nano, or 1E-9 is 1/1,000,000,000, so a nanometer is 1/1,000,000,000 of 3 feet... atoms on average are about 0.5nm apart) to about 1.5nm. Atoms are roughly 0.5nm apart (not all are that distance apart, but it's close enough and it makes the math easier), so we have gone from the thinnest film being 18 atoms thick in 1991 for the absolute state-of-the-art, to about 3 (yes THREE) atoms thick for the current state-of-the-art microprocessors.

Think about it, 3 atoms. There's not much room left for this film, is there? Admittedly, there are some ways around it, notably changing the material used, but I've been working on that project for the last 5 years, and no one has the answer to which material to use yet.

Also, another key part of the transistor is the length of the gate. The gate is what is controls whether the transistor is "on" or "off", in other words, a "1" or a "0" in the binary signals used in MPUs (MicroProcessor Units). That gate length has gone down to where it is in the range of 100 atoms across.

Again, think about it, 100 atoms.

So, this change in primacy from process technology to design techniques for improvement in performance is not only expected but almost inevitable unless we come up with some breakthrough in either materials or fundamental structure of transistors.

I don't see this truly watershed transition really recognized widely.

As an FYI, the stuff I work on now will go into production around 2011 or 2012, which means I have a reasonable view of what will be available around 7 years out.

There are a lot of wide-ranging effects that will arise out of this transition. I may write on them later, but for now, to sleep, perchance to dream, but hopefully not and instead an all too brief visit with the bliss of an inactive brain.

Turning points

Doug McKay, over at The Reality Stick, has written on how the day that the Space Shuttle Challenger was destroyed was a turning point in his life for more than one reason. He also writes something that I feel is worth adding to my quote collection:

...human stupidity will always trump human achievement...
   -Douglas R. McKay

In his revelation of the second event of that day that was a turning point in his life, he also reminds those engaged in the HIV/AIDS discussion elsewhere in blogworld (one which resembles more of an imbroglio due to statements from all sides rather than a reasoned debate) that regardless of belief in what is the actual root cause of AIDS, some people die from some cause after being diagnosed HIV+, and shows us the effects that those deaths do have on those they leave behind.

Deja vu all over again?

Before the current Iraq War and Occupation, I wrote that larger and more immediate threats to the security of the United States than Iraq were Iran and North Korea. Now, it appears that we have a lot of the same activity (read: PR) that was underway in the selling of the Iraq War now being aimed at Iran.

Better late than never? At this point, no, because the situation has changed.

Despite the current apparently positive outcome of the recent election in Iraq (I say apparently positive because we are neglecting the recent decision of the Iraq Governing Council to base civil law in the new government on Islamic Shari'a law, which according to one person very familiar with it has as many interpretations as self-designated clerics... this does not bode well for constructing a stable and peaceful society), a repetition of the same rhetoric at this date is troubling, to say the least, in light of how wrong much of the "logic" used before the Iraq War has been shown to have been.

Regardless of how much President Bush feels the results of the November elections justifies his actions both of the past and the future, there is a sizable number of citizens (according to some surveys, a majority) who feel that the Iraq War was a mistake. Playing the same fear card that worked in the run up to the Iraq War and is trying to be used in domestic politics regarding Social Security will likely not work with respect to Iran.

I expect President Bush will get a rude awakening when he tries to spend his "political capital" and discovers it won't buy as much as he wants.

Pennywit has his own analysis that is well worth reading, and also pointed to the use of similar rhetoric and tactics.

Another view from outside the United States

In an attempt to get views other than that of the infamous MSM (aka the MainStream Media), I looked at C.A.+, which is based in Costa Rica, and of which David Anderson of ISOU hopes will be The Economist of Central America.

Based upon the one issue currently available, I cannot say if they will have the same (relatively) abstract judgment that I feel The Economist has shown (despite being wrong occasionally, and actually admitting it...), it is still well worth checking out, simply for the alternate viewpoint.

And so it went...

Joe Gandelman has written his perspective on the Holocaust, in memory of the 60th anniversary of the capture of Auschwitz.

"This was my family," he said, slowly opening the photo album. Then he started pointing to a host of aging photos showing large, smiling groups of people of all ages.

"He's dead -- killed by the Nazis. She's dead -- killed by the Nazis. This little boy? Hitler killed him, too.And this little girl." And so it went, as he showed his grandson the photos of family members who had been murdered by the Nazi regime in concentration camps. Some had simply disappeared.

And still... some feel it is appropriate to call for the deaths of groups of people because of their politics, their religion, their philosophy...

Never forget...

Yet we already have.

And so it goes...

Draw your own conclusions...

...after reading this, just be sure your response is not a knee-jerk emotional one. Please think about it a while, filtering out the provocative tone of the article and consider the broader implications, including the ironic parallels.

Pennywit, who supplied the link, has his own question.

My question is similar, but phrased slightly differently:

Is this really how we want our government to work?

Lifted from the comments...

...where John of Argghhh! is having a debate over the words on a particular bumper sticker, comes my quote for the day:

It is always "My country, right or wrong!" but it's never "My country is never wrong."
   -SangerM

I recommend you go read both John's original post and the debate in the comments, where there is a fine example of having a reasonable debate, and a good discussion on what is reasonable dissent.

For some biting satire...

...that I find humorous but may not necessarily be funny to you, James Wolcott has some acerbic observations on the pronouncements of certain prominent figures in the protestant Christian community.

Warning: Don't read if you're not willing to think outside your own head. But then, that could be a general statement, don't READ if you aren't willing to think about any viewpoint but your own.

At times, I wish I had the guts and the ability to write things like this...

More discussion, more fallacies?

A discussion of fallacies of logic by Jason Alston is <