Galileo Galilei RIP

Ye men of Galilei, why stand ye gazing up into the heavens? So an opponent of Galileo is said to have preached--the reference is to Acts 1:11--in opposition to his astronomical discoveries. Galileo's tiny telescope was not even as good as the binoculars my father used when I was six or so to show me the rings of Saturn and the moons of Jupiter, but with it he turned the world upside down, as Martin Luther put it. Mountains on the moon, spots on the sun, the phases of Venus--these things may seem commonplace now, but they were revolutionary at the beginning of the seventeenth century. They weren't in the Bible, or Aristotle, or any other authority from antiquity, and they suggested ideas that challenged the common sense notion of the world that then prevailed.

That the solid earth we stand on might be hurling at some inconceivable speed through space is counter-intuitive, to say the least. But if we accept it--and the idea was by no means new when Galileo started peering through his primitive telescope--might not the other bodies we see be worlds as well? The moon, Venus, Jupiter? Could they be inhabited? And why hadn't the authorities, either religious or secular, said anything about all this? And if God wasn't up there sitting above the sphere of the fixed stars, keeping everything in motion, turning the cosmic mechanism with a gigantic crank--well, then, where was he?

In the end Galileo, and Kepler, and Newton, and those that followed them would crack the tiny medieval cosmos open like an egg, revealing the splendor of the universe we know today. More than that, as time and distance commingle, we get to look back in time, and see the universe as it was. It's been one hell of a trip from the tube Galileo looked through to the massive arrays of mirrors here on earth and the Hubble out in space, but he was there at the beginning, and he helped to start it all.

As 15 February 2007 is Galileo's 443rd birthday, a look at how he fares in the news might be interesting. Eminent climatologist and Nobel laureate Frank Beckmann compares himself to Galileo in connection with the "controversy" over global warming. (I assume from his magisterial tone on the subject that he must be an eminent climatologist and Nobel laureate in addition to holding a day job at WJR.) "No, I consider myself and fellow doubters to be more like Columbus (and Galileo), going against the grain of conventional thought. Columbus was ridiculed by his contemporaries who, by ‘consensus,’ had determined that the world was flat, much as Galileo did with his earth/sun argument. It’s the alarmists who represent the Catholic Church of your example."

This is not inspiring. Columbus, by the by, was "ridiculed by his contemporaries" for believing that the world was about twelve thousand miles in circumference, instead of the twenty-five thousand or so they had determined it was. The issue was the size, not the shape, of the earth. And Columbus's experimental proof of the concept--his reaching the Indies by crossing the Atlantic--in fact failed, when it was determined that Columbus had not in fact reached the Indies at all. Does everybody sleep through history, or what?

Elsewhere, we find Jack Cashill describing one Dr. Richard Sternberg as "the Galileo of the Smithsonian scandal". "What did happen to Dr. Sternberg is shocking even by Washington standards. The damage done to his career is real, irreversible and symptomatic of the lengths the science establishment will go to suppress challenges to the most vulnerable of its paradigms, namely Darwinism and its derivatives."

Again, not exactly inspiring. "The most vulnerable of its paradigms"? I don't have the facts on this, but as far as I can gather from the report, it looks as though Dr. Sternberg as editor of a scientific publication bypassed the ordinary review process to publish a substandard paper by a buddy of his. As I don't see that much of anything was actually done about this shocking breach of ethics on his part, I likewise don't see how this makes him a "Galileo". Perhaps somebody can enlighten me.

I don't know how Galileo became the patron saint of the anti-science crowd, but it seems somehow not wholly inappropriate. From the hindsight of history we watch Galileo take the first steps towards something resembling science--but they are baby steps. He reached wrong conclusions about comets, and tides, and the elliptical orbits of planets, and defended them doggedly in the face of what appears today--in hindsight anyway--considerable evidence. His understanding of science was primitive--much like the understanding of those who cite him today. Of course he had the excuse of having grown up in a dense jungle of medieval superstition, christian theocracy, and fossilized natural history. What, I wonder, is Beckmann's, or Cahill's excuse?

(17 February 2007: The Lippard Blog provides a link to a piece expounding the Sternberg Affair.)

Ku Klux Katholicism

Score two for Bill Donohue and the pack of bigots who support him and his Katholic Inquisition. I hear on the news that the two bloggers he falsely accused of intolerance (without a shred of evidence by the way--see Catholic Bigots at Work) have now resigned. Well, why not? If Turner Broadcasting can pay for cleansing Boston of imaginary aliens, I suppose John Edwards can pay for ridding his campaign of imaginary bigots. Of course I would have second thoughts about voting for Edwards now, after the way he bungled this whole business, except that I wouldn't be voting for him in any case, what with being a Republican and all.

And the world continues to turn. I can't help but feel that these Ku Klux Katholics need to get out in the real world a bit more. There's real anti-Catholic bias out there, without making things up.

Bill Donohue Promotes Anti-Americanism

In my musings the other day (Catholic Bigots at Work) I wondered about the exact nature of the so-called Catholic League, especially after hearing from members (and former members) of the Roman Catholic church who questioned its status, or said that they only represent a small minority among the faithful. Certainly I'd prefer to believe that the majority of Roman Catholics aren't hate-filled antisemitic homophobic bigots of the Catholic League stripe. Certainly those that I personally have known--my mother's father's family is Roman Catholic from way back--don't seem to be.

Apparently I am not alone in hearing these questions. Blue Bayou (John Edwards and the Bloggers) notes: "I spoke to several Catholic friends this week who described them as a 'bunch of scary lunatics,' actually. The Catholic League is a political group that represents a pretty extreme fringe; that's fine, but let's not mistake them for something else." That's kind of reassuring, and removes a black mark from the church St. Peter is supposed to have founded.

Ah, but fortunately we have Custos Fidei (The Ignorance of John Whiteside) to set us straight. "The Catholic League is the largest Catholic civil rights organization in the United States. Because several of his alleged 'Catholic friends' state that the Catholic League is a bunch of 'bunchy of scary lunatics,' is not investigative reporting nor accurate reporting for that matter." So much for that, I guess, and the Church is once again mired to her hips in this moral filth.

Still, a look at the names of those who direct this organization has a lot of familiar names; it kind of makes it look like a shill for the Republican party. (The anti-Democratic remarks on the site don't help that appearance either.) Is the Catholic League an "Astro-Turf" Group? Bulworth asks, noting that "Members of the Catholic League's board of advisers include conservative author and media analyst L. Brent Bozell III; conservative radio host and syndicated columnist Linda Chavez; right-wing pundit and author Dinesh D'Souza; former Republican presidential and senatorial candidate Alan Keyes; and National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne. | Yeah, some Catholic group. It reads like the board of the Heritage Foundation."

So--I don't know. However many people they may represent, whoever is behind them, the key point here is their bizarre double standard on bigotry. Apparently it is all right for them to say any evil or disgusting thing they like about people they oppose for whatever reason, but any criticism whatsoever of the social agenda being pushed by the Roman Catholic Church in America is is (mis)labeled anti-Catholic bigotry. It is just fine for the church to come into my state, call us murderers and accuse us of trying to defraud doctors (as they did in opposing our Death With Dignity ballot proposition--which I voted against, by the way) and say all sorts of evil and disgusting things about us. It is perfectly okay for their leader to accuse our country of hating the handicapped (as Pope John Paul II did in my hearing) and in his vast ignorance accuse us of other imaginary crimes. But it''s "anti-Catholic bigotry" if we have the audacity to call them on their lies and hatred.

As Blue Bayou quite rationally pointed out, "Criticizing the Catholic Church or its belief is not 'anti-Catholic bigotry.' ... if a church is going to act like a political action committee, those activities are a valid target of criticism."

Oh no they're not, cries Custos Fidei; the Church, he says does not "[act] as a political action committee." Instead, he claims, "the Catholic Church teaches timeless truths in Catechesis and during Mass, among many places..." Thus Custos Fidei thinks there is a "line between the teachings of the Church and political activism."

I know for a fact that Custos Fidei is full of crap on this point. Nobody has any quarrel with the Church teaching timeless truths in its own private ceremonies for those who wish to be there, though if those "timeless truths" still include heretic-burning and gay-bashing they qualify as bigotry. But again, when the church came to Oregon to try to force a change in our laws, these guys woke me up with foul and offensive phone calls, they sent filthy fliers to my house, and they stomped around the state with political rallies making false claims and absurd judgments. In other parts of the country they have tried to influence the way politicians vote by making threats, they have tried to get their theology passed as law for the rest of us, and have engaged in all sorts of anti-democratic and anti-American behavior. It is thus Custos Fidei who comes off in this as ignorant, misinformed--or a liar.

Fidelis (Hate Speech Tolerated; Fidelis Decries Double Standard) claims to be "shocked and appalled that John Edwards would stand by a campaign staff member who has viciously attacked Catholics and all Christians publicly on her personal blog. If any staffer had written similarly about gays, blacks, or Jews, there is no question Edwards would fire them immediately. Sadly, it appears that former Senator Edwards applies a different standard to attacks on Catholics." This is crazy talk. There is no parallel. Words fail me, but fortunately not Raging Red (Undecided Voter). She notes that there is a big difference "between challenging people for what they believe and attacking people for who they are. The latter is the definition of bigotry, the former is not." Exactly. Her next paragraph is worth reading in its entirety:

Criticizing Catholics and other conservative Christians for their desire to enshrine their anti-abortion, anti-contraception, and anti-sex beliefs into law is not anti-Catholic or anti-Christian or anti-religion. It's not intolerant of religion per se, it's intolerant of a particular political philosophy, and there's nothing offensive about that. Maligning people because they are Jewish or Muslim or gay is bigoted, it's intolerant of people simply for who they are, and it's offensive. That's a big difference, and unfortunately, it seems to be the opinion of many that it is not okay to criticize people's religious beliefs, even when those beliefs take the form of political activism.

After that, what more can I say?

[Other sites that noted this story include No More Mr. Nice Blog (The Head of the Catholic League Wants An Extra Fifteen Minutes), Matthew Yglesias (Catholic League), America Blog (AP Quotes Anti-Semitic Homophobe), and News Hounds (Special Report Gives Platform to Catholic League President)].

New Lows in Law Enforcement

I suppose I should be inured to crazy stories out of Florida. Personally I'm hoping this one is another internet hoax that escaped from Onion or some other satiric site. But it's so hard to tell anymore. In a month when Homeland Security pull out all the stops to counter an invasion by cartoon characters in the city of Boston, reality starts to run a little thin.

Check out this story. If you can believe it, two teenagers have been convicted of child pornography for taking private pictures of themselves. The facts of the case, taken from the decision of the court, seem to be as follows. On 25 March 2004 two teenagers, 16-year-old AH, and her 17-year-old boyfriend, JGW, "took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in sexual behavior." This would seem to be harmless enough, depending what kind of "sexual behavior" is meant, but not according to the state of Florida. The state admits that "the photos were never shown to a third party" but asserts that the state has a "compelling ... interest in preventing the production of these photographs," and goes on to claim implausibly that "criminal prosecution was the least intrusive means of furthering the State's compelling interest." Following this line of illogic, Florida charged 16-year-old AH with "producing, directing or promoting a photograph or representation that she knew included sexual conduct of a child in violation of section 827.071(3), Florida Statutes." AH's seventeen-year-old boyfriend, JGW, was charged in addition with possession of child pornography. This latter was apparently because AH and JGW "e-mailed the photos to another computer [JGW's?] from AH's home."

On 24 October 2005 AH "filed a motion to dismiss ... arguing that section 827.071(3), Florida Statutes, was unconstitutional as applied to her." She argued this on the commonsense grounds that violating her and her boyfriend's privacy was obviously not "the least intrusive means of furthering a compelling state interest", noting by the by that her "victim" JGW was in fact older than she was. Although in any rational jurisdiction this should have been the end of this nonsense, we read that on 30 November 2005 her motion to dismiss was denied.

The illogic of this? Follow along closely; this is like reading medieval theology--it requires devout attention.

Assuming that the child’s right to privacy is implicated, the standard for evaluating whether the State may regulate the sexual conduct of minors, articulated in B.B. v. State, 659 So. 2d 256, 258-59 (Fla. 1995), requires the State to show both that it has a compelling interest and that it is furthering this interest in the least intrusive manner.

As to the first prong of the test, whether the State has a compelling interest in regulating the sexual behavior of minors, this Court recognizes a compelling state interest in protecting children from sexual exploitation, particularly the form of sexual exploitation involved in this case. This compelling interest exists whether the person sexually exploiting the child is an adult or a minor and is certainly triggered by the production of 117 photographs of minors engaging in graphic sexual acts.. State v. A.R.S., 684 So. 2d 1383, 1387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

The Court further finds that prosecuting the child under the statute in question is the least intrusive means of furthering the State’s compelling interest. Not prosecuting the child would do nothing to further the State’s interest. Prosecution enables the State to prevent future illegal, exploitative acts by supervising and providing any necessary counseling to the child. The Court finds that the State has shown that Section 827.071(3), Florida Statutes, as applied to the child, is the least intrusive means of furthering the State’s compelling interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of children, rendering the statute constitutional.

Now please note--prong 1--Florida's "compelling interest in regulating the sexual behavior of minors" consists in its need to protect children from exploiting themselves. Was there any evidence shown whatsoever that AH or JGW used or intended to use these photographs for any purpose except as a remembrance of a special occasion? Well, I don't know--we don't have the trial transcript available (quite properly by the way) and so maybe that was covered, but it is the key question, and it is entirely ignored in the decision.

As for prong 2--that trying AH (and for that matter JGW) as child pornographers was the "least intrusive" option for the state--the argument (if that's what it can be called) is ludicrous. "Not prosecuting the child would do nothing to further the State’s interest." That's the entire argument. In point of fact the state could have taken many actions that did not involve harming AH and JGW by labeling them (falsely) as child pornographers, and that could have involved supervision and necessary counseling to protect them from exploiting themselves in the future. I would have suggested as a good start dismissing the original case with prejudice. However, that's neither here nor there. Only an absolute idiot could suggest that this extreme approach was the "least intrusive" option for Florida. As Frank Zappa once memorably observed in another connection, it's like opting for decapitation as a cure for dandruff.

Not that I see anything that needs "curing" here. People memorialize important moments in their lives in a variety of manners; if taking private photographs is to be construed as "child pornography", then what about minors writing accounts of their experiences in diaries or journals? People have a right to preserve their memories and document their lives in whatever way works for them. To first violate their privacy and then use that as an excuse for prosecution seems to me to go beyond Kafka into stark insanity.

Ah, but did they have a right of privacy? Not according to Judge Wolf, who reviewed the lower court decision on appeal. According to Wolf, they lost their right of privacy by the mere act of recording the event. I cannot stress this enough--in Florida the mere fact of keeping a record of one's private affairs constitutes the giving up one's right to privacy, if Wolf's reading of the law is correct.

This is only his first point, however. In his second point the Judge appears to go off the deep end, spouting ageist clichés and suchlike nonsense. According to Judge Wolf, teenagers have no reasonable expectation of privacy for pictures or other mementos because "Minors who are involved in a sexual relationship ... have no reasonable expectation that ... the photographs will not be shared with others intentionally or unintentionally." Minors, it seems, by definition cannot "be involved in a mature committed relationship," unlike adults, and so "have no reasonable expectation that their relationship will continue." He goes on to speculate that greed might be a good motive for somebody to show the pictures to others.

The irrationality of all this makes my skin crawl. Something is missing in the judge's argument. What does the tendency of teenagers who engage in sexual relationships to ultimately move on to another partner have to do with the likelihood of the pictures being shown to others? I suppose the judge is suggesting that a former sexual partner would be more likely to share the pictures with others than a present sexual partner, but this seems tenuous. Does the judge have any data to support this notion? And in particular does he have any data to suggest that this risk is so great as to be a significant danger?

In my experience, most such mementos end up destroyed or tucked away somewhere safe after a breakup. As far as I can tell, only a minority of these end up circulating to others through malice or indifference. Judge Wolf seems to be suggesting that the situation here is different, because one partner or the other would almost certainly be motivated by bravado or greed to distribute these pictures. I would like to see the evidence that supports this astounding assertion--and I don't mean anecdotal evidence about the occasional exception. I mean hard statistical data about the actual likelihood of it happening.

Here is what Judge Padovano makes of the argument in his dissent:

The majority concludes that the child in this case did not have a reasonable expectation that the photographs would remain private. To support this conclusion, the majority speculates about the many ways in which the photographs might have been revealed to others. The e-mail transmission might have been intercepted. The relationship might have ended badly. The boyfriend might have wanted to show the photo to someone else to brag about his sexual conquest. With all due respect, I think these arguments are beside the point. Certainly there are circumstances in which the photos might have been revealed unintentionally to third parties, but that would always be the case.

The Judge goes on very rationally to note that "We cannot gauge the reasonableness of a person’s expectation of privacy merely by speculating about the many ways in which it might be violated." We need to keep in mind here what AH actually did. She took pictures of herself and her boyfriend engaged in intimate acts and gave copies to her boyfriend. Personally I find that kind of touching. Like any other couple, they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their intimate lives. Judge Padovano goes on to observe with clear common sense:

The critical point in this case is that the child intended to keep the photographs private. She did not attempt to exploit anyone or to embarrass anyone. I think her expectation of privacy in the photographs was reasonable. Certainly, an argument could be made that she was foolish to expect that, but the expectation of a sixteen year old cannot be measured by the collective wisdom of appellate judges who have no emotional connection to the event. Perhaps if the child had as much time to reflect on these events, she would have eventually concluded, as the majority did, that there were ways in which these photos might have been unintentionally disclosed. That does not make her expectation of privacy unreasonable.

Exactly. I don't see that Judge Wolf's strictures make any sense; they could apply to anybody who keeps private records. AH and her boyfriend had a reasonable expectation that their private affairs would remain private. The fact that there are perverts out there who would love to get their hands on such pictures in no way changes that. And that the state of Florida chose to violate their privacy, and then prosecute them on such grounds, is an outrage. It is the height of stupidity, discourteous in the extreme, and to my way of thinking, downright perverted. Judge Wolf and the State of Florida should be ashamed of themselves.

Afterword: I see that The Lippard Blog also has this story. The text of the decision can be found here. A PDF is available here.

Catholic Bigots at Work

The bigots over at the Catholic League have launched another filthy smear campaign, this time against the respected bloggers Pandagon and Shakespeare's Sister. The article displays their own intolerance and bigotry in a clear and painful light. These trash-talking creeps pretend to find anti-Catholic bigotry (believe it or not) in the following statements:

...the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.

This is a fair and unprejudiced statement about the social agenda Catholics have been promoting. As long as the church insists on promoting medieval superstition over scientific fact, and insists on having the state enforce its "theology" on the rest of us, they have no legitimate complaint against the rest of us who object strongly to their notions. Only a perverse or intolerant reading could see this as anti-Catholicism; it is rather resistance to Catholic bigotry against the rest of the world.

...the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw.

This is sound Catholic theology. I don't like it, but there it is. If Catholics find it offensive, they should complain to their leaders, not about those who expose their idiocy.

...some of Christianity’s most prominent leaders—including the Pope—regularly speak out against gay tolerance.

And this is anti-Catholic how? Pope John Paul II made many bigoted anti-tolerance statements, and I doubt very much that Pope Benedict is any different, though as I haven't listened to him (I out of principal do not listen to Nazis) I can't say. Catholicism has made anti-gay bigotry a cornerstone of its theology for centuries, and has cruelly persecuted this minority for a long long time. If you want to support evil, don't bitch if somebody calls you on it. As long as the Pope continues to speak out against tolerance, as long as the church takes this bigoted and hateful position, to call somebody who protests a bigot is beyond hypocrisy. It is the bully bitching about his victims protesting to the authorities.

For the supreme example of bigotry, however, consider this: they took one satiric example out of a piece exposing Catholic lies about contraception and claimed anti-Catholic bigotry. This from an organization led by a Nazi, for God's sake. This from an organization that has burned people at the stake (and yes I do know about their lame evasion of turning people over to the secular arm to be burned, an excuse worthy of a mafia boss or Ronald Reagan), has racked and hung and tortured people for trivial theological points of interest to nobody, has spread antisemitism and antiatheism and antiscience far and wide. And they have the unmitigated gall to call people bigots for protesting it.

I suppose these people take their cue from their leaders. Roman Catholic leadership during my lifetime has been, well, marginal at best. Most of the people they have selected to be called Pope frankly turn my stomach. Pope Pius XII, Hitler's pope, a little man called when the times required greatness, a small-souled man who looked the other way--whatever his motives--when the great abomination of the Holocaust blackened the earth. Pope John Paul II, who had had such guts in standing up to the Soviet beast before being raised to the papacy, and then kowtowed to the most ignorant and evil kinds of superstitions rather than be bothered with learning the truth. And Mr. Ratzinger--such vile filth defiles the institution he purports to serve.

On the other hand, I can't help but think of some of the greats who reconciled themselves somehow to the Roman Catholic faith. Galileo Galilei, who did so much to liberate humankind from medieval superstition and ancient mythologies; Gilbert K. Chesterton and J. R. R. Tolkien, brilliant writers who have provided entertainment that was not just junk, but gave us spiritual nutrition as well; Roland de Vaux, who made antiquity come alive. These guys show that bigotry isn't a Catholic phenomenon, but rather a human one. Maybe there's something about the papacy that corrupts the spirit. Galileo's good buddy Maffeo seems to have been a relatively enlightened character, until he became Pope Urban VIII and made it an article of faith that the sun moves and the earth stands still. (He was half right anyway.) But even so, what on earth motivates these clowns over at the Catholic League?

Which brings up an obvious question: are these guys even Catholic? Their utter indifference to the truth, their filthy lies about others--how do they sleep at night? Do they really believe in hell? Do they think their God will forgive them for the evil they've done, because it was in a righteous cause? Do they confess their crimes to their priest and receive absolution for them?

Or is this all some gigantic fraud? Perhaps these guys are Ku Klux Klansmen posing as Roman Catholics to bring the faith into discredit. I certainly prefer to think that. Of course wishful thinking is one of the most basic fallacies the human brain is heir to, but still--doesn't it make sense? How could God-fearing types spew such lies and slander? Aaargh, I don't know. It's too much for me. In the end I can only judge them by their fruit--and theirs are soft, brown, and filled with maggots.

Pointless, Aimless, Graceless, and Feckless

I see in the news that Homeland Security has taken time out from its important mission of keeping medicine out of the hands of old ladies to repel an invasion of Mooninites in Boston. Orson Welles must be having a good laugh, wherever he is today. And somebody or other has kidnapped an Iranian ambassador in Iraq using American equipment--shall we start a pool now on who exactly is responsible? Is this payback for the Iranians seizing American diplomats back in the bad old days before The Hidden Hand took charge of everything?

Isn't it high time that we disband the department of Homeland Security? And who picked that appalling name, anyway? It sounds like something out Orwell, or the Soviet Union, or the Third Reich. But, horrific names aside, any outfit that can't tell a bomb from a glowing advertisement is wasting the money the citizens have been throwing at it.

We've seen its glorious triumphs in New Orleans, in Boston, in the arrest of a (relatively) harmless lawyer here in Portland. We're assured that it's accomplishing great things that we are not allowed to hear about, but how the hell are we supposed to know that? When we do hear anything, it is these mare's nests and smoke-and-mirrors parlor tricks. Conspiracies of the impotent, old people in need of medicine, foreign med students enjoying a quiet lunch--these are worth going after? And to cap it off, now we learn that they seriously regarded a cartoon villain--and at that the lesser Mooninite, one of the least effective villains of all time--as a threat?

Gack. The world wonders. There is some good news out of New Jersey, however. Coach David Paskiewicz, who took to preaching in a United States History class, has been vindicated by his school board. Believe it or not, the board decided to ban voice recorders in classrooms. It also concluded that teachers should be instructed in the proper ways of smuggling religion into the classroom, or, at any rate, that's what I got out of it. They were to be reminded of the distinction between church and state in America or something like that. When I told that bit of news to my nephew Brandon, he asked, "Shouldn't they be teaching that to the students?" Exactly. Of course all this has nothing to do with the coach's real sin in all this--his confusing the students in the class by misrepresenting the nature of science. He blatantly lied to those who (it seems) trusted him by saying that scientists say that "nothing somehow exploded", that the age of the earth, and of the universe, cannot be scientifically observed, and so on and so on. But for the principal of his school, these are "high level" discussions that should be encouraged. If filling the kids' heads with religiously-inspired lies--and that's what his "high-level" discussion consisted of--is what passes as education in New Jersey, and should be encouraged, then New Jersey is on a slide straight to hell.

I have plans to take a look at the coach's view of science in a future entry. Allah willing, anyway.

Ten Years Gone By

I dreamed of my father again last night. We were standing in the kitchen of the old Fourth Plain House--actually gone much longer than he has been--and I was explaining to him about this set of glasses I'd bought, now much the worse for wear. "It was actually a set of twenty-four glasses originally," I told him.

Bryce--my father--looked at me in mock-horror. "And there are only nine of them left now?" he said. "What have you been doing with them?"

"I bought them when you were dead," I told him. That whole business came back to me in a flash, when the hospital had lost him somehow, and had claimed he was dead to cover up their mistake. (For some reason my subconscious seems to have evolved this theory to account for Bryce's occasional appearances in my dreams.) "A lot of things happened while you were dead, and some of them were pretty hard on our glasses."

"Electricity is all around us," he said, or something like that.

We called him "Bryce," I guess because our mother did, though I don't really know. Once when we were kids--five and six, maybe, or somewhere in there--our mother took us aside--my brother Bryan and me--and suggested that it was kind of odd that we called her Mom and him Bryce. "People might think he's not really your father. Do you really want that?" Well, no, we didn't. Bryan and I talked it over for some time, and finally came to the conclusion that the only fair thing was to call our parents Ruth and Bryce, which we did from then on. Many many years later Bryan recalled this incident, and said ruefully, "You know, I think we were supposed to choose Mom and Dad."

Bryce was born in Wyoming in the 1920s, but grew up mainly in North Powder Oregon and Grand Junction Colorado. He went to school and joined the Boy Scouts. He displayed his interest in applied science by accidentally blowing up the school bell, and his fellow scouts were arrested for stealing cars, but at least he was in there pitching. He talked his mother into buying a radio in the display window at Sears by appealing to her sense of thrift--it was on sale for two dollars off, I think he said. The case is up in the attic somewhere, if the kids haven't thrown it out.

Radio fascinated him. He listened to radio shows I never heard of, for the most part, though there were some familiar ones. Our Miss Brooks. Vic and Sade. He built radios, and listened to short wave broadcasts.

When he left school he drifted up to Portland to work at the docks and wait to be drafted. The army took him in spite of his appalling vision, and he spent the war--WWII--on a hospital ship named Marigold that plied the Pacific from Honolulu to Japan. He was there playing baseball when Japan surrendered.

Post war he set out to be a writer, turning out several short stories and about a fifth of a Kaufmannesque play, as well as attending community college for three years. While there he met Ruth (later to be my mother). The two of them were married and settled down to teach in a one-room schoolhouse in the Colorado mountains. Well Ruth taught; I'm not sure what Bryce did.

A succession of places follow: Portland, where Bryce went to radio school and his first child (me) was born; Moscow, where he was fired for Thanksgiving; Artesia, where he scanned the skies for flying disks and his second child (Bryan) was born; Vancouver (very briefly); Portland again, where he was living when his third and last child was born, Vancouver (sixteen years); and finally Portland (twenty years). KSVP, KHFS, KKEY, KXL, KOIN, KGW, KWJJ, KOBP--I'm sure I missed some--the radio stations came and went over the years, but he was always working at one or another--and sometimes more than one at a time. When I was extremely young I used to hear him on the radio--when he signed off it meant he would be home soon. For most of his life he stuck to engineering. He designed facilities, build boards, changed lights. In the wind and snow and dead of night he would be out at the station, keeping it on the air or getting it back on the air, as the situation demanded. He stuck with radio for decades before finally getting into television.

He liked earthquakes, volcanoes, plagues, and venomous animals. (I have a childhood memory of him nonchalantly turning over a black widow spider to show us the red hourglass underneath.) Diseases especially fascinated him. "Mad cow disease," he would muse. (I think he liked the sound of the name.) "Now that's a threat to the food supply. We ought to be looking for it. Avian flu in Asia again ... hantavirus in upstate New York ... and the marmots are dying." That was the news for him.

I don't know what his religious views may have been. If he had any, he chose not to share them with me. I know what some of them weren't. I know he didn't buy into any of those anti-scientific notions of the creationist ilk. "Evolution is a fact," he used to say flatly if the subject came up. "Natural selection is a theory that explains how evolution happened, but evolution is a fact." I once asked him what he thought about life after death; he said he hadn't thought about it. I gave him the choice between an afterlife and going out like a candle. He said that if he had to choose, he thought it was more likely that we went out like candles.

He died ten years ago today, on 14 January 1997 at 6:11 in the morning.

So Now Peace is Anti-Christian

From the Durango Herald comes the following bit of joyous Xmas news:

---

Pagosa Springs, Colorado--A homeowner's association has ordered a local resident to take down part of her Christmas display, a wreath shaped like the peace symbol. The homeowner's association claims that "Loma Linda residents are offended by the Peace Sign displayed on the front of your house." The association also claims that the wreath falls under a prohibition banning signs, billboards or advertising structures.

While other residents have been allowed to display Christmas decor on their properties, Lisa Jensen apparently has been singled out on account of the message of peace itself. A neighbor of Jensen's had been ordered to take down a peace symbol as being inappropriate while the United States is at war.

Bob Kearns, president of the association, refused to describe the "numerous" complaints supposedly received about the Christmas display. Instead he asserted "The peace sign has a lot of negativity associated with it ... It's also an anti-Christ sign. That's how it started." He also claimed that legal advisors had "laughed at" allowing the display of a peace symbol. Board members Jeff Heitz and Tammy Spezze joined with him and asserted that they are doing "what is best for the entire community."

Jensen notes (The Journal on Pagosa.com | The Grinch Who Stole Peace | News & Perspectives for Pagosa Springs, CO): "the rule has never been applied to wooden, paper and metal signs currently on display all over the subdivision, advertising contractors, builders, realtors, yard sales, and lost or found pets".

Jensen appealed the decision to the Architectural Control Committee for the subdivision. Chairman Jack Lilly explains what happened next:

...we have a list of do's and dont's in our neighborhood just like all the others. One of these dont's is to place offensive or political signs on your property unless its in support of a candidate and only at election time. One of our neighbors placed a Pie Plate siged Peace symbol on his driveway. Another placed a large wreath in the shape of a peace symbol on their house. The three person Board of Directors received two complaints from residents who are understandibly sensitive to the current efforts in Iraq and believed these symbols to be other that a wish for peace.

The Architectural Committee was asked to intervene. The five members met and decided that no message, other than a wish for peace could be inferred in the symbols and saw no violation of the CC&R's. The Board of Directors has the authority to override the ACC and did so. But that wasn't enough. They demanded that anyone that disagreed with them should be removed from the committee. We all resigned. Gives us more time to enjoy our neighbors. No more meetings.

The official website of the town of Pagosa Springs says "The Loma Linda Subdivision and Home Owner Association is not located in Town limits. Also, municipalities like the town do not regulate home owner associations' covenents, codes and restrictions (CC&R). THE TOWN WHOLLY SUPPORTS THEIR PEACE SIGN DISPLAY AND ALSO WISHES FOR PEACE ON EARTH."

---

Where do you start with something like this? This Bob Kearns character seems to be a piece of work. What could he possibly be thinking? What kind of "sign" or "advertising structure" is a Christmas wreath?

As for his lunatic allegation that the peace symbol started as a sign of the antichrist--well, it passeth belief. Who does he think he's kidding? Or is he remembering some of the fundamentalist propaganda of the sixties, when christian crazies of all varieties came out in support of napalming villagers, murdering civilians, and all the other atrocities of a war designed to impose Roman Catholicism on the largely Buddhist population of southern Vietnam. So soon we forget. Then the peace symbol was called a "witch's foot," a "broken cross," and a "symbol of Satan". No supporting evidence was ever given for any of these claims, which were all bogus anyway. They were the invention of know-nothing fundamentalists.

There is, for example, a symbol known as the broken cross. It is a cross with the upright broken or bent so that the upper part with the cross angles downward. As I recall it was supposed to symbolize the power of Christ's resurrection overcoming his death on the cross or something like that; I wasn't paying that much attention that day in class, and decades have gone by since then. But it has nothing to do with the peace symbol.

The peace symbol was first used in 1958 in an Easter march protesting the nuclear arms race. It was designed especially for that event, employing the semaphor signals for N and D and standing for Nuclear Disarmament. It has been to my knowledge a part of traditional Christmas displays since then, standing for "Peace on Earth", and symbolizing the day that ancient unknown prophet (quoted by Micah and Isaiah) wrote of, when swords should be beaten into plowshares.

As the Vietnam War energized the peace movement of the sixties christian crazies (as opposed to non-christian crazies) began to seek "biblical" or "christian" reasons to support the war. One of the ways they chose was to badmouth anything and everything connected with the anti-war movement. Jesus, for example, was said to be opposed to men wearing their hair long, as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:14. The peace symbol did not escape these lies and slanders, even though these supposed origins were ludicrous and far off the mark. (For an online example of this sort of lunacy, check here.)

Presumably it is these sorts of people that Bob Kearns has in mind when he says that the peace symbol has a lot of negativity associated with it. It would seem to me under the circumstances that he should have gently but firmly informed the alleged complainers that they were full of crap, and should learn the truth on the subject. To kowtow to the ignorant and uninformed only encourages them in their folly. Of course it's always possible that Kearns is the one who has problems with the peace symbol. In my opinion, if he can't tell the difference between the hope that nation shall not lift up sword against nation and an advertising slogan, he should resign and take up some position he's more suited for. Street-sweeping, maybe.

See also The Broken Cross

Update (28 November 2006):
Apparently Bob Kearns' crack team of legal advisors who laughed at the idea of allowing the display of a peace symbol for Christmas have backed down. At any rate the homeowners association is now claiming that their demand was all a mistake, and that they have no intention of fining Lisa Jensen. None of the three ringleaders in this idiocy have made a statement, and two of them have apparently changed to unlisted phone numbers since they started all this nonsense. Selah.

The Giving of Thanks

It's Thanksgiving, but I'm not in the mood today. My back hurts, my leg hurts, and things are not working well. Still--

I'm thankful that Matthew LaClair recorded that New Jersey coach turned U. S. History teacher preaching in class, and I hope that some corrective action will be taken soon.

I'm thankful for my family--for my beloved niece Rachel, and for my amazing newphews Sage, Brandon, and Skye, and my mother Ruth and my step-father Fred, and my brothers Bryan and Greg, and for my sister-in-law Michelle, and for my nephew Sage's wife Carlee.

I'm thankful that the Democrats will control the House and Senate for the next two years--or at least that it looks that way now. (And I'm a Republican, god help us all.)

I'm thankful for the many and bizarre blessings that have come this year.

I am thankful that our dog Zephyr is still alive, and still very puppy-like in many ways, in spite of her advancing years.

I'm thankful that the world continues to turn.

I'm thankful that we're all (or many of us anyway) gathering together for one more year's worth of thanksgiving.

A Little Attitude Adjustment

Okay, I don't like to do this, but here is still more on the New Jersey history teacher recorded while preaching in class. This is a transcript of sorts from a section of the available recording. While I don't mean to defend this guy in any way, I'd like to point out that he probably did not say (as he has been quoted) "I phrase this very very diplomatically, but that's the generation that did not have terrorism did not have race aggression and all of that." At least what I hear is "a very very different attitude. But that’s also the generation that [inaudible] totalitarianism, communism, [inaudible] great depression and all of that." Note especially his belief that children should be taught homophobia, and that it's somehow wrong to present them with less bigoted views. Note also his hypothetical reaction to a child who doubts the existence of god--beat the hell out of him and drag him to church. What a real prince this guy is.

Teacher: I hope there are no—no thieves here, because I don’t always lock my doors.

Students: [indistinguishable remarks] Really?

Teacher: One day somebody may take advantage of me. [inaudible] not many places in the world left where you can do that. [inaudible] changed everything. Desperate people do desperate things. [inaudible] It really is not bad, even the schools. My problem—my problem with schools is not that I don’t think my kids are going to learn reading and writing and arithmetic or learn it well. [inaudible] The highest value in public education is tolerance, but tolerance of what? Deviant behavior? There are a lot of things I don't want my kids tolerating. Ethnic diversity, yes. Deviant sexual behavior, no. Uh, things like that. And that's all being taught right from—right from kindergarten up. I still believe in the concept of sin, man's fallen nature, all that stuff that is considered old-fashioned nowadays, and that’s how my kids are going to be raised. You know. When you think about those things, that’s what people that are concerned about education are for the most part concerned with. Down [inaudible] we had great schools as far as qualified teachers and stuff like that, but there’s a lot of disparity when it comes to world views. Public schools in general. Your family—let’s suppose you have a religious family. You send your kid—you surrender your kid to the state from preschool on up to twelfth grade. Mom and dad are trying to tell you that the Bible is God’s word and their lives are deeply rooted in faith. But yet the “smart” people—and I say that in quotations because they're not all really that smart—the teachers that you're exposed to from kindergarten to twelfth grade, never once will you see them crack open a Bible. Never once will you hear them quote it. And never once will you hear a prayer uttered from their lips. Over the course of twelve years, what's the transfer? Smart people don’t have faith. Don’t believe. That’s the transfer. [inaudible] Now my parents grew up, they went to public schools, but they went prior to 1962 so the teachers read the bible and the teacher prayed and it was part of the school day and, you know, a very very different attitude. But that’s also the generation that [inaudible] totalitarianism, communism, [inaudible] great depression and all of that.

Student (female): But then there’s also like you can’t [inaudible] exceptions to every rule, [inaudible] like my mom, and my dad, [inaudible] and like my grandparents—

Teacher: And that’s their prerogative.

Student: Yeah, and my—

Teacher: But should they impose that on the rest of the world?

Student: No no no no I know that, but like [inaudible] both my grandparents, and my grandpa especially, he goes to church every single day. Every day in the morning he gets up and goes to church, and … and like … I go to church every sunday … I go by myself, and, like, now I got a whole [inaudible] of friends I bring on church every sunday. And so like, if I’m always, you know—

Teacher: I realize there are exceptions; I don’t disagree with that. My only thing is that those are the exceptions. Like you said it’s the exceptions, not the rule. As a parent I want to create an environment that makes it more likely that my kid is going to have faith, not less likely, you know what I mean? That was one of my concerns. And now I think we’re sufficiently [inaudible]. [pause] It’s a battle.

Student: But then what would you do if one kid like [inaudible] “Thanks for teaching me all this but like I don’t agree. I don’t have faith.”

Teacher: Until you’re eighteen—

Student: Yeah?

Teacher: —you have to agree.

Student: Okay, but I’m saying, like, what if you’re eighteen—

Teacher: If you’re eighteen years old, and you made that decision I’ll still love you, but I don’t have to agree with you. I’d never abandon you regardless of what decision you made. [inaudible] God, the way he’s portrayed in the scriptures. People have done horrible things in the bible, but did he stop loving them? But in a relationship with them [inaudible] didn’t stop loving them. And that’s the example of how we should act as parents. But if my kid is age twelve and he’s telling me Dad, I appreciate your time and effort but I’ve decided in my twelve years of wisdom that I’m going to stop going to church, after I break his backside we’re going to have a little attitude adjustment on the subject, he’s going to get in the car with the rest of the family and go to church. You’re entitled to your own opinions, but you’re still going to do what your old man tells you to or suffer the consequences. [inaudible]

Student [male]: Isn’t the whole point of public school so that you can separate personal beliefs from teachers and administrators from non—non-religious, you know, non-religious teachings during school, like school prayer and all that?

Teacher: No. The purpose of public school is to provide free education to people that couldn’t afford education. Period. That’s the purpose of public school. What it’s become is social engineering. It’s supposed to reflect the values and belief-systems of the parents; that’s why we have school boards elected from the population. Now I gotta believe that most of people on the school board have faiths may be similar to mine but yet the state comes up with some weird perception of what education ought to be and they jump on the bandwagon.

Student: What—what would decide what should be—what religion should be taught in schools; what would decide that?

Teacher: No, it’s not about teaching—My point is that it’s not about teaching religion, and these issues will all come up when we get to the 1920s and things begin to get legislated and we’ll talk about them then. But the public school shouldn’t teach a religion, but the scriptures aren’t religion.

Student: They’re not?

Teacher: The scriptures are at the foundation of the world’s religions—of the world’s main religions, anyway. Religion is a set way of doing things. Like for example if you take Christian faith you have many varieties. You have Roman Catholicism, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Baptists. We differ on church government, things like that, but [inaudible] the book. The bible. We should be able to bring that into the classroom, read it, and shouldn’t be threatened [inaudible].

Student: What if some students don’t believe in the bible?

Another Student: I don’t either.

Teacher: That’s their prerogative. What if the student doesn’t believe in evolution? What if the student doesn’t believe in some, you know, other aspect of the educational curriculum?

Student: Well, evolution is scientific.

Teacher: Is it?

Student: I could get you a whole bunch of information on it.

Teacher: Yeah, I’m 38 years old; I’ve seen the information, but here’s the scientific method.

[At this point there is considerable confusion as members of the class try to figure out what the scientific method is according to what they can remember from science. The teacher suggests "experimentation" as one of the steps at one point, this being the only part of it he's interested in. For a further update on the situation check out The Lippard Blog.]

Thank God for Matthew LaClair

There’s small life, and there’s big life. Or there’s simple life and intelligent life and somehow we all evolved from simpler life forms and got to the complex life forms—that’s the assumption, that may be your hypothesis. Anybody ever observe it?

This explanation of a basic scientific principle, delivered in a sneering tone, was given in a New Jersey High School. So what, you ask. Kids say a lot of stupid things; that's why they're in high school in the first place, to learn stuff, and to improve their minds. Doubtless the teacher stepped in and set the poor kid straight.

One would think, wouldn't one?

The trouble is, the oyster responsible for this particular pearl was the teacher. Yes, believe it or not, a twenty-first century educator actually said this, as part of a confused explanation of why he thought the big bang, the fossil record of the development of life, and the account of billions of years of pre-history clearly visible in the night sky, are all not science. As he babbled on this teacher cruelly revealed his utter lack of understanding of the basics of science, of the discipline of historical research, and of simple forensics.

The funny thing is that this guy has his defenders. One of them wrote:

I've had this teacher and he is one of the best teachers. He taught history the way it was and in group discussions he would view both points without no religion remarks. So who ever reads this, don't be ignorants and know the facts first.

Given the imbecilic tone and lack of logic to this screed I'm afraid the writer may well be correct, and this ignorant yahoo (I speak of him as I heard him in the recording) may well be "one of the best teachers" in New Jersey. God help the students there if that is true.

Another writes:

i know this teacher personally and know he is a good person and diddnt mean to offend ne one... and fuck the little bitch ass who recorded this shiit... im a senior @ khs and this just adds to all the fucking drama in this school.. so u know wat fuck all u bitch asses who want to see action taken...

It's teachers like this guy--his name is David Paszkiewicz by the way--telling kids nonsense about the scientific record and babbling incoherently about the bible, who are destroying the public school system. I've had my own David Paszkiewiczes in my educational life. There was one Barbara Allen, my fifth grade teacher, who believed that electricity was some awesome and mysterious gift from god, and who taught that it was immoral for people to sit in such a way that any part of the body touched another part. (In later years when I read Tertullian for the first time, I was instantly reminded of poor demented Mrs. Allen.) There was a lady named Hughes who taught Spanish and was obsessed with the notion that her students were making out behind her back. There was a guy named Bertram something or other who thought the best way to teach high school seniors about "Contemporary World Problems" was to have them endlessly color maps. (Even some of the other teachers spoke derogatorily of that particular crochet. In our hearing, even.)

But none of my teachers had the distinction of sounding crazier than Mr. Garrison (except Mrs. Allen sometimes). This guy manages it:

...the public school shouldn’t teach a religion, but the scriptures aren’t religion. ... The scriptures are at the foundation of the world’s religions—of the world’s main religions. Religion is a set way of doing things.

This comes about ten minutes into the available recording of Mr. Garrison's American History class. This is breathtaking. The Christian holy book is not religious--it is the foundation of the world's main religions. What are they? Mr. Paszkiewicz names four of them--Roman Catholicism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, and, uh, Baptism, I guess. The Baptists. At this point we begin to gather that this character has his own private definition of religion, and that it apparently excludes Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and a host of other faiths.

"We should be able to bring the bible into the classroom [and] read it," Mr. Garrison-Paszkiewisz says, the remainder of the comment being drowned out on the recording. One of his supporters adds that he said something like "Schools used to be able to open the Bible and read it as if it were a history book." (And congratulations to Joelle Perry for using the subjunctive correctly.) "As if it were a history book." Exactly. But the bible is not a history book (though it is a collection of works from which history may be derived), and should not be read as one. Does Paszkiewisz have his own definition of history as well? It's hard to say, but it should be kept in mind that this oddball is supposed to be teaching American History.

The kids in the classroom are obviously startled by the novel declaration that the bible is not a religious anthology, and the question is asked, what if a student doesn't believe in the bible. The response:

That’s their prerogative. What if the student doesn’t believe in evolution? What if the student doesn’t believe in some other aspect of the educational curriculum?

Now, up to this point Paszkiewisz has been guilty of nothing more than abysmal ignorance. At this point he veers off into preaching over teaching. With no information (apparently) whatsoever he begins to preach to the class his own religious views. This is not an "intellectual debate" as one of his former students describes--to be an intellectual debate there would have to be intellect, and all importantly, information involved. Paszkiewisz proclaims his religious views, clearly, and shows his absolute ignorance of the scientific questions involved.

Note, please, that this is not an opinion. This is an observation, based directly on the teacher's recorded comments. Paszkiewisz introduced the topic of evolution himself, without any prompting, and then went off on a strange religious tirade.

The argument goes something like this: “You’re a believer. Your argument is based on faith, but I believe in evolution; my ideas are based on ["facts?" suggests a student] science, or facts, right?

This is said in the sneering tone the teacher apparently affects any time he is talking about some point with which he disagrees. (At least he does so in this recording.) He goes on to lay out a familiar fundamentalist argument to the effect that scientific concepts are based on faith while belief in the Biblical accounts of creation is soundly based on fulfilled prophecy. He doesn't deal with the more disturbing question of why the grand creator should have written one vast and superfluous lie in the skies, and another consistent one in the layers of rock on the surface of the earth, but allowed the truth to be revealed only in one collection of ancient literature. "If there’s nothing, it can’t explode," he says at one point, referring to the big bang. Of course nobody ever said that nothing (or maybe nothingness) exploded; that's some notion that Paszkiewisz cooked up in his own brain. Nor do scientists describe life as coming about by spontaneous generation (actually an old folk belief long since discarded by science) as he seems to think. Nor are paleontology, archaeology, astronomy, and the like--sciences that peer into the past--somehow not scientific, as he seems to think, because they do not depend heavily on laboratory experiments. This is a notion that the Creation Research Institute (a fundamentalist outfit) used to push, and may still push for all I know, but it's a crazy idea that misunderstands both the nature of the scientific method and the way the sciences in question actually work. None of this is science, history, or philosophy, and all of it is religious discourse. None of it, in this context at least, has any place in a public high school.

A student, Matthew LaClair, complained about this little sermonette, and requested that the teacher apologize and correct his numerous scientific misstatements. After a suitable delay Matthew LaClair was allowed to present his complaint with the teacher present. Paszkiewisz denied everything, claiming that remarks he made had been fabricated or taken out of context. And--

Well you know the rest, right. So many times have I heard this same story, where it always comes down to the teacher's word vs. the student's, and you-know-who wins that contest. Friends, relatives, and total strangers have told me the old familiar story--yes, I admit to being a batshit insane fundamentalist, but I didn't bring my crazy religious notions to class. It's all an invention. One person I know had a teacher who during an anatomy presentation went nuts over the suggestion that some human bones were similar to the equivilent bones in animals--it seems that human beings were a special creation or something and their bones had nothing to do with the bones of animals. And every time the teacher is reinstated with a pat on the head and a "go forth and continue as you have been" from the powers that be. As a victim myself of intellectually perverse teachers I am enraged every time one of these cases comes to my attention. It makes me even angrier when I see the "teacher" in question claiming to be a victim in some fundamentalist rag. It's wretched--enough to make any thinking person retch anyway.

And that's why I say thank god for Matthew LaClair. For once the story didn't have the familiar ending. When Paszkiewisz denied the charges, his student produced the recordings of his little sermon on disk. Paszkiewisz responded (it is said) like an old-time movie villain caught in the act:

You got the big fish ... you got the big Christian guy who is a teacher...!"

Nailed, and he knew it. And yet one of his defenders finds it in his or heart to absolve him:

I know that if he denied some things he said, it was by accident, and not intentional. Its not his fault that he didn't record the discussion and listen to it over and over. That would be the only way he would remember such remarks.

What an indictment. Does the writer mean that Paszkiewisz launches into religious tirades so often that he could hardly be expected to remember the content of one in particular? Or that he's generally forgetful? Or what? Personally I find it impossible to believe that an adult man (he claims to be thirty-eight) could forget flagrantly crossing the line between teaching and preaching in public school. And if he did, well, shame on him.

If a man charged with hitting a pedestrian while out driving two weeks before denies doing it, what do we conclude? We conclude that he's either innocent, or lying. If we subsequently determine that he was not innocent, are we not entitled to assume that he was lying? No, says this defender--he might have forgotten it. But why would somebody forget something like that? Well, he didn't have a video of the event--how could he be expected to remember every little detail of his life without one?

Because of the magnitude of the event. For a man to forget hitting a pedestrian we have to assume either (1) he hits pedestrians so often that one incident could easily be forgotten in the crush of events, or (2) hitting a pedestrian is no big thing with him. Either way, he's a menace.

I suppose there's a third possibility--he could have been blind drunk.

But the fact is, once Paszkiewisz found out that he had been recorded, he acted like a man who knew he was in manure up to his waist. He demanded a union representative and shut up. And high time, too.

For a fuller look at the case, and for all necessary links, check out The Lippard Blog.

Territorial Maps

I'm crouching here over somebody else's laptop at somebody else's house enjoying the festivities associated with my nephew's wedding. For some reason the old bromide to the effect that the map is not the territory springs to mind, so I guess that's the topic of today's blast. Or maybe not--it looks like things are winding up here, so whatever I have to say is absolutely irrelevant. Or not. Help, you goddamn gods, help is all, to quote--well, never mind.

Quiet Reflection

Today, for anybody who's interested, I uploaded another page to my Elizabethan Drama site. This is just a list of plays, of Massinger's plays to be precise, and in no other way remarkable. Except that this list, folks, this list comes alive. Tap the name of the play, ladies and gentlemen, and a copy of that play appears in front of you as if by magic. And this copy is no ordinary copy, no sir, this copy has been brought to you from some great repository of books that may be half a world away. Now this is the future I kind of always expected--except that, to be honest, I didn't expect to live long enough to see it--or at least to see it start, which is where we're at now. At one point I thought this was going to turn into something, but somehow the idea never caught.

Fates of living men inform us
We can fake our years of grime;
And above endure enormous
Flashbacks to a life of crime.

ABC's Road to 9/11

First, I have to confess that I didn't watch all of ABC's Road to 9/11, but I did sit it out for at least two hours, finally abandoning it for the latest episode of the Venture Brothers. I'd already been warned that this was a work of fiction, and that any resemblance to any actual persons or events was strictly coincidental, so I wasn't particularly surprised by the numerous departures from the historical record. I watched it purely as entertainment, as ABC itself suggested, and the long and the short of it is--

It sucked.

The opening hour was too damn long. The sequence of events was not explained, and the constant use of short clips from an unsteady handheld camera focusing too close to see anything was at best irritating, and at worst just plain monotonous. I could have done altogether without the character of "Patricia" (who as far as I know has no historical counterpart); she seemed to have no function whatsoever.

The movie wanders aimlessly around the first attack on the World Trade Center back in 1793 or so and gradually gets to various operations taken to capture the criminals and to identify their financial backer. There's maybe a half-hour's worth of substance in the two plus hours I saw, and decent editing (not the hack-and-slash job I actually saw) might have saved it. Maybe nothing could have saved it. I don't know.

As history, it's ludicrous. As entertainment it's--well, not. Entertaining, I mean.

My advice: forget it. I intend to. Skip tomorrow's installment and maybe read a good book. I hear that The Cell is a real page-turner. You might even learn something.

Journal Entry

My cat Flame just died. Or maybe not; as I look at him he seems to be breathing shallowly, but when I look again—not. It’s just some trick of the light. I went into the bathroom to take my bath a bit before three and he was lying on the floor, very still. I thought he was dead for a moment, but he spoke, his usual querulous meow. He spoke several times, complaining loudly when I lifted him from the floor onto a folded towel that I thought might be more comfortable for him, and I think he appreciated it, as he settled down a little and spoke more quietly. I petted him and told him to relax, that this was a natural transition, the next step on a journey that I could not accompany him on, but that I was here to see him off as best I could. Not that it mattered what I said to him, except perhaps to myself; he may have liked hearing my voice, though—he meowed a couple of times as I ran my bath and got in it as if to check on whether I was still there. After my bath I cleared off a cushion here in the music slash computer room upstairs, and I went back to the bathroom and picked him up gently, his towel still under him. I think he was still alive when I picked him up—I thought I saw him breathing—but when I set him down on the cushion I no longer saw any sign of life. I think he literally died in my arms.

The Voices In My Head

My eyes are swollen and red and have been for the past several days--allergies I suppose, but it's difficult to focus on the screen. I've written nothing for the past several days, not that it matters I suppose, but it feels frustrating. Today I got one thing off my list of things to do--I got most of the front lawn and parking strip mowed, which makes the place look less abandoned, or at least so I fondly think. The internet runs sluggishly for me today. My head buzzes with random quotations--"It's all very strange and mysterious and I'm sure it's leading up to something," (Mrs. Drudge in The Real Inspector Hound); "What's the bird's-eye lowdown on this caper, whatever that means?" (Nick Danger); "If you didn't know the difference, you couldn't tell the difference" (a long-forgotten advertisement); "There aint much you can do with a bag of shit except bury it" (Huck Finn's pap according to Seelye).... It's like one of those scenes in old movies where voices from the past echo in some guy's mind (or at least on the soundtrack) except that these voices mean nothing. Brusha brusha brusha, get the new Ipana.... You can be sure if it's Westinghouse.... I can't believe I ate the whole thing.... You hate that cat, don't you?

Do they even make Ipana any more? Then what is the point of having this loop stuck in my head? It's talent round-up day, folks, or maybe we're going to have a special guest.

Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear when Lucky Strikes brings you The Lone Ranger and his faithful Indian companion Tonto--or was it his Japanese valet Kato? Well, the Shadow knows. And the Death March of a Marionette means it's time to go to bed.

There's Logic For You

It's always rather surprising to see a conservative appeal to logic--their strong suit is fuzzy emotional appeals like those President Stay-the-Course Bush is so fond of, or the irrelevant invective of the Ann Coulters among them. But over at AlterNet I saw an example of conservative "logic" that was so bizarre I have to share it.

This was a reply by Conservativation to an article by Scott Ritter, one-time UN weapons inspector in Iraq. In the course of the article Ritter cited a book by Iraq war veteran Paul Reickhoff, who compared the Iraqi insurgents to the fictional "Wolverines" of the long-forgotten movie Red Dawn. Red Dawn is one of those endless trashy movies Hollywood comes out with year after year like Independence Day or The Passion of the Christ, where action substitutes for ideas and shock for internal logic. In it (as best I recall) a high-school football team takes on the Russian army after a successful invasion of the United States and somehow manages to win. Ritter summarizes Reickhoff as follows: "The Wolverines were heroes. The occupiers, frustrated by the tactics of the Wolverines, used increasingly brutal means of suppressing the insurgency, including taking out their revenge on the innocent civilian population. Reickhoff wrote of how he and his fellow soldiers, by invading and occupying Iraq, had reversed roles with the Iraqis. The Americans were now the brutal occupier, and the Iraqis were the 'Wolverines'."

Now I see many difficulties with this comparison. The Wolverines were fictional caricatures in a simplistic movie universe; the Iraqi insurgents are real people in a complex social and political environment. The Wolverines were a single group with a fairly clear goal; the Iraqi insurgents are many groups with differing goals and tactics. The Wolverines were a bunch of high-school students; the Iraqi insurgents appear to come from a wide variety of backgrounds. The Wolverines were Americans; the Iraqi insurgents are (for the most part) Iraqis. But neither Reickhoff nor Ritter suggested that the parallel was exact, and none of these objections really affect the point that Reickhoff was making.

Now Conservativation has his own objections--two of them--that he apparently thinks are "logical" and relevant. First, he observes, "The Wolverines never killed their own...." (Their own what he doesn't say.) I assume he must mean that the Iraqi insurgents do kill "their own". I'd like to see an example of that. Judging from the various reports coming out of Iraq, the insurgents are behaving as other resistance movements have done: targeting the occupying forces, collaborators with the occupying forces, and in some cases rival insurgent groups with different agendas. In no case have I seen an instance of an Iraqi insurgent group targeting "their own"--nor does it seem likely that they would. Any insurgent group that routinely killed its own members for no good reason would not survive very long.

If by "their own" Conservativation means fellow-countrymen who are collaborating with the enemy then he's way off-base. Whatever may have happened in the movies, real resistance movements deal harshly with traitors. They kill them. Take a look sometime at the history of the resistance against the Nazi occupiers. From the viewpoint of the insurgents collaborators are worse than the occupiers themselves. They are people who have sold out for power, or for money, or for some other sordid reason, and deserve whatever happens to them.

But, writes Conservativitis, the Wolverines never "beheaded innocents that were there to help...." Ah, but to help whom? The occupying forces? Remember, insurgents do not want the country to run smoothly under occupation--quite the reverse. Logic dictates the necessity of attacking those who help the occupiers even when such help consists of food for the hungry or medical aid for the sick and injured. It's not a pretty picture, but occupation never is.

"[M]aking the insurgents into heroes is a huge stretch," Conservatorium writes, adding irrelevantly "Iraqis may dislike the US, but they are not huge fans of these murderes [sic] either. They kill more Iraqis than Americans." But whether people are heroes or not is always a subjective issue. I have talked with people who regard George Armstrong Custer as a hero rather than a blithering blowhard with a flair for self-promotion. Thomas Edison, Andrew Jackson, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Billy the Kid, and even Adolf Hitler have their admirers. On the other hand the native Americans who ran an unsuccessful resistance movement against alien invaders in North America for many decades were seen (at least till recently) as bloodthirsty savages, and their names--Cochise, Crazy Horse, Tecumseh, Captain Jack--were reviled. (And even today, not to wander too far from the point, it is considered acceptable to name a team the R-dsk-ns--one of the vilest epithets in the English language--where you'd never see let's say the San Francisco F-gs, the Tuscon W-tb-cks, or the Los Angeles N-gg-rs play in a national arena.)

Leaping nimbly from rooftop to rooftop, like the Tick on patrol, Conservatwhatever abruptly requests: "Please give me the list of other places in the world where we are breaking international law etc. The article says there are many others. Also, I guess Kosovo was not left from one President to another." While I don't undertake to reply for Scott Ritter, I can't find that either point is dealt with in his article. He does speak of US crimes in "Iraq and elsewhere"; maybe Conservilius equates "elsewhere" with "many others." I would suggest that torture at Gitmo, kidnappings in Italy, Pakistan and elsewhere, detention without trial of the innocent, extradition of suspects to Syria, warrentless spying in the US, are all crimes by any definition. (And if I weren't a Republican I'd find the mysterious election irregularities in 2004 extremely suspicious; the odds against them happening by chance are enormous. Fortunately Democrats, as far as I can tell, are all statistically illiterate, and incapable of seeing the impossibility of the reported results.)

I don't know what "logical" point Conservativeoration thought he was making about Kosovo. Ritter's point was that President Bush has no standard for victory and now admits that it will be up to some future president to figure out a way to get the US out of the mess he got it into. There is absolutely no parallel here to Kosovo, and even if there was, Ritter took no position on Kosovo in the first place (at least not in this article), so Conservativenation's illogical jump is--well, gibberish.

The absolute silliness of all this is incredible. The author wanders aimlessly through the Sudan, and into Rwanda, spewing invective but without stumbling onto a single point that has anything to do with the article to which he is supposedly replying. And then comes this priceless statement:

"I suggest a course in logic would be useful. I say that not to defend the war or the President, but to point out the utter lack of skill you have at making and defending points. It is not enough to allege folks, yet that's all you do, and when challenged, change subject to next allegation. Bush Lied...oh, um, Gitmo, oh well er, torture, er uh...whatever."

The pot criticising the kettle, the blind leading the blind. Scott Ritter's main point--that we should suspend judgment about the events of Haditha--is asinine. The military investigators didn't suspend judgment when they described four students and a taxi-driver as insurgents, or when they claimed that civilians were killed in an explosion when in fact they were shot. Facts are facts, and logic is logic. The military investigators saw no need to resolve inconsistencies in their original investigation, and instead put forth a potpourri of lies and speculation. They blew their credibility with that. Whether it was blithering incompetence or active participation in a cover-up doesn't really matter at this point. They got caught. No further military investigation is worth a damn.

But Conservativation's "utter lack of skill ... in making and defending points" is pitiful here. Does he address anything in the article? No. He engages in frivolous attacks on minor issues not related to the subject under discussion, and then attacks a straw man--some crazy person who makes points and when challenged changes the subject. (Conservativation is pretty good at subject-changing himself.) That person is not Scott Ritter. He goes on to say "It would also help your cause if occasionally you wrote a sentence that recognizes how vile, evil and animalistic the slow slicing off of heads can be," and then with complete illogic, jumps to "Finally, explain Canada being targeted. Are they not utopia?" (Need I mention that there is not one word about Canada in Ritter's article?)

And yet this irrational jumble of irrelevancies apparently passes for logical thought in this character's mind. Much of conservative thought (if that's not an oxymoron) is like this--emotional appeals, irrational jumps from subject to subject without rhyme or reason, pointless invective directed against an imaginary opponent--but this piece, to quote Aristophanes, takes the cake. To take this bucket of turds, tie a ribbon on it, and try to pass it off as logical discourse--well, it's priceless.

Conservatation concludes: "I respect good anti war positions. This article isn't one." His respect, to quote Chaucer, is "nat worth a tord; Thou doost nought elles but despendest tyme." Ritter's conclusion, however, is both sobering and chilling: "The scope and scale of our crimes, as manifested in Iraq and elsewhere, are mind-boggling. The indifference of the American people is mind numbing. And the wrath of history, which will judge all of us harshly, has yet to be felt." And that, friends, judged objectively, is beyond dispute.

Power Was His Principle

The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA: "His ruthlessness in pursuit of the Republican agenda, his willingness to shake down contributors, his ferocity in pursuit of political profit - all of these stemmed from a deep-seated conviction that he was right, and doing what was right justified pushing the rules to the limit and beyond."

No doubt Tom DeLay's resignation from Congress--always assuming that he actually does step down--is a good thing for the country. Not so good as his execution by firing squad in front of the Capitol building he so dishonored, but still a small step in the right direction. But as long as his ideological comrades remain in power--corrupt congressmen like Dolittle and Pombo, eco-criminals like Chiseling Charlie Hurwitz, paid-up members of the down-with-science club like Pat Robertson and our beloved president George stay-the-course Bush--it's small comfort. DeLay was nothing more than a tool, and now that he's a broken tool, the gods he served so assiduously have cast him aside as a piece of refuse on the garbage dump of life.

Corruption has become so endemic in public life that Americans treat it as normal--a perk of the office as it were. Radio and television stations that use the public airwaves not only accept bribes to run political messages, they demand them as a right. The need to raise money to pay these bribes requires that politicians in turn take bribes from groups with deep pockets--bribes that must be paid off with future political favors. Money becomes a form of political speech--and nobody protests. It's all part of the game they call democracy.

Not that DeLay and his gang actually believe in democracy. They work from a deep-seated belief that power rightfully belongs not to elected officials, but to unelected bureaucrats who are most adept at bending the rules of that other game Americans play--Capitalism--to their advantage. These guys--innovators like Ken Lay and his ilk--are the rightful bosses of us all. Why? Well, ours is not to question why, but to humbly accept the cards that the Hidden Hand (the god of Capitalism) deals us. However it comes out, we all know it's for the best, because that's the way Capitalism works.

Of course American Capitalism is only capitalistic in the same sense that American Democracy is democratic--nominally. There's no room for either in the brontosaurian bureaucracies of modern business or government. Instead we have a grotesque parody of both--"democratic" elections bought and paid for by the likes of Abramoff, and "competition" between industries for corporate welfare doled out by the likes of Rove. And tools like DeLay in the thick of things, making sure that everybody gets enough room at the trough--for a price.

And what about those who need medicine? Screw them, says Mr. DeLay, just so long as the pharmaceutical industry makes a bundle. The purity of our air and water? Not important, compared to the need of industry for coal and oil. Wildlife? No problem; there'll always be ranches where wingless quail can be shot--for a fee. Global warming? Hey, what a chance to sell air-conditioners.

The good news is that some people still see that what these guys are doing is wrong. It doesn't matter whether their shenanigans are technically legal--anybody can write a law after all--they are flat out wrong. Torturing prisoners (for whatever reason) is wrong. Taking bribes (however labeled) is wrong. Putting poisons in our air and water is wrong. Falsifying science is wrong. Invading other countries on trumped-up excuses is wrong. These are not things we should even be having a discussion about (though doing them in the name of the American people without such a discussion is also wrong). They are wrong, and the people who do them are criminals. They are enemies of the human race. The humane thing to do would be to remove them from society and put them somewhere that they could do no harm. The rational thing to do would be to shoot them without ceremony, and bury them secretly in unmarked graves lest some fool try to make martyrs of them.

Innocent Mix-Up

Howard Kaloogian, a Californian candidate for Congress, boldly charges that newspapers are misrepresenting the situation in Iraq--that things there are much more peaceful than represented. "...each day the news media finds [sic] any violence occurring in the country and screams and shouts about it--in part because many journalists are opposed to the U.S. effort to fight terrorism." In proof he shows a picture of a peaceful street scene, complete with western tourists, billboards, and a taxi, captioned "We took this photo of downtown Baghdad while we were in Iraq. Iraq (including Baghdad) is much more calm and stable than what many people believe it to be." (House Candidate Draws Fire for Web Photo - Yahoo! News)

The trouble is, the picture that was supposed to be of Baghdad was actually taken in a suburb of Istanbul. This is somewhat akin to claiming that all is quiet on the streets of Paris and showing as proof a street scene taken in Helsinki.

The utter contempt this shows for the facts is breathtaking in its scope. The amazing thing is that the candidate thought he could get away with it.

It's not even a good fake--nothing is right about it for Iraq. The signs aren't even in Arabic script.

When it was called to the candidate's attention, did he apologize? Well, yes, sort of. "It was wrong," he is quoted as saying. "We're sorry." Who he's apologizing to and for what isn't clear however. He's not sorry about misleading the American people, apparently, since he reasserts his original claims the fake picture was intended to bolster. He's not apologizing for the hypocrisy of blaming news media for the lying that he himself was in fact doing.

In explanation of the lie he was caught in he says that "the military asked us to use our discretion and put things on the Internet that were nondescriptive ... (because) if we posted something that was easily identifiable, it could be a target." This somehow justifies claiming that Istanbul was somehow Baghdad? Does Kaloogian think that all foreign cities are one and the same? Or that his readers will think that? If the one is justified by military necessity in some manner, then why not simply take a picture of downtown San Francisco and label it Baghdad? The idiocy of this is beyond belief, and several light years past justification.

Or then there's his other explanation--the old I'm-not-lying-just-stupid defence so beloved by former president Ronald Reagan. It was just an "innocent mix-up"; that pictures from a stop in Istanbul got confused with those taken in Baghdad and apparently nobody in his self-described "Truth Tour" had the wit to tell the difference.

If he and his buddies are really that downright dumb, they should be listening to what their betters have to say rather than trying to instruct the American people from the depths of their vast ignorance.

And if he is as he appears to be--just another goddamn right-wing lying whore--then he should get the hell out of politics and take up something more in his line. Insurance fraud, perhaps.

Dream Journal

I waited, uncomfortably, seated with suited men and one quandary in the form of a four-star general, for the briefing to start. I had left my laptop in the school lunchroom next door and had only my quill and parchment to rely on--and besides, what if somebody made off with it? There were state secrets hidden among the naked pictures of cavorting young nymphs...

Our President, Ronald Reagan, younger and more confident than ever I had before seen him, slid into the room with a subdued fanfare from an invisible orchestra. "I have" (quoth he) "good news with which to tintabulate your ear. The Wicked Witch is dead."

A gasp undulated about the room. "But how--how did you pull that one off?"

"It was nothing," said Reagan modestly, "I just appointed forty new senators to replace those who were missing."

"Who were missing," I repeated stupidly, struggling with my quill. In my mind I saw somebody making off with my unprotected laptop. How would I ever explain it to the authorities, never mind my mother?

"Yes, missing," said Our President, zeroing in on me. I tried unsuccessfully to blend into the background. "They disappeared late yesterday afternoon. I had to use my executive privileges to have them replaced."

"Your executive privileges?" We were now strolling down a long hallway, conversing.

"Yes. 'In the event that a senator disappear mysteriously the President is empowered to appoint one or more new senators to fit his shoes'--Article Seven, section five."

"But forty senators--people will talk," I exclaimed anxiously. Not at Gitmo, came an unspoken thought, for the president was no longer available to voice it, and I was walking home along a dirt path. Menacing low-flying aircraft buzzed like flies overhead while I balanced on a log crossing over a creek.

Our worst president? I thought back to the long line of presidents who had addressed us from that same podium. Who could forget old Hick'ry Jackson's courageous defiance of the Supreme Court: "Thurgood Marshall has made his decision--but how many divisions does he have?" Or James K. Polk, who launched a war on a pretext so flimsy you could embroider it and call it a negligee. Or Harding, who handed out federal oil leases as party favors. Oh yes, it had been a rare and wonderful experience.

I was walking up the sidewalk to the front door of my house. Inside my mother was cooking dinner on the typewriter. "Mom," I said, calling her by her name, "I've got to go back to school. I accidentally left my laptop in the cafeteria. And, uh, incidentally--democracy is dead."