MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF TEACHING EVOLUTION IN SCHOOLS: Evolution and creationism/intelligent design have been a topic of discussion for a while on Transterrestrial Musings (Rand Simberg) and other blogs, notably The Volokh Conspiracy (Eugene Volokh). As often happens, I'm late to that party, but I just sent an email to Rand with some comments about the discussion. Please note that I'm not making any effort to look at the two theories in a scientific way, because that's not my area of expertise and I would only embarrass myself thoroughly. You may think I do anyway, but that's for you to decide.

The headline above, and the email itself, should serve as sufficient introduction:

Rand -

I've read with interest your commentary about evolution vs creationism (I prefer the term "intelligent design"). One of your major objections to the teaching or adherence to a theory of intelligent design is that it limits scientific exploration. You also see it as a weakness of faith, a fairly harsh assessment. While I do agree that blind adherence to a theory can limit a search for truth, and a weak faith breeds fear, I think you are showing your own bias in your discussion, as well as not fully addressing the moral implications of an unchallenged presentation of evolutionary theory.

As long as intelligent design is a valid theory - which I think Volokh argued eloquently is the case - then refusing to consider it as an option is biased and unscientific. It's a theory of origin, not a theory of escapism. While it is inappropriate for someone to say, "Well, it's that way because God made it that way" and thus refuse to explore a question further, it is just as inappropriate to say, "Because eventually this explanation might lead to an irresolvable question, we're going to refuse to accept that this could be the answer even though it fits the facts".

You say:

It is the fact that it [intelligent design] is not disprovable (i.e., falsifiable) that puts it outside the realm of science. It's not simply an uninteresting theory--it is a useless copout (again, purely from a scientific perspective).

Is general evolution in its full manifestation provable? It's not replicable, we don't have historic accounts; it will never be more than an extrapolation from evidence. To assume it is to limit your explorations. Conversely, if someone developed a theory of how things should look if there was an intelligent designer, and set out to test it, would that be bad science? The originating event is not replicable, but its manifestations might be evident. If this scientist found, for example, that man appeared in his current form at one point in history, or other evidence that seem to point more to intelligent design than evolution, would you try to fit it into your own theory, or ignore it, because you don't see intelligent design as a valid theory? Especially given what you say here:

If I were to teach evolution in a school, I would state it not as "this is what happened," but rather, "this is what scientists believe happened."

Belief without proof is called "faith".

But my major objection to evolution being taught in the schools without any reference to intelligent design as an alternative is the social implications of the "religion" of evolution. I've taught both introductory psychology and sociology on the college level, and in every case the texts explained both individual and social behaviors in an evolutionary context, with many attendant moral extrapolations. An example is the "fight or flight" response. I'm not saying humans don't have that response, but the evolutionary explanation given for it is an extrapolation that isn't supported. The development of that response cannot be scientifically tracked or established, given that it happened prior to recorded history and is not still developing, so whence the conclusions as to why it developed? It is assumed that the extrapolation is true, which actually limits exploration rather than encouraging it - we know why it's there, so why look more deeply into its manifestations? Setting it as a trait that developed as an evolutionarily-preferred behavior gives its manifestations, in the eyes of some, an almost moral rightness. You have to go outside science to find reason to stem it in some contexts, when it would not have that moral gravitas to begin with if some evolutionists didn't present extrapolations as truth.

If you've been following the recent discussions of teen sexuality on some of the blogs, you've seen a number of references to "natural" behavior, to evolutionary imperative. That is a moral conclusion arising from evolution-as-religion. It's also used as a reason behind why sexual photographs of teenagers are so desired online - we're evolutionarily hardwired to seek out the best bets for self-perpetuation, thus, youth and attractiveness, so naturally people are drawn to sexual photos of youth. I'm not saying that all the arguments using evolution in their supportive statements would be endorsed by evolutionary scientists, but it is a major source of reasoning for those taking a variety of moral and behavioral stances. It is not a value-neutral, or morality-neutral, scientific theory. It is in our society treated as fact, and many people base their behavior on its extrapolated moral tenets. At the very least, schools should separate fact from those extrapolations.

As for the weakness of faith that belief in intelligent design supposedly indicates, I would posit that a similar weakness of faith exists in a scientific community fearful of incorporating intelligent design in its assessment of information, at the very least as a valid theory of origin until proven otherwise. It is either a fear that intelligent design is true, or an adamant belief that general evolution is law, not theory, despite its lack of full support; in either case the scientific pursuit is polluted by bias. What avenues of exploration are closed because of a belief in evolution similar to the religious closed-mindedness you mention in association with a belief in intelligent design? Why is questioning evolution considered heresy?

My psychology and sociology students were always treated to a lecture on how what you believe about origins has an impact on what you believe about behaviors and morality today. I made my own beliefs on it clear, and did not color my presentation of the class material with my own biases in the balance of the class except in asides offering an alternative extrapolation very obviously my own. I don't see how such an approach would suddenly destroy the foundations of scientific endeavor in this society, nor how intelligent design reasonably presented as an option of origin, in all its advantages, flaws and implications, would do the same. It also is not "promoting religion", if dissociated from the Bible and taught as a valid scientific option - which it is. Religion is about who the intelligent designer is, and different groups have different conclusions. I'm not suggesting we teach in public schools which conclusion is most likely - just as you would say "I would state it not as 'this is what happened,' but rather, 'this is what scientists believe happened.' "

And as a religious person, I'm not afraid of science in full flower, exploring every corner of the universe. I encourage it. I'm fascinated by it. Maybe there is intelligent life elsewhere, although I doubt it. I wouldn't stop scientific exploration for fear it will prove my faith wrong, nor do I deny that many aspects of evolutionary theory offer an excellent structure for scientific study. But I also don't believe evolution and faith are antithetical, or reasonably separated into 'reality' vs 'emotion'. It is that characterization in the face of the moral implications of belief in general evolution that give rise to my desire for intelligent design to be presented in schools as an optional theory of origin.

Thanks again for your thorough exploration of the topic.

best,
susanna cornett

UPDATE: Weary and frustrated, Rand Simberg has nonetheless rolled up his sleeves and taken me apart piece by piece in response to the above email. I appreciate his time and his tone, especially given that he thought he'd already done all that was needed and then here I come, late to the party, and start asking more questions. Since my goal is learning, and not debating for its own sake, I won't extensively answer his post right away. I need to absorb the information, from all his posts, and do some other reading. One thing I know is that I have not spent sufficient time reading the original texts of evolution. This is a topic important to me in part because I hope to be back in the classroom in a couple of years, and some of these implications may arise again. Since my area is criminal justice, the issue of origins and the evolutionary implications for behavior doesn't often come into play, except when the etiology of violent behavior is under discussion, so it's not something I have to know immediately how to address. Rand thinks what I've done so far is wrong. I think he didn't address my central concern - as evidenced by this comment (mine, then his):

[Susanna says] My psychology and sociology students were always treated to a lecture on how what you believe about origins has an impact on what you believe about behaviors and morality today.

[Rand says] If that's the case, then I beg your pardon, but you were misteaching them. Perhaps it does, but it most emphatically shouldn't.

The "perhaps it does" is quite disingenuous, because of course it does, and a scientist saying, 'Well, I can't help it if people misunderstand and misuse my data, and you shouldn't teach something you can't support even though they do rampantly', is not precisely fair.

A few notes from my brother Alan: For centuries scientific advancement was made by people who believed in God - and continues to be, in some quarters - so the two can march together. Also, what would be accepted as "proof" that evolution is false? The theory is never discredited, only modified with the new information. Also, Alan (who occasionally shows up in comments here) says:

...as Philip Johnson points out--and this guy proves - they will always trot out the 'scientific method', pat you on the head and send you away when at the end of the day they have made a philosophical, not a scientific, stand.

...any mention of God is fundamentally dismissed under the guise of 'scientific method' yet if they were scientists worth their salt they would come up with ways to test that theory, too.

If any of my readers would like to tackle this, I will post emails about it (that are reasoned and not just spoutings or attacks) on the writings page and link them here. Also, the comments section is open for business and ACD has already promised compelling argumentation as soon as he finishes his Gould book. If I decide to write more about it, it will also be on the writings page and linked here.

ON THE SEX FRONT: Jane Galt has a good post on the whole teen sex thing which hits a lot of the points I would make, after, of course, making the moral arguments based on religious beliefs that would then be either a) agreed with wholeheartedly by everyone who holds my beliefs or b) dismissed out of hand as silly by those who tend to dismiss as silly any moral arguments based on religion. In other words, I'd be preaching to the choir or to the backs of people walking away, so I've not gone there, this time.

To elaborate a little on what Jane Galt says, getting involved in sexual activity very young isn't the same as, say, wearing makeup at 11 or having your own bank account at 13. It can change your life, and "educating" people about going about it safely is not a panacea. If you want to look at how successful education campaigns are, look at the campaigns to get a high-risk group of adults to protect themselves against a painful disease and the possibility of a sure death through contracting AIDS:

Early in 2000, syphilis had "nearly disappeared" from Los Angeles County's gay population, when an AIDS Healthcare Foundation clinic reported diagnosing about 50 cases among gay and bisexual men. Health officials then launched a $560,000 safe-sex media campaign and "four months later declared the outbreak under control." But this summer, the officials "made a startling about-face," conceding that syphilis -- which often indicates a rise in other sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV -- was endemic among men who have sex with men, "[b]ucking a nationwide trend."

...A CDC official attributed the outbreak to a "combination of denial and incompetence." Investigators have discovered that most of the men who contracted syphilis "shrugged off the lessons of the AIDS epidemic and had unprotected sex."

The article does go on to report successes in other realms as a result of the educational campaign. I'm not saying that it's a useless effort; of course it's not. But it's not all that, either. Who amongst us believes that teens don't routinely dismiss advice in a combination of denial and incompetence?

I can't remember who said it, but someone spoke of the beautiful innocence of two young teens learning sex together. Please. Shades of "Blue Lagoon". In our society, sexual innocence in the sense that you aren't sure what it is or that everyone thinks you should do it is gone by middle school, if it lingers that long, unless your parents are careful about what television and movies you watch. Kids having sex at 14 aren't doing it because suddenly he realized that tab A fit in slot B and hey, this is pretty fun! It carries a lot of emotional weight and peer pressure, even then. Maybe especially then. Someone else said sex is just another form of recreation amongst his crowd - there was that emotional thing, of course, gets a little iffy occasionally, but hey, that's life. No, it's not. That's irresponsibility. How many times have you cried all night because your tennis partner didn't call you to play again? Or said your backhand just doesn't compare to Jennifer's? How many people have anorexia or other dysfunctions because going skiing with them for the weekend was just a way for their skiing partner to stave off boredom?

I'm not convinced by the arguments I've seen of sexual activity amongst today's teens as a "natural behavior" that should be at least left alone and possibly even encouraged. I like most of what Jane Galt has to say about it, and I'm disappointed by the attitude of some others. But it does prove one thing that I always told my students at the beginning of courses in psychology and sociology:

What you believe about the origin and development of the earth - intelligent design or accident - does have an impact on everything you do, on your perception of the world, and on your sense of what's right and wrong.

UPDATE: I have been roundly chided both about my "forgetting" of who mentioned innocent teenagers, and my misrepresentation of the context. I suggest you check out the truth while I have any credibility left.

I TAKE A NAP, AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENS: Bill Quick has a new design! Awesome - check it out.

LIGHT BLOGGING today, since I'm home with a nasty headache that doesn't mesh with computing very well. I hope to post some this evening, however, after the Tylenol and a nap work their magic.

A PEARL OF GREAT PRICE




Mariane Pearl, the widow of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, is shown in this handout photo after giving birth to Adam Pearl on May 28, 2002, in Paris, a spokeswoman for the family said.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, SUBURBAN PRINCESS! The smart, sweet and funny author of Life as a Vole blog turns 17 today. Check out her latest posts, send her an email, and generally let her know that we're very happy the next generation includes people like her.

ANOTHER DISSENTING VOICE: Mike Golby at Page Count doesn't much like the SFSU Blog Burst:

Hosted on Joe Katzman's site, Winds of Change, Blog Burst took place yesterday. The material comprises a barrage of shrill, anti-Palestinian rants…

As far as I know, you either call it a Google bomb or a bunch of good ol' boys acting like ‘eedjits’. I believe these people are seeking publicity and an outlet for their frustration, impotence, and anger…

For myself, I heap scorn on our war bloggers and their 'Palestinian' equivalents. They are baby 'disillusionaries'. Their 'static' renders them useless to anybody, especially the causes or governments they supposedly serve. They are worthy only of derision; nothing else. The going will get tough but they will not stay the pace. Trust me on this. I know these things.

Mike, dear, I return your regard with enthusiasm. Give my regards to Shelley as well. And please, feel free to leave comments on my page any time.

I suggest those of you interested in knowing more check out Mike's post.

It is, after all, a free country. Even for eedjits.

NEWS FLASH: NY TIMES BIASED AND LACKING IN DIVERSITY. I read about it here.

FUN WITH PHOTOS: Apparently the folks at SF Indymedia need a little help with understanding the meaning of "attacked", so I thought I'd do my best.

First, their photo, caption and text from a Palestinian "peace rally" over the weekend:

After Bridge Protest, cops go crazy and attack child
by A • Saturday May 25, 2002 at 09:36 PM




After the Take It To The Bridge Protest on May 25th, police attacked an eleven year old girl named Sophia, throwing her on the ground and binding her arms together. She was left face down on the ground for over five minutes before they took her away. After all that, they then had the nerve to arrest her older brother Musa for bringing her to the protest. Are the Presidio Park Police so messed up that they must beat up children to feel good about themselves. San Franciscans should be outraged!

Now, let's look at a victim from a suicide bombing at the Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem on August 9, 2001:




Let's explore this a moment. An eleven year old girl is placed on the grass on her belly for five minutes after yelling at the cops and giving them the finger. A woman is covered in blood after someone tries to kill her with a bomb while she's eating pizza. Who was the victim of someone "crazy"? Who was "attacked"? If you answered "the girl", you need to look at the photos again and then reconsider the question.

No where in the Indymedia coverage did they mention actual injuries to the child in SF; I'm sure they would have had prominent photos if she had any. The jpgs of the girl are labeled "childabuse" in their files, incidentally.

MAKE MINE A ROAST BEEF ON WRY: Howard Fienberg asks an important question:

If James Carville and Geraldo Rivera were drowning and you could only save one, would you read the paper or make a sandwich?

INSIDE HAMAS: Meryl Yourish analyzes a UPI article on an interview with a leader of Hamas. Some of what he said:

The militant also explained the rules for recruiting or accepting suicide bombers, which he said were increasing rapidly in numbers. He said that the recruit or volunteer "should be a committed Muslim, his parents content with him and loved by his family, that he is not the only son to his parents and nor is he the breadwinner in the family."

"He has to be mature, dependable and strong, and we prefer he is not married. It is important that his martyrdom becomes a model and incentive for others to carry out martyr attacks," Shehadeh said...

He described as a "blessing that the Jews are from every race, color and breed because it makes it easier" for bombers to blend in with Israelis in order to kill them.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: And while you're at it, see what happens to many Israeli bombing victims who don't die.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, BILL QUICK!

LEANING IN MY DIRECTION - this cool blog, new to me, is worth a look. A woman after my own heart, not to mention politics.

ARMIES ARE WEAPONS, NOT SHIELDS. We need another Ulysses S Grant. Any suggestions as to who that might be?

(Hint: Powell is a McClellan.)

LINKWHORING AND CRONYISM IN THE BLOGOSPHERE? Kevin Holtsberry has an interesting rant about a recent brouhaha involving Richard Bennett and mixed in with the whole teen sex discussion wending through the blogosphere this week. I haven't followed this much, since I've been out of town suffering the trauma of 28K dialup on a computer with 32MG RAM, so I can't comment on what he says. But he has a number of generally insightful comments about blogging, deification of some bloggers and the warring desires to stand independent yet get linked widely for the sake of hits. This caught my eye particularly:

…I think the real problem is that he [Bennett] said what he believes but did so outside the mainstream - he ventured into areas like lesbianism and sex and didn't have the cavalier libertarian live and let live attitude.

I've noticed that libertarians tend to be "live and let live" until your living interrupts their preferences. I have strong libertarian tendencies myself, tied in with my conservative philosophies, so I keep an eye on the libertarians to see what they're saying. Most of them do have preferences, and do espouse their adoption by various individuals and entities, but I don't often see a unifying philosophy of libertarianism that gives coherence to their ideas. The concept of "do whatever you want as long as you harm only yourself" is a fairly ambiguous idea; what constitutes harm? Who has standing for a declaration of harm - only individuals? Or does that include entities such as society or government? And if I get a law passed in my state that limits you more than you want to be limited, well, I’m not forcing you to keep living here. Why are your wishes more important than mine? I think all of those questions have good answers, and I'd like to see some of the excellent minds in the blogosphere tackle those larger issues alongside the issue-based posting that usually rules.

Meantime, enjoy what Kevin has to say. And this is a freebie - he didn't link me, comment on my blog or send me an email announcement. A link for the blogging purists.

WHAT DOES WAR LOOK LIKE? We see the photographs, we read the papers, we debate amongst ourselves, about what war is and what it means. We see the memorial today at the WTC site as the recovery is ended, and rebuilding begins. The discussion sometimes sanitizes the reality. When you demand war, realize you are demanding death. When you resist war, realize that you aren’t likely to save lives, just changing who will die.

Memorial Day was Monday, a time to remember those who died protecting this country, or the countries of others. Maybe the reasons behind the battles weren’t philosophically what you support, but the deaths were very real and the courage of the soldiers true. Two bloggers have written recently about the USS Stark, shot by an Iraqi jet fighter in 1987, supposedly by accident; 37 soldiers died. Go read the names on Tony Adragna’s site; then go read what they became as a result of that attack, on Doubting Thomas’s site. An excerpt:

In late May, we (my boss, and four other assistants) were ordered to go to Frankfurt to work on identifying and piecing together the casualties from the USS Stark, a Navy frigate that had been attacked by an Iraqi fighter jet. Two Exocet missiles were fired at the ship, and we were told anywhere from 30-50 sailors were killed…

Some genius colonel or general decided, while we worked, to let us watch the Naval memorial service for the Stark that was showing on AFN. Here we were, putting these poor bastards back together, trying to figure out what arm belonged to what trunk, and so forth, and there, right before our eyes, were their grieving families. I am standing in two feet of blood and guts, fried body fat, and all the fingers, feet, eyeballs, and decapitated corpses I wish NEVER to see again, and all of a sudden I see on the screen the family of the boy whose decapitated head I am, right at that moment, holding in my hands…

This dead kid was probably asleep in his rack, dreaming of getting laid or going home on leave, when the missiles struck. Now his head is in my hands, and there's his Mom and Dad, who will never get to see him alive, or (thank God) like this, with no body, just a head, and an expression that still haunts me.

That is what war produces. As we consider escalation, let’s be clear about our goals, deal harshly with those who’s behavior jeopardizes our soldiers, and do whatever we can to make sure as few as possible of our precious fellow Americans end up on a military morgue floor - or in Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island - being pieced together by weeping compatriots.

WANT TO SEE THE DANGERS in anti-hate-speech laws? Go see War Now! While we discuss the rise in anti-Semitism, don't forget the importance of free expression of dissenting views. The problem is not dissension, but threats, intimidation or actual physical harm. Any time you support some type of protectionist law (whether it be speech or behavior or commercial activity), you have to understand the logical extensions of that law, and make sure that the cure isn't worse than the disease. Often abusive behavior with a racist tinge can be addressed with standing laws like terroristic threatening or assault, without instituting protections that can be used to quash honest disagreement.

AN 11 YEAR OLD GIRL HAD A BABY in Connecticut this week, according to the radio news (I haven't found it online yet). The 75-year-old father of the baby says the girl seduced him when she was 10.

So what do you think should happen to the baby's father?

DON'T SMOKE: Archipelago has a plea from a friend who just lost her father to emphysema/lung cancer.

My grandfather rolled his own smokes - Prince Albert in a can - until he got cancer of the larnyx and doctors removed his voicebox. Since smoking would suffocate him because of the permanent hole in his throat from the operation, he switched to chewing tobacco until he died of cancer and emphysema in his mid 60s. He was not my favorite person, but it was an ugly way to die.

I don't smoke, and I don't drink, but I do think sometimes that my current aversion to exercise and predilection for chocolate are comparably unhealthy. Something to think about.

A DISSENTING VOICE: Not everyone particularly cares for the Blog Burst about the SFSU incident and its corollaries:

I am concerned about this so-called Blog Burst. Though bloggers are not Journalists and may express their opinion at will, what do you call a formalized process to gather like minds together, resulting in multiple voices united in expressions of anger, paranoia, and hate?

...The concept of Blog Burst disturbs me. The results of this event disturbs me.

Shelley of Burning Bird blog sounds disturbed, don't you think? I personally think the group that attacked the Hillel students were multiple voices united in expressions of anger, paranoia, and hate. But to each her own.

She also lists quotes from various blogs participating, including mine. I disagree with her, naturally, but as per usual I'm offering you the opportunity to check out her objections yourself, especially since her complaint includes problems with my accusations of "moral equivalency" while she engages in it herself:

In the interests of equal representation I'm also linking to an IndyMedia posted comment representing the General Union of Palestinian Students viewpoint. Note, though, that IndyMedia is not known for being an unbiased publication.

Bb aka Shelley aka Weblog Bosswoman, honey, the problem is not that both sides are presented. The problem is that in the interests of "equal representation", unresearched, unsupported, unquestioned allegations are quoted as equal to proveable harm. Linking around to "he said she said" posts without context, when one side is clearly wrong, does not make you morally superior. It makes you an equivocator.

I personally would be very happy to see an independent investigation into the SFSU incidents, if those doing the investigation are willing to actually say one side was more wrong without feeling the need to "rescue" the side that is wrong from any public disapprobation. And if in fairness the investigation found that some of the Hillel group were instigators, were abusive and threatening, then I would support punishment for them. What I find disgusting, and what I highlight in my Blog Burst contribution, is that in the name of "tolerance" and political correctness, officials and media don't seem willing to roundly condemn vicious behavior because of who did it. I think if the ones attacked were pro-choice and the ones being ugly were pro-life, you'd see no hesitation in condemning it. Ditto if the attacked were black and the attackers white. I don't condone that kind of hateful behavior from any group, especially from ones that I associate with. I am... disturbed... that others seem willing to equivocate when they have sympathies with one side.

Shelley, you might want to read your own blog:

What I am going to say is that those who use moral arguments as axes to chop the world into finer and finer bits, cutting away all who disagree with them, will soon find themselves surrounded only by like minds and like voices. And I wish them joy of it.

If you go visit Miss Shelley, please don't miss the comments section wherein the discussion continues.

I wish you the joy of her.

DIVORCE IS A DEAD ISSUE: Reader Dave Menke, who's about to be deputized as finder of fascinating stories, manages to further enhance the honor of my home state by sending this article:

Divorce granted to dead husband

NEWPORT [KY] — Tony Steffen has been dead for two years. Nevertheless, he just got divorced.

In a case national experts are calling extraordinary, a circuit court judge in Northern Kentucky has dissolved the 58-year marriage of Mr. Steffen, who was 81 when he died, and his widow, Byrl, now 86.

Behind the unusual ruling is a fight between the couple's adult children over a $1.5 million estate.

The Steffens' son, Roger S. Steffen, and daughter, Susan Pearman, are estranged. Roger Steffen is aligned with his mother, and Ms. Pearman had been aligned with her father.

This is definitely dark humor, but humorous nonetheless. One of those things where you have to laugh to keep from crying. Families can do really awful things to each other in the throes of death and money, which is very sad. In a story I remember from my childhood, a man died and his widow was too ill to attend the funeral. She wanted him to be buried on top of a steep, isolated hill, and their children wanted him buried in a cemetery at its base that was more convenient. Since she didn't attend the funeral, they had him buried in the lower cemetery. They disturbed the ground where she wanted him buried, and later allowed her to have a memorial stone put there without telling her where his body really was. I've always thought that was one of the meanest things I'd heard of.

If this article's characterization of Roger Steffen is accurate, I think we've hit a new low.

PILOTS AND GUNS - NOT THE FIRST CHOICE: Dan drops the Happy Fun and fully engages his inner Pundit in this excellent piece on whether commercial pilots should have guns in the cockpits. I agree with his argument that pilots with guns are not a sufficient protection, and the debate over it has obscured exploration of other ideas. I think pilots should have the option to have guns (and he gives a good model for that), but our freedom has to be protected first and foremost by each individual. There is a happy (fun?) medium somewhere between total government control and anarchy, and we need to find where that is with respect to our safety in this country.

I flew home to Kentucky for the weekend, and since it was my first time in the air since 9/11, and I flew out of Newark International where two of the 9/11 planes originated, I was very conscious of security and the possibilities for terrorism. I went over in my mind the ways I could react if something happened, not in an obsessive way, but in the way that all women will recognize. This is not something familiar to most men, but I've talked to enough women about it to know it's pretty universal with them - we are always conscious of the possibility of attack by a predator with sexual or other intent. Most women are physically vulnerable to the type of men who assault (few PeeWee Herman types become attack rapists or robbers), and from a young age we're taught to "be careful". That works out practically to a constant sense of the environment, of inexplicable or "yellow flag" behavior, of where we'll be when as a factor in how we dress, and so forth. For example, if I'm going to be emerging from the mall with packages late at night by myself, then I'm going to park under a light and as close to the door as possible even if I'm driving my brand new sports car; a man is more likely to park where the dings won't mar his paint job. We're not always smart about it, but it's a thread of lesser or greater strength through the lives of most women. The closest most men get is the awareness of environment while walking down an unfamiliar city street at night - no paranoia, but a consciousness of who's around, where there's movement, who seems to be out of place and what defensive measures are available.

I think we're going to need to develop this sense in regards to potential terrorism, in whatever context. A valuable book that addresses this - for women, but much of the information would be useful to men too - is The Gift of Fear, by Gavin De Becker. Basically, he says we already know subconsciously when things "aren't right" - we just need to learn how to listen to our fears, distinguish between inappropriate and appropriate fears, and develop in our minds the outlines of how to respond to various threats. One of the most important aspects is appropriate vs inappropriate - we hear the PC crowd get shrilly hysterical about bias and profiling, but a populace trained to recognize what a real concern looks like is less likely to give in to generalizations.

Ultimately, it's about me and my willingness to protect myself and my fellow citizens. I cede many of those functions to the government, but not completely, and not without demanding accountability and evidence of competence. What makes this country great is ultimately its individualism, and that is what will also make us safe.

A TEENAGER WITH A GOOD ATTITUDE. Congratulations, Valerie. Good luck.

JUST WHAT I NEEDED: A book with all the pertinent info on gun control and gun rights, with one of three authors none other than Dave Kopel of NRO. New, out just in time for Father's Day.

I think I'll buy one for my niece.

WHEN DOES REPORTING BECOME SMEARING? Media Minded has some good thoughts on that, in the context of a Signorile takedown. Worth your time.

PERFORMANCE ART I COULD SUPPORT: Do you think we could get the National Endowment for the Arts to give grants to more of this kind of art?

BRING PEACE TO THE MIDDLE EAST - INVADE IRAQ: David Hogberg at Cornfield Commentary thinks it's past time to take out Saddam, and also thinks that will give the US and Israel the diplomatic freedom to rain full righteous indignation on Arafat and his minions. I don't agree with all he says, but he makes some good points and this is one of the best:

Some will argue that this characterization of Arabs is unfair, that most Arabs are peaceful and abhor terrorism. That is very likely true; it is also irrelevant. Those Arabs are not the ones in charge throughout much of the Arab world. The extremists are.

WILL ADVERTISE FOR FOOD: Tony Woodlief at Sand in the Gears has found an interesting assimilation of the homeless into the market economy.

NEGATION THROUGH MORAL EQUIVALENCE: You’ve all read about the pro-Israel peace rally held at San Francisco State University that turned ugly when pro-Palestinian demonstrators interrupted it with threats, slurs and intimidating slogans such as “Hitler did not finish the job”. Student Benjamin Epstein gives a picture of what it was like to be there; this excerpt describes the end, as the supporters of Israel closed their rally with music and prayers:

My ears were ablaze with sound. Screams. "Zionists off our campus!" "Racists!" mixed with achingly beautiful Jewish music, and voices of a thousand singing. If I turned my head to the left, I saw the angry faces, screaming with rage, waving black and green flags. And when I turned my head to the right, I saw a sea of blue and white, singing people. And I was in the middle…

The descriptions of the event, even in the mainstream media, highlight more aggressive behavior on the part of the pro-Palestinian group than the pro-Israeli group:

As the rally wound down, some pro-Palestinian students crossed the barricades, confronting people on the other side and allegedly yelling such statements as, ``Hitler should have finished the job.'' A pro-Palestinian protester tore down an Israeli flag and stomped on it.

In the face of this information, the efforts at moral equivalence are disturbing. In several articles, newspapers countered descriptions from supporters of Israel with rebuttals and accusations from the Palestinian group. Even an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle stood for nothing because of its moral equivalence:

Whatever you want to call it, anti-Jewish incidents -- and, perhaps to a lesser extent, anti-Arab ones -- appear to be on the rise in the Bay Area, a disturbing trend.

This is a quantifiable thing. Are they both rising to the same extent? The SF Chronicle seems reluctant to say “no”.

Extremists on both sides are trying to censor the other. Zionism is not racism, and all criticism of the Israeli government is not tantamount to anti- Jewish prejudice, any more than opposition to U.S. government policies is anti- Americanism.

There is a difference between yanking down a flag and stomping on it while yelling words that basically mean, “You should be dead”, and calling someone a “camel jockey”. It’s inappropriate to use ethnic slurs, but that is not morally equivalent to wishing someone dead because of his or her race or ethnic origin. This reluctance to call evil “evil” is the same thing that gives Arafat and his homicidal thugs the ability to continue playing both ends in Palestine – targeting innocent Israelis repeatedly while holding up their hands to the world and saying, “I’m just protecting myself” when called on it.

I’m not a Zionist in the sense that I have religious beliefs about Israel’s existence. I do believe that as a protection for the Jewish people, and as a democracy in a part of the world with precious few human rights, it should be supported by the US. But I see this current rash of anti-Semitism, both here and in Europe, as a re-igniting of a sentiment that has lain dormant but has not gone away for decades, or even centuries. The Palestinian situation is an excuse, not a reason. That’s what makes this attitude on the part of the media so disturbing. Their insistence on moral equivalence gives hatred a place to fester and grow under the protection of a misguided application of “tolerance”. Yes, there are some supporters of Israel who have said and done inappropriate or even hateful things. It’s not inappropriate moral equivalence to say that’s wrong.

It is inappropriate moral equivalence to say “camel jockey” is the same as “I wish you were dead because you’re a Jew”.

This post gives my thoughts on what’s going on with the SFSU incident and its aftermath, and it’s part of a larger effort to bring attention to the issue. Joe Katzman of Winds of Change, who organized the “blog burst”, wants you to know this:

This blog can only comment on one or two facets of the travesty at SFSU. Other dimensions of this incident and the alarming trends it represents are detailed in the full SFSU Blog Burst Index at Winds of Change.

I recommend you visit there and check out what others have to say. It’s important to understand. I opened with a comment from Benjamin Epstein, who was at the SFSU rally. Let me close with another:

…this is something I don't think I'll ever forget. And I don't mean remembering for the rest of my life. I mean its something I'd remember in my next life. It's something deep in the residual memory of all Jews, who recall Anti-Semitism. I have seen its face.

Don’t let that face be yours. And don't let the moral equivalence of the media blind you to what's right vs wrong.

IT'S A GOOD START: A panel investigating the mistakes made in the case of Rilya Wilson in Florida has released its report, with recommendations for changes in the Florida child services department. This is a political hot potato, in this Florida gubernatorial election year, so we'll see what actually happens.

It's apparent from the discussion up to this point that bureaucracy contributed heavily to the mistakes made in Rilya's case; what concerns me is that more bureaucracy is seen as the solution, rather than a streamlining of the entire process. Some of the recommendations - like criminal background checks on foster parents - are so common sense that it's appalling they weren't done before. But I think two factors - one discussed, one not discussed - are at fault too. The one discussed is that the caseworker in charge of Rilya's case had apparently been fired and rehired twice, and had quit prior to the reporting on Rilya's case because of other problems with her work. As a government employee who's been around the civil service system quite a bit (although not until recently a part of it), I suspect this has to do with how that system makes it difficult to get rid of incompetent employees. The "not discussed" part is just the whole govt child care program itself. We have a need to protect our children, and remove them from situations where their safety is at risk, but the bureaucracy that builds up around the laws passed more as a result of good intentions than good research is a frightening and harmful monolith resistent to good sense and change. And, as we have seen in the Rilya case, when a child is truly in dire circumstances that bureaucracy often operates against her interests rather than for them.

We cannot see the Rilya case as support for the sense amongst the cradle-to-grave crowd that children are the state's responsibility and parents can be allowed to raise them only as long as the state thinks they are doing an ok job. The child services monolith needs to be cut back and set on its logical path as a protection for children truly at risk, and that trimming of bureaucracy will allow closer supervision of children like Rilya, rather than the diffuse approach taken now where, truly, little is done well.

And, in the meantime, the question still remains: Where is Rilya? She can't be allowed to become just a symbol. It's likely she's dead, by now, but possibly not. I hope as much effort is being expended to find her as is being expended to point fingers and find new ways to add to the bureaucracy of child services.

SPEAKING OF MY NIECE, the Saturday Ramble is up. And if you can figure out why I have that section of the photo code visible, let me know how to fix it.

I hope you're having a great weekend.

UPDATE: Several people identified what I had done wrong, and sure enough when I followed through on their advice the problem was fixed. Thanks so much. I knew that when I laid my ignorance out there for correction, I'd not be ignorant for long. And that's a good thing - eventually I'll actually know what I'm doing (at least with html).

I NEED HELP: My teenage niece fell victim to a liberal sociology teacher this past semester, and has been saying things like, "My teacher said that people who own guns are 40% more likely to shoot themselves than someone who breaks into their home", and such. She's decided that hunting is cruel, and people who hunt for sport are just not nice people (that would include her grandfather, dad and brother). Without my cj books in hand and little time to search the Internet, I'm coming up dry for statistics to show a more accurate picture of the issue of gun ownership - why a) it's important to have the right to own guns and b) why hunting is not cruel. I can explain it, but I need the numbers because she's in the grips of teenage "I don't believe adults who I've known since I was spitting up formula" dismissiveness. What I want to do is basically develop a little cheat sheet of pertinent stats, and I figure you all are the ones to ask for help in getting over my brain hiccup. I'll put whatever I get into a compilation post and put it on the "writings" site, for handy reference by anyone. You can post in comments or send email.

It's either that or sign her up for a re-education class. (Or, possibly, introducing her to a really cute firearms instructor.)

UPDATE: I've gotten a lot of good information about this issue, which I will compile and post on writings. Some I've sent along to my niece. And I think I'll investigate firing ranges near her college - lessons would be a great Christmas present, don't you think?

OK, SO MAYBE THE POLITICS ARE ROUGHER: Reader Dave Menke sent me the link to this comment on the WYMT-TV website. WYMT operates out of Hazard, KY, (in Perry County, for those who looked at the Kentucky map, linked below). If you're really interested, the videos of the ads are available at WYMT's website.

The race for property valuation administrator in Floyd County is getting extremely personal. The candidates are lodging allegations against the others' character. In her ad, Connie Hancock alleges her opponent Glenn David May has been arrested or charged many times for various offenses. She claims he was arrested for assault, and claims he tried to bite another person's ear off.

In his counter ad, May denies ever being charged for DUI, and purports to have an X-rated tape of his opponent, a portion of which appears in his commercial.

Today, Connie Hancock fires back with a radio ad featuring her and her husband denying that she is the person in the video. Though May's campaign consultant acknowledges his spot makes eastern Kentucky politics look like the Jerry Springer show, May is sticking by his commercial and campaign tactics.

Voters in Floyd County are shocked by the personal nature of the commercials, but are afraid things could get worse before the Tuesday primary.

The ads are airing on WYMT. Federal regulations prevent television stations from editing or stopping any ad that is paid for by a candidate and meets FCC rules. Only ads from political parties and special interest groups can be pulled from air if they prove inaccurate.

You can just feel the pain on the part of WYMT that they can't edit or refuse the ads.

GOOD JOB: Jonah Goldberg mentioned one of my favorite places on the Web, JunkYardBlog, in his Washington Times article on blogging Friday. Excellent! "The Blogger", as he is now pseudonymously known, is a gentleman and a scholar, with good thoughts and the ability to articulate them. I recommend you spend some time over at his place.

IMMIGRATION AND ASSIMILATION: Is our culture the only one in the world that doesn't get respect? Scutum Sobieski takes a look, and points out implications of the current attitude in the PC power elite.

LIKE I SAID: This FoxNews article says that Wednesday was the highest alert day since 9/11, especially in the NYC area. I mentioned that below - I was at Liberty State Park that day. It's also Fleet Week, as the article mentions. What I don't say below, because I didn't learn it until afterward, is that the helicopters in the photograph are flying a lost wing formation, in honor of the Jersey City police officer killed in the line of duty last year. The photo captures them in front of the WTC center site which, to me, makes the tribute even more poignant.

JOHN McCAIN: TRUE, KIND, FAIR. The NY Times review of Elizabeth Drew 's book about John McCain gushes about the qualifications of Drew, and approving of her book, for the most part. But one comment was especially interesting:

Although she notes, with understatement, that Mr. McCain is known for his scratchy temper, the reader rarely sees him losing his cool or being anything but true, kind and fair.

Ha. No bias there.

THE LINE IN NEWARK INTERN'L was pretty bad - took me over an hour and a half to get through security. They didn't confiscate my crochet needle (is that a good thing? or bad thing?), but a bomb-sniffing dog checked out the line about an hour before I got to the actual security checkpoint and I saw them going through someone's luggage as I went out the other side. They did random luggage checks in Detroit for the people getting on the connecting flight. The flights were fine, but I got to Newark at 4 and didn't get to Lexington until 10, so it was tiring.

Today will be busy, running around to my niece's music class, going to lunch with my parents, then to my sister's for the night. Posting will happen, but since my brother and sister both have dial-up accounts, I don't think I'll have the patience to post a lot (these slow load rates after having DSL at home and LAN at work is making me nuts). Also, for some bizarre reason, my family seems to think I should visit with them instead of spending time online. Go figure.

OFF TO THE COUNTRY: I'm heading back to Kentucky for a few days, and I'm scrambling this afternoon to get a few things done before going to Newark Intern'l. Posting will continue, but likely sporadically, during the weekend. Now that I am photo-post expert, look for photographs of my adventures.

SHOOTING FROM THE HIP: Laura Ingraham takes down Mary McGrory's latest column about gun nuts and Ashcroft. Excellent read, via DailyPundit. One thing I found interesting:

One highly-acclaimed antigun scholar, Michael Bellesiles, has already seen his book Arming America (Random House) debunked as fraudulent. When other scholars questioned his data on gun ownership in early America, he claimed his supporting documentation was lost in a flood.

This shows, to me, that the discussion about Bellesiles is really over; all that's left now is whatever formal procedure Emory decides to take in response to his pathetic "scholarship". He has moved his way completely out of the realm of reasonable doubt and firmly into the "liar" column. I keep feeling little twinges of sympathy, because he's fallen so far, so completely. But he was the one who sought fame and ideological furtherence at the cost of truth and academic rigor. And any academic - liberal or conservative - who does the same should be similarly debunked. I'm glad he was caught, and I'm very pleased that it was such a public discussion for two reasons: It warns other academics not to fudge or fake data; and it alerts the public in general that it's not only possible to do, but actually being done.

When you're dealing with guns, speak the truth, or you'll be shot down.

EASTERN KENTUCKY SAGA: There’s truth, and there’s context, which gives bare truth a different look. A primary election is impending in the Kentucky county where I grew up; last weekend, four people who are involved in some way in the election were shot at, none injured. The shootings were covered in the largest daily in the area, the Lexington Herald-Leader, and one of the reporters is a former colleague of mine. I know he knows the area, because he’s from that part of the state. Yet the article has the feel of a bunch of escapees from Deliverance:

The investigator, Billy Rowland Phillips, was one of four Clay County residents involved in the clerk's race, including White, who say they were shot at between late Sunday night and early Monday morning.

Clay County Sheriff Edd Jordan, who is investigating the attack on White on a rural road in the county's southeastern corner, has said it was "politically motivated."

…claims and counterclaims about Sunday night's shooting are flying in this tiny county.

…Juanita Laughran, a clerk at the Family Drug Center in Manchester, said a lot of customers have been talking about the incidents. They're all taking the hoopla in stride, she said.

"People come in and say that's the way politics are," she said, "there's liable to be a killing."

Three of my grandparents and both my parents grew up in Clay County, and so did I. My childhood was typical middle-class America, with two school teacher parents, Partridge Family on the tube when we could get the antenna to pick up that channel out of Knoxville, and Chef Boy r Dee pizza on hectic evenings. We lived on a family farm, my grandparents just down the road, and a lot of our summer meals came literally straight from the garden. I rode my bicycle up and down the road, went to basketball games at the high school and traveled all over the eastern United States on family vacations. We did country things, ate country foods, but that's no different from the family traditions passed down in families all over the United States. How normal is that?

But there was a difference, compared to what others tell me of their childhoods. A cousin of my dad’s was murdered when I was young, and two other relatives were involved in killings themselves. A friend of my sister’s lost her parents and pregnant sister in law to a sniper shooting through the windows of their home; some years after I left home, two murdered drug dealers were found in the trunk of an abandoned car a mile from my parents’ home. When I was in college, I wrote an article on feuds in the county in the early to mid 1900s; my professor wanted me to submit it for publication, but my parents asked me not to for fear that emotions still ran too high in the families of those involved.

Does that make where I come from so very different? I don’t know. I could be blind to it. Sometimes I think it is, sometimes I think every place has its skeletons, its histories, its Amy Fischers and Columbines, its drug killing on the corner or family dispute that ends in death. My brother pointed out one comment from the article:

“…this tiny county.”

Clay County is in the top third in square miles amongst the 120 Kentucky counties, larger than both Fayette and Jefferson counties, the biggest population centers. It does have only 23,000 or so people, but then many counties have fewer. The county seat is fewer than 2,000 in population, but again, many are smaller. Yes, that's fewer people than worked in the WTC, but then, that's NYC, not Kentucky. So in what way is the county “tiny”, given the context? The reporters know all this. I think the “tiny” was an effort to create the impression of small, as in “small minds”; small, as in “hick town”; small, as in “you can’t expect better of these people”.

There is a lot of poverty where I grew up, and a lot of people who could do better if they just tried. There’s a lot of illiteracy, and certainly poor grammar and strong country accents. I don’t see a major quantifiable difference between that and the same conditions in, say, Brooklyn, or Detroit, or LA, or Anywhere, USA. Then again, there are studies that say the South is more violent, more illiterate, more closed.

I think, if I get beyond my defensiveness, that where I grew up is probably more rough-edged than most of suburban America, and maybe one of the reasons we hear about those rough country folk is because all classes and races are mixed in together – when only a few people live in a place, you’re bound to know the families for generations back, regardless of their social status, and usually you’re kin somewhere. That means whenever something like this shooting happens, it’s not a group of people saying “I didn’t see anything”, but rather people saying, “I know folks on both sides, and it’s a shame.” The people speaking are often working or middle class, so they connect with the majority of news viewers. And I think there is a Deliverance factor - this kind of activity supports the preconceptions many have of rural Appalachia, and it's easier to evoke the stereotype than contextualize the actuality.

So, in a country where the rough parts of town are separated from the middle class, and where having lived in a place 10 years qualifies as an old timer, a place like my home county stands out.

I think, ultimately, what I object to most is that stereotype swallowing up the good in a mocking caricature. And I just hate it that someone from eastern Kentucky is the one doing the mocking.

NOTE: For anyone who’s interested, here is a map of Kentucky showing population levels by county. Clay County (lower right) is where I grew up, just northwest of the C; I’ve also lived in Pulaski, Fayette, Oldham, Jefferson, Warren and McLean counties, and lived just across the line from Calloway County, in Tennessee.

NOT THAT I’M PROUD, but that photo below is the very first photo posted on this blog. It’s been community effort, even though one of the community gave yet was unaware of his contribution (doesn't that sound chilling). The Dodd put the photo on the Net for me and sent a great wad of code that didn't quite fit Blogger but contained most of the necessary info, Martin Devon and Henry Hanks each sent me additional code, and I tried to put it all together… with little success. It was user error, definitely. Finally I went looking for a photo on another blog where I could snatch source code, and Jim Treacher unknowingly contributed this valuable part of my raw materials. Studying all this code together, I finally figured out my error and the result is as you see below! Thanks all around, I could not have done it by myself (and that’s not just a throwaway line – it’s the unvarnished truth.)

And if you're wondering... the final holdup was that I was using the html version of the URL for the img src section of the code, when I need to use the jpg version. When I figured that out, I went to Properties on the page with the photo, copied that version of the URL, and pasted it into the img src section. Voila! You can even click on the photo and it will take you to the source page, if you should wish to put the photo on your own site (of course properly attributed to me), and spread my fame as a photographer far and wide.

THE SOUNDS AND SIGHTS OF SECURITY: The skies were blue, the clouds puffy, the speakers long-winded and the military choppers loud. Dozens of police officers turned out for an awards ceremony at Liberty State Park, a sea of blue beside the Hudson. Both officers and civilians received awards for their work on 9/11 and after, and across the river Battery Park stood sentinel over the hole that was once the World Trade Center.

It's Fleet Week in NYC, so the day was punctuated by the constant buzzing of helicopters - military, NYPD, and EMS. A three-masted Coast Guard ship sailed gracefully by, and toward the end of the afternoon a small aircraft carrier with a helicopter lashed on top eased past the park. The Fuji blimp floated serenely above it all, and a fire boat spraying arcs of water just in front of Battery Park looked like a huge white spider resting on the river.

It was beautiful, and inspiring, and reminded me all over again that the WTC is gone, and we're at war. The Lincoln Tunnel closed a while today, and they were searching all cars endeavoring to cross into Manhattan from the Brooklyn Bridge. The Statue of Liberty stood with its gold flame against the blue sky, and more ships eased slowly into the bay. What a wonderful country. What a terrifying situation.






These two military helicopters, flying past Battery Park, would have been silhouetted against the WTC this time last year. Photo taken yesterday from Liberty State Park.

WORKING TO IMPROVE YOUR BLOGGING EXPERIENCE: I've spent the last little while setting up some free space I have online to be able to dump photos there, for posting here. Also, I'm in the process of moving the whole shebang over to another server, off Blogger, which will likely occur weekend after this coming. I'll be going Moveable Type, and the Wonderful and Amazing Dodd of Ipse Dixit is making it happen.

Now, if I can just figure out this ftp stuff....

IF YOU WERE HERE EARLIER TODAY, you may notice that while there were no posts actually up for today until almost 3 p.m., the two posts below this are time-stamped 7:30 a.m. and 11:13 a.m. That's because I posted, but Blogger said, "No space available" on that server. I was not happy. That is also part of the reason why there aren't more posts. I just did get back from the ceremony mentioned below, and I will have more to say about it (and a photo) in a little bit.

BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION: There's a terrorist threat here, folks, right here in the NYC metro area. They're inspecting all vehicles going into Manhattan (or so the radio says), which means they're slowing my commute. The Fuji Blimp is patroling the skies (don't I feel safe) and they're also keeping an eye on the Statue of Liberty just in case anyone gets ideas about taking down that monument. Given the tendency of suicidal Muslim extremists to choose either busy markets (Israel) or major monuments with lots of people around (WTC), I'm thinking that a large group of people congregating in, say, Liberty State Park overlooking the Statue, in, say, Jersey City where the 1993 WTC bombers lived and the 9/11 killers had connections, would be a prime target.

So guess where I'm going.

Yep.

To participate in a large gathering of police officers at Liberty State Park (I'm not police, just there on sufferance).

Of course, if I was really worried, I'd stay home. I'm not. But I'm a bit hinky, and trying to use humor to diffuse that slightly sick sense of wondering if I'm sitting in the open mouth of a lion.

Naturally, to follow up today's adventure, I'm going to fly out of - you guessed it - Newark International Airport tomorrow night for a long weekend in God's Country, aka Kentucky.

Let's all hope that I don't wind up in God's real Country, aka heaven.

(update: at least not, as Quana notes in comments, ahead of schedule!)

DID THEY OR DIDN'T THEY? I mentioned earlier that two Israelis were told to leave a NYC restaurant when the owner learned they were Israeli. The owner has since denied it, and one of the Israelis has reaffirmed her story. I don't know quite what to think; my instinct is to say that it would be a rather bizarre thing to make up. If you're interested, I suggest you check out the latest information:

Renatinha of Balagan blog has the letter from the restaurant owner denying the incident.

Israeli Guy still thinks it's true, and has comments from the journalist who wrote about it originally, and an email from one of the Israeli students, to support his belief.

Dawson has the same information but less surety.

REASON ENOUGH: Damian Penny watched the video of Dan*el Pe*rl's death. He tells us what he thinks. I agree with him. The excerpt in my earlier post said it best:

Real progress requires that we address root causes, which means putting bullets through the right foreheads

There are righteous deaths and there are unrighteous deaths. Sometimes we are called to bring righteous death to avenge unrighteous death, and this is one of those times.

I'm not a violent person; in fact, if you ask my friends to describe me, "sweet" will be one of the top characteristics. And I believe that meekness and gentleness are traits we should all strive for. But Jesus was sweet, and meek, and gentle, and beyond our ken righteous, yet he drove wicked people out of the temple. Sometimes you have to be aggressive and even ruthless in excising a cancer of hate that, if allowed to spread, will destroy everything.

This kind of viciousness, the kind of hate that could do what was done to Dan*el Pe*rl, cannot be convinced or persuaded or forced out of a person. It has metastasized. And to get rid of it, you kill it.

The sooner, the better.

A PLAINT TOO FAR: Dodd at Ipse Dixit uses the movie A Bridge To Far to illustrate how the intelligence about 9/11 didn't come together in time.

A NEW BLOGWORD AND A PLUG FOR ANOTHER: I received a very nice thank you from Tom Maguire, The MinuteMan, for linking him below. It's always a pleasure to hear from people I link, mainly because that means they came over to see my site and are writing because they liked it. In his email, Tom said he had received a lot of hits from the link (always a good thing to hear), which he doubted was quite on the level of an Instapundit link but nothing to sneeze at. He said,

I can't call it an "instalanche", since I've never had one. Let's say its a "biaslide".

So there you go! Two new blogwords, one coined by Mr. Maguire himself:

Instalanche: The "overwhelm everything in its path" mass of traffic lesser mortals receive when the Blogfather points in your direction. Often overwhelming to first-timers, but addictive. Soon a rating system in the blogosphere (tm Bill Quick) will develop around it. Originally put out there by Jim Treacher, who now posts comments about how it isn't catching on. (And who's site I can't link to because it's in flux.)

Biaslide: The "barely over the banks" wash of traffic that heads in the direction of those linked by moi.

Different sites will have their own link-flood terms as the rating system develops. Conversation at the cybercoffeeshop: "Hey! New here? I'm BigBlogDude, I'm rated at an average 6 Instalanches a month. Her? Oh, that's HotChickBlog. Yeah, she's a 3-a-month Instalancher. HarveyBlog, well, he got a couple of Biaslides recently, and scored a WelchGullyWasher last week, but no Instalanche yet. RitaBlog, she's collecting a bunch - she's had a LayneSlam, a couple of SpleenvilleSplashes and just yesterday a VolokhVaunting. She's an up and comer."

It's just a matter of time.

UPDATE: Hey, I just got linked by DailyPundit - it's a QuickRush!

A VICTORY FOR WEBCASTING:

On February 20, 2002, the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel ("CARP") delivered its report recommending rates and terms for the statutory license for eligible nonsubscription services to perform sound recordings publicly by means of digital audio transmissions ("webcasting") under 17 U.S.C. §114 and to make ephemeral recordings of sound recordings for use of sound recordings under the statutory license set forth in 17 U.S.C. §112. (Read details on proceeding.)

On May 21, 2002, the Librarian of Congress, based upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, issued an Order rejecting the Panel’s determination proposing rates and terms for these licenses. In such cases, the law provides that the Librarian shall issue his final determination within 30 days of his decision to reject the Panel’s proposed rates and terms. The final determination is due on June 20, 2002.

Heads up via ScottAndrew.com.

UPDATE: Zem has a more knowledgeable perspective, there in the Comments:

It's not a victory for net radio yet. Note that it's not clear why the recommendation was rejected, or even that the new rates (due June 20) will be lower. There's some useful info in these comments at Politech, and this Reuters article (excerpts here in case the original expires).

GO RABBIT HUNTING.

OUCH! The Minute Man does NOT like the new Star Wars movie, but he's very funny in the process. He even has predictions for the next movie's main themes.

ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE RESPONSE: Moira Breen points us to an article by David Warren that ends:

In the rather shocking words of a British Afghan expert, a man I believe to be deeply humane: "Real progress requires that we address root causes, which means putting bullets through the right foreheads."

WINE AND WHOOPIE: Schamp also gives me the opportunity (not him personally, you understand, but by reason of an interesting link about the topic) to say, "Who are these men, and why are they universally feared by sheep?"

Do you think any of them said, "I only have eyes for ewe?"

(okay, okay, I'll stop.)

HE'S INSIDE MY HEAD: Craig Schamp says all those things I wish I'd said about pilots with guns.

Summary: Lock Fritz Hollings in the cockpit of an abandoned plane and give guns to the pilots of real moving ones.

HOW VERY FRIGHTENING: Nicholas Kristof is now embracing Christian evangelicals:

America's evangelicals have become the newest internationalists…

the new internationalists are saving lives in some of the most forgotten parts of the world…

…we should welcome this new constituency for foreign affairs in Middle America. Just look at AIDS funding: With bleeding-heart evangelicals like Mr. Graham pressing hard, Congressional Republicans are suddenly scrambling to allocate hundreds of millions of dollars in additional money to fight AIDS in Africa. Even Jesse Helms is joining in, and that's pretty much proof of divine intervention.

Interesting viewpoint, but notable mostly because Kristof is excited that Christian groups are bringing their money to projects that he considers valuable. And he’s not much interested in Christians spreading their faith:

(…I have my doubts about the Middle East peace plan proffered by the Rev. Franklin Graham, Billy's son: Muslims and Jews alike should try "surrendering their lives to the Lord Jesus Christ and having their hearts changed by the Holy Spirit.”)

but he’s fully on board with their money:

Evangelicals are among the most generous donors, for many tithe (evangelical cheapskates donate their 10 percent of incomes after tax). The 15 biggest Christian charities monitored by Ministrywatch .com collect more than $3 billion a year. Even small evangelical funds are booming; World Relief, with 9,000 employees, says its $40 million budget has doubled in four years.

while his arrogance toward and mocking of conservative religious people is intact:

The old religious right led by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, trying to battle Satan with school prayers and right-to-life amendments, is on the ropes…

Evangelicals are usually regarded by snooty, college-educated bicoastal elitists (not that any read this newspaper) as dangerous Neanderthals…A simple-minded moralistic streak often leads them toward sanctions that would hurt precisely the people they aim to help, in Sudan, Myanmar, North Korea and China.

Kristof treats evangelicals as some bizarre throwback cultural phenomenon that’s suddenly discovered a leftist agenda. It’s a quirky article (wherein he says “[e]vangelicals have their quirks), which doesn’t at all address the faith that underlies the actions behind the work these groups are doing. It’s all about taking advantage of their money. He admits to a lessening of his cynicism when he sees a Christian group staying behind to help in dangerous parts of the Philippines when other aid groups pull out, and he likes all that cash (they tithe! Wow!) but that’s about the extent of his admiration, and he can’t resist taking potshots along the way.

I find Mr. Kristof condescending and annoying, but then, maybe that’s just the simple-minded moralistic old religious right Neanderthal in me coming out.

TOFU BASKETBALLS? Well, not quite, but PETA's at it again and Tony Woodlief's pretty ticked about it. While I don't quite get the sports end of the fury, I do find PETA nauseating and the spinelessness of the NCAA distressing. I've been meaning to blog this anyway - my brother sent me the link last week with the words (and I quote): "Blog this crap!" So now I am, and as soon as I save this post I'm going to get some meat for breakfast. And maybe I'll have that steak for lunch.

You will understand, I'm sure, the total depth of my disgust for PETA when I tell you that my dad is a hunter, I grew up eating all sorts of wild game, and I've not to this day seen "Bambi" since my dad when we were growing up wouldn't let us see that "anti-hunter propaganda" movie. What's more, I love meat. And leather. And all those other lovely byproducts of the meat industry.

I say we all chip in and send PETA's corporate offices a leather armchair for its employees to watch the next NCAA basketball season in, and a year's membership for mail order meat.

THE BEAUTIFUL NEW INSTAPUNDIT! Glenn Reynolds has moved his site off Blogger, and it's been redesigned in Moveable Type. Feels kind of 1920s artsy; when I saw it first I thought, "He had Lileks do the redesign?" But no, he's succumbed to the siren call of Vodkapundit's webmistress, as has, apparently, Jim Treacher. It'll take some getting used to, but I like the new Instapundit. Nice graphic too.

While the VP webmistress hasn't come knocking on my door, I've had an offer to move into new cyberdigs complete with an MT makeover, and I'm considering. We shall see. I'm such an html inept that I'm not sure how that would work. It would, however, be cool to have more design input and options. We might even see about a "cut on the bias" graphic...

Oh the dreams, the plans, the wondrous joys of contemplation. Meanwhile, life calls in the form of a grant writing consultation before work this morning (in my Alter Ego as a Grant Writing Consultant) so posting will commence when that is over. I must say, I forget what excellent writers bloggers are, since everyone is it kind of moves to the background, but when I am faced with writing by the typical American I become frightened for our country. But never fear, my trusty red ink pen is busily wreaking its usual havoc.

A GREAT MIND, for media, that is. Media Minded has a couple of great reads.

First, check out his riff on headlines, starting with reference to a post on bias in headlines, but skidding pretty quickly into a funny nostalgia stream on headline jargon.

Second, MM encourages us to spend a little time with the Arcata Eye, famous for hilarious police blotter coverage, and its Anti-Eye, people with their panties in a wad and no sense for web design. They should be cited in the Eye's blotter for offensive use of typeface and web-designing while under the influence of fuchsia.

DOESN’T PLAY WELL WITH OTHERS: The Social Security Agency is handing out over a 100,000 social security numbers a year to non-citizens with no right to them, and many are being used to commit fraud. The SSA has been unconcerned:

For more than three years, Mr. Huse has recommended that the Social Security agency check the records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service before issuing Social Security numbers to noncitizens.

Before Sept. 11, the Social Security agency disagreed with this recommendation and did nothing to carry it out, fearing it would lead to unacceptable delays in issuing Social Security numbers to legitimate applicants.

Of course, as with everything else, 9/11 changed things:

The Social Security agency has since embraced the recommendation…

Well, not everything:

…but has had little success in getting the necessary help from the immigration agency, Mr. Huse said in an interview. The immigration agency issues many of the documents that immigrants use to show they are eligible for Social Security cards…

There might be hope:

Mr. Huse said the two agencies were still working out an arrangement to give Social Security officials access to electronic immigration files on noncitizens.

But the two agencies apparently are getting righteous at each other, never a good sign:

Social Security is also waiting for the immigration agency to incorporate data on certain immigrants authorized to work in the United States.

Bill Strassberger, a spokesman for the immigration agency, said: "We are trying to work more closely with the Social Security Administration to reduce the use of fraudulent documents. It's one of our top priorities."

Ahhh… the old “we’re waiting on them to get their act together” while the other agency says it’s “a top priority” (i.e. in our own good time or when hell freezes over, whichever is slower, most likely the former). It looks like agency pouting, where each is blaming the other and neither is making a solid effort to fix the problem. And it’s not as if they don’t know the true seriousness:

…"The tragedies of Sept. 11 demonstrate that the misuse of Social Security numbers and identity theft are `breeder' offenses with the ability to facilitate crimes beyond our imagination," Mr. Huse said in his report.

We have to cut off access to documentation that gives criminals, especially terrorists, the legitimacy to operate in the open setting up bank accounts and such. This kind of “I can’t do MY job because they won’t do theirs!” whining is ridiculous. Someone (Bush?) needs to say, “You will play together. Here is your common goal. This will happen or there will be trouble. Soon.”

Of course I know the problem is bureaucracy and the federal civil service monolith. But the Congress and the President, together, should be able to make any two federal agencies play nice together. If the federal agencies balk and play the civil service stub-up instead, then the President can change who’s in charge. If that doesn’t work, Congress can change civil service to make workers truly accountable. If Congress won’t, then we change Congress. Folks, this isn’t making a car in Detroit or sewing a sleeve on a dress in Iowa. This is whether a terrorist gets legal documentation to set up an bank account so he can kill Americans on his own timetable, at his leisure, in whatever manner he chooses.

The current coverage of the 1990s intelligence goofs that allowed Al Qaeda to launch the 9/11 attacks is evidence of what happens when federal agencies don’t play well together. “We the People” means ultimately it’s up to us to fix it. I’m of the opinion that it doesn’t matter right now, this minute, “who knew what when”. The time for that finger-pointing is gone because all it does is detract from the “who’s going to fix it now”. The only possible way that it matters is as an indicator of what needs fixing. I’ve seen several calls for a non-partisan “Challenger” like investigation. I say, fine, but only if it doesn’t have 200 people involved and doesn’t take two years to do, as often happens with such groups.

Stop looking backward – look forward. Fix it. Make Social Security and INS play nice. Make the federal law enforcement agencies play nice. And if they don’t, kick butt, take names, send people home and get people in there who DO play nice. I’m sick of this. We’re all sick of this.

We're dying while the government fiddles around.

HARLEY HEARSE: You gotta see it to believe it.

UPDATE: Link updated courtesy of Michael Levy. (Thanks!)

AND YOU THOUGHT YOUR DRIVE WAS BAD: Stefan Sharkansky chronicles his baby son's first trip to Lake Tahoe; the ride home through snow is an exercise in futility and humor. At least, I thought it was funny. I don't think Stefan was amused, at the time. Long, but worth it.

DANIEL PEARL'S BODY CONFIRMED FOUND.

Thanks to DailyPundit for the link.

LAW, RELIGION AND MEDIA: Friday night the season finale of Law & Order SVU used as its main story line the current abusive Catholic priest imbroglio. In the episode, several young boys are abused while in Catholic school, and years later one of them commits a murder that leads to the revelation of the abuse. As the story unfolds, we follow a priest at first accused of the abuse, then later revealed to have been the one to whom the real abuser confessed his sin. Near the end, a Catholic police officer forces a decision on the priest: break the confessional seal in the hopes of preventing future abuse, or preserving his Catholic vows and in so doing protecting a child molester. We see the priest in tears, then we see him in a garden with the actual molester - a bishop in full robes. The officer accuses the bishop, who in essence admits his guilt by turning to the priest with his own accusation. He says (paraphrased), “You broke your seal. Do you know you could lose your soul?”

The priest replies, “I think I just saved it.”

I was very taken aback (although not surprised) at this conclusion. It reflects the mentality of the writers and producers, and typically the secular world as a whole: When religion and the secular view of human safety/health/happiness conflict, the human side always wins. While on the face of it, this makes sense, it spells danger for religionists and is something we need to address.

Yesterday a Vatican City appeals court judge, Jesuit priest Gianfranco Ghirlanda, released an opinion which states, in partial summary, that a bishop reassigning a priest accused of abuse does not have to inform the new parish of the priest’s abusive history; that if additional abuse occurs, the assigning bishop bears neither moral nor legal responsibility for that; and that even requiring the abusive priest to undergo psychological evaluation is violating his right to privacy. That sounds pretty bad from a secular standpoint, and seems to support the “righteousness” of the Law & Order priest’s decision.

In a vastly different situation, but also one involving an application of religious law in a way Westerners – and some Muslims – strongly denounce, a woman in Pakistan has been convicted of adultery and sentenced to death by stoning after admitting that she was raped by her brother-in-law. According to her, she was raped repeatedly over time until she became pregnant, which, since her husband was in prison, was proof of illicit sexual activity. Her accusation against her brother-in-law was taken as a confession of her guilt; he, on the other hand, was not even charged because four Muslim men of good standing (and all those conditions must inhere) must witness a rape for a Muslim man to be charged. The force behind it is Sharia, the Muslim religious and civil law, and the part dealing specifically with extramarital sex, Hudood. Efforts are underway to moderate or set aside Hudood, by progressives in the region.

Why juxtapose these two obviously unrelated situations? Because I don’t think they are unrelated, philosophically, and a misunderstanding of the connection between the two is where the danger for religionists lies.

Internationally, laws range from those based fully on religious teaching – Sharia, or its cousins – to the fully secular. The United States has something of a mixture; while its laws are not specifically tied to a particular church, many of its approaches are based on the Judeo-Christian tradition and the common law that evolved in societies with that tradition. As we move along the continuum from religious-as-civil mix to purely secular, the teachings of particular groups are increasingly removed from the codified law. The edicts of the religions in those more secular countries are not erased from society, but rather the adherents obey both religious and civil laws.

The problem comes when the two laws come into conflict. In our society, we have a tendency to allow religious beliefs to trump secular law when the impact could be seen as not detrimental to society as a whole – for instance, allowing exemptions to the military draft to those who conscientiously object for religious (and other) reasons, or not forcing an adult of good mind to get medical attention if he or she feels it is against his or her beliefs. However, our society has already decided that there are instances where social good trumps religious beliefs – as in the case of a child refused medical care by parents who believe medical treatment is religiously condemned. Courts have taken children away from parents in those situations, and ordered treatment. But other than cases where immediate harm is not just possible but likely, US society as a whole leaves churches alone in their religious practices. It’s one of our foundational Constitutional rights.

But the fight for the law of our country has become more starkly an issue of religion in the past few years, where those with what are termed “fundamentalist” beliefs pilloried when they even seek office (for example, John Ashcroft). And even before 9/11, the term “Taliban” began to be used to describe any conservatives who referred to their religious beliefs in discussing law or its enforcement. (I use conservative because I’ve yet to see Jimmy Carter or Joe Lieberman referred to as “Taliban”.) And what is the law the Taliban sought to impose? Sharia. While it is at present mostly hyperbole, the connection between Islamic Sharia and Christianity has been made and as with all demonizations (see “racist” and “homophobic” as applied to anyone who objects to affirmative action measures) it is likely to gain more purchase when it shows itself to have political impact.

But what does this have to do with the current Catholic church crisis?

Think back to the Law & Order example. I’ve read several posts discussing the priest’s seal, and why it is reasonable that they cannot be made to break it. The Law & Order writers/producers just expressed their view that righteousness in this case is to break a vow of silence made to God. Next, take a look at the articles about Ghirlanda’s edict – the headlines themselves are inflammatory. That’s the stark interpretation of the secular media, and it is universally condemning, implicitly if not explicitly. But, when viewed through the lens of someone with close knowledge of Catholic history and law – a journalist for the Catholic News Service – Ghirlanda’s analysis makes pretty good sense, within the confines of the Catholic canon, and provides much more protection for the faithful than a reading of the secular media would suggest.

On the face of it – as presented by the secular media – the edicts from the Vatican in the form of this article by Ghirlanda seem to go against US law and certainly cross the line between acceptable and unacceptable religious deviation from law as it has been practically applied in the US. In essence, the media portray this as saying the church is protecting its priests and its reputation first, and the children can lump it because church canon trumps secular law in any instance where the two collide. That’s not really the truth of Ghirlanda’s article, but in my experience few journalists writing on religious issues have a sense for the religious nuance that is revealed in the Catholic News article. I think it is only the vastness of the Catholic reach and the concern for offense to powerful people that has prevented the media so far from comparing it to Sharia. If a split becomes more evident between conservative and progressive elements in the US Catholic church, then I anticipate that comparison will soon follow for those who take a more conservative stance.

I struggle to separate my own religious viewpoint from this analysis of the broader impact of the Catholic church’s response to their crisis. I’m not Catholic, and I have major theological differences with Catholic teachings. But, while I disagree with the theology, I can and do support the Catholic church’s legal right to practice their faith as they see fit. The need I see now is for another dialogue in this society about the lines we draw around the practice of faith, and an acknowledgement from the Catholic church that the way it handles this crisis can damage every faith practiced in the US if it does address just its internal sensibilities and not the broader legal implications of its decisions.

The Catholic church is the largest centrally controlled religion in the word, to my knowledge – other faiths may have more adherents, but they are not bound so tightly to a central governing body as the Catholic church is to the Vatican. (In fact, concern about ties to the Vatican were a feature in JFK’s presidential race, couched in a manner similar to the coverage of John Ashcroft during his confirmation and after.) Thus, the Catholic church has the unenviable task of making decisions that meet the needs of its adherents in a free country such as the United States while not creating problems in other countries with different contexts. In addition, there is a desire to stay with the tradition of the church, to adhere closely to the canon when addressing problems, which is what the article by Ghirlanda is meant to do. In the response so far, there is a tone that says, we were here before you, we speak for God, this is the way it has to be. There is a certain immutability about it, almost a disdain for the rule of law in the United States as it relates to the canon of the church.

But it seems to me that this “holding to the canon” is not all that is going on in the highest levels of decision-making for the church. There are also political realities within the church hierarchy itself, as well as financial considerations (one part of Ghirlanda’s article seems to address the concern of false claims against the church, a valid issue, but in protecting against false claims there appears to be shorter shrift than necessary given to the possibility of genuine claims). The church has vast holdings, which could be jeopardized by widespread revelation of genuine sexual abuse. The same revelations would also diminish donations and threaten the intense bond between the faithful and the leadership. So the church’s approach to this cannot be seen as wholly without earthly considerations. The question is, where do the spiritual concerns end and the earthly concerns take precedence?

This is an important question, because what the Catholic church does will either strengthen or weaken the freedom of religion in the United States. I don’t think it will remain the same, regardless of the church’s decision. If the church chooses to take a hard line that is generally perceived (among the non-Catholics, and likely amongst some Catholics as well) as a move that leaves children at risk for the purpose of preserving the Catholic hierarchy and holdings, there will be a backlash, a further splitting between the religious and the non-religious, a hardening of intolerance already gaining greater voice. If, conversely, the Catholic church not only institutes measures to actively root out abusers within its priestly ranks but also conducts a public relations campaign saying “There was wrong, we’re fixing it, and this is what it looks like” that is understandable to those for whom religion is a foreign language, then it will strengthen the understanding that because religions will police themselves as moral entities, it is not necessary for the government to intervene to protect the populace from the religionists.

I see the impact of a hard-line Catholic response being a shift toward imposing secular law in instances where it conflicts with religious beliefs. For example, the congregation where I attend does not have women ministers as a matter of doctrine. That, of course, violates anti-discrimination laws, but since it is a question of religious practice the laws do not apply. I can foresee a time when a woman wanting to preach at a church like mine sues the leaders of the congregation for not giving her equal consideration, and is allowed civil judgment against it. Likewise, tax exempt status could be threatened for such activities that violate secular law.

The freedom of religion in this country is at a crossroad; our foot is already turned toward the more secular path. The Catholic church will choose whether we go more quickly and decisively in that direction. The wrong choice will damage not only the Catholic faith, but all others, eventually. The ones sitting in judgment on whether the choice is the right one are the same people who see everything right with a priest breaking his vow to God. If the Catholic church wants to preserve that vow, then it must police itself convincingly, in a way that puts righteousness and protection of innocence first - not money, or image, or organizational politics. And it must not allow any comparisons to the abusive nature of Sharia to be in any way valid, as would be the case if it sets up its canon as civil as well as religious law by not affording children the protections US law provides, and resisting the efforts of the US government to step in to provide them. It is always wrong to allow abuse to hide behind the name of God, whether it is Catholicism or Islam that does it.

This country stands to lose a part of its soul. The Catholic church can help save it - or lose it.

WHAT WORD WAS THAT? The NY Times leads with this on their latest "What did Bush know?" article:

The White House began an aggressive attack on Democrats in Congress today as President Bush tried to contain the political fury over a warning he received last August that Osama bin Laden might be planning a hijacking.

Notice the "fury". Now, I am sure there are people who are upset, and naturally this needs to be reviewed. And I do think the Bushies are being needlessly defensive in a situation where the bald truth is the best defense.

But the word you want, Ms. Lizzy and Ms. Alison, is "furor". This is a "furor". Not a fury. May I loan you my Webster's?

The political, however, is spot on.

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTERS BIASED? Tony Woodlief thinks so, and gives a funny and insightful analysis of how it happens in this report on an environmentalist panel he attended.

IT'S A SLOW SATURDAY, and there's not much news I want to blog. I have some thoughts about the Catholic church situation, about media bias, and a variety of other things, but those are mostly "thinking pieces", not links. I'm going to get around to at least one of those today, but not for a while. I've got life stuff to take care of. I hope you're having a great Saturday. Mine is just excellent, thank you.

BERTELSMANN BUYS NAPSTER after all, and Fanning is back in the mix.

REMEMBER THE IOWA STATE JOURNALISM SCHOOL MESS? Well, the demoted administrators have been remoted, at least for now.

DON'T TALK TO STRANGERS, especially in unfamiliar comfort stations.

GIVING ADVICE LIBERALLY, Josh Marshall actually makes a suggestion to the White House about the pre-9/11 warnings that I agree with:

The best thing -- really the only thing -- for the White House or the President to do now is to come out and say ...

"Look, in hindsight, there are connections maybe we should have made. Communications should have been better between various intelligence and law enforcement agencies. But hindsight is 20/20 and these things were not as clear then as they are now. Our people did the best they knew how. But I'm the Commander-in-Chief. And I'm responsible. The buck stops here. Let's move ahead now and make whatever improvements we can..."

Yep. Looks like the best thing to me. And then follow up by really making those improvements.

THE MINNEBOMBER ISN'T CRAZY, just a product of modern education, according to Thomas Sowell. He sounds like a grumpy old man here, but makes good points nonetheless.

Link via Cornfield Commentary.

IT'S RAINING IN TEXAS, and since the truck was unloaded before the first drop, it's time for a nap...

BELLESILES LIED? We have original reporting, my friends, posted right here on the Blogosphere – Michael Tinkler at Cranky Professor:

I got my Ph.D. from Emory from the Graduate Institute of Liberal Arts. My actual course work, dissertation committee, and friendship tied me very closely to the History Department - my adviser was department head for some time…

In the emails to Professor Lindgren, which Professor Bellesiles disputes he sent - and I hope Emory has checked the server - Professor Bellesiles makes two claims that I find hard to credit. (1) He says that he had no assistants and (2) he says that he did this book before he discovered "the joys of statistical analysis on computers."

… My friend was Bellesiles' graduate assistant in 1988.

I emailed her late last month to ask about this - and to point out that he claimed to have done it all alone. She agreed that she had been counting guns. Her instructions were to count anything that might be a misspelled gun as a gun, which she feels this tends to prove that Professor Bellesiles was not intentionally understating the count. She then entered this data on a Lotus spreadsheet.

Crash go two of his claims - no help, and all his work was on yellow legal pads…

Tinkler’s friend contacted Emory to discuss her experiences in light of Bellesiles’s claims, and came to the conclusion that likely the data she compiled was used in an earlier book. But as Tinkler says, data in academia tend to be cumulative (i.e. data she compiled could have served as the foundation for a data set added to for Arming America), and once you’ve used spreadsheets you’re unlikely to go back to yellow legal pads. And, incidentally, EVERY college professor in a graduate program has access to one or more assistants. It’s just the way things are.

Tinkler’s post is excellent, and apparently the first of a series. I can’t wait for the rest.

UPDATE: The Weekly Standard has an update on Bellesiles too - it appears he cited another set of records that only he has seen, and no one else now has. Huh. I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation.

CITIZENS FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE UN: A new weblog, touted already by LGF and USS Clueless but of course I'm late to the party as usual. Worth a look, if you've not been there already. They're certainly fighting an uphill battle.

BAD IN EUROPE, NOT ALWAYS BAD IN CA: Howard Fienberg reports that things are bad in Europe for Jews, but Privateer finds that not all California university rallies are threatening to Jews - even when the speaker is a nutcase.

UPDATE: While you're at Fienberg's Kesher Talk site, check out this letter to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, taking the newpaper to task for printing a "news analysis" which originally appeared in the Egyptian government-censored Cairo Times, without noting its origin. A gentlemanly but pointed takedown.

ISRAELIS BANNED BY NYC RESTAURANT? Israeli Guy Gil Shterzer reports that the Israeli paper Ma'ariv carries an article today stating that two Israelis living in NYC were told to leave the French bistro Alouete, located 2588 Broadway near 98 street, because they were Israeli:

...the owner of the restaurant came out from the kitchen and with a heavy French accent told the two: " I'm sorry, Israelis will not eat in my restaurant".

The owner denied it to a reporter from Ma'ariv. Interesting that the owner had "a heavy French accent".

This kind of thing can't be allowed to stand, if it's true.

SCARY THOUGHT: A friend of mine drank an unusually large amount of leaded (i.e. caffeinated) beverages this morning, and is suffering from fast-forward syndrome as a result. Her comment to me about it?

I know now what it's like to be inside your head every day.

I don't, by the way, drink caffeine very often. Now you know why. Have you heard the term "coals to Newcastle"?

ARABS AND MUSLIMS ARE COWARDS. Hey, I didn't say it:

Beware of your inner cowardice

We behave as though we do not know the people on whom God’s wrath has descended and those who are not on the right path. Some of us, seemingly, believe that the divine wrath will not visit those who seek shelter in the White House…

Why should we listen to President George W. Bush’s demand to call the Palestinian martyrs terrorists?

…Arabs and Muslims, beware of your inner cowardice.

Words cannot describe my pain, frustration and shame at the sight of Palestinian fighters being led into exile…The sight of a crying young mother with her baby on her bosom was extremely upsetting. Upon spotting her husband among the prisoners, she shrieked and fell to earth. But I was delighted when I found her saying confidently that she would wait for her husband’s return and in the meantime, bring up their baby as a true Palestinian patriot. He might grow up to be another martyr for the cause.

Let Israel and its supporters be warned that suppression, violence and humiliation will never stifle the Palestinians’ love for their country which Israel and its supporters call terrorism.

On the contrary, Israel’s inhuman treatment will only breed generation after generation of avengers upon the murderers of their relatives and usurpers of their homes. One martyr is followed by a thousand. The reward for martyrdom is worth sacrificing all the transient pleasures of a lifetime.

And there you have it. Arabs and Muslims are cowards for not defending Palestinian "martyrs", which martyrdom is known amongst savvy Muslims as "love for their country". This in the newspaper overseen by the Saudi Arabian government.

What was that about how the Saudis are our friends?

TALEBAN REVISIONISM: From the Arab News:

Mullah Omar warns US of war

...When the killing of the oppressed people increased in number we decided to withdraw from the land and start the phase of guerrilla war in the mountains so that the lives of people and the poor Mujahedeen may be spared...

Ahhhh.... it was a tactical decision for the Taleban warriors to move into mountains to fight - not a result of being routed.

Coming soon: Tactical decision to move out of Afghanistan altogether.

UPDATE: And here's the Fox News article on Omar's ranting.

IS THIS RACIST? Remember the two Iowa State University journalism school administrators who stepped down after accusations of racism? Here’s what supposedly caused the problem:

[Provost Rollin] Richmond said he learned through conversations with the junior professors who recently resigned -- Linus Abraham, Osei Appiah and Spiro K. Kiousis -- that a senior faculty member said that younger minority professors are better paid then senior white professors. Abraham and Appiah are black.

Doesn’t seem racist to me. Why does this come up? Here is another snippet:

Richmond said the racial comments may have contributed to the resignations of the three professors but were not the only reason. He said the problem appears to stem from a generational difference among faculty members and conflicting opinions over the department's focus…

"There is racial tension, but the racial tension was the result of a philosophical tension between the young faculty members and the senior faculty members, and because minority faculty members were involved this then evolved into racial tension," [Peter] Rabideau [now in charge of the resolution] said. "I don't think it was ever the primary issue."

Very interesting. Two administrators are accused of racism, it’s blared all over everywhere, when what actually happened? It sounds to me more like a disagreement over philosophy where someone (I wonder who) played the race card for leverage. It's just a shame that two probably decent people have had their careers seriously damaged over likely inaccurate but broadly disseminated accusations. I'm not surprised, either, that there apparently was a disparity in salary; in the race to get minority faculty in a field with limited numbers of candidates, money plays a major role. The resultant disparity can easily cause resentment, as well as a tendency for those more highly paid to feel they have greater power than those paid less regardless of the other person's credentials or seniority. It almost ensures clashes in an environment already rife with egos and competing philosophies. In an academic environment, there are no "bosses" in the traditional sense, other than the dean; everyone is encouraged to establish themselves as an expert, and you don't succeed without the ability to espouse your viewpoint aggressively. Departmental decisions are made in a very democratic (which is to say, political) way, with discussions, consensus building and, at times, factional infighting that can result in one side taking its toys and going to play elsewhere. When race and money are used to gain political advantage in the department, it gets even more volatile in a hurry.

That seems to be what happened here; you can read the article and judge for yourself.

WHEN IT'S NOT JUST A BAD HAIR DAY, but a whole bad head day, face and all. Side benefit - you may get arrested if you go into a store. Not recommended if you have Saudi Headcovering Syndrome (SHS). Link via Seeking The Road Less Traveled.

YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO...WHAT?? J Bowen's adventures as a geek boy trying to figure out just what girls did look like, and what went where, and how, and all that stuff, is the subject of a sweet and funny essay on his site, with a bit of nostalgia for the days when it wasn't in your face everywhere you turned.

UPDATE: AC Douglas reflects on how Palestinian spokeswoman Diana Buttu manages to get her message across virtually unchallenged. (This becomes a danger once those geek boys get it all figured out.)

THINK SFSU IS UNUSUAL? Think again.

THE BALD TRUTH: Desert Pundit discovers what's really going on under Saudi men's traditional headcoverings.

Do you think the US products and services embargo includes Hair Club for Men? They might want to reconsider...

MEDIA MINDED HAS A SLAM DUNK in this piece about a race-baiting Minnesota columnist who claims that Minnebomber Luke Helder is getting some type of "pass" because he's white.

INSTAPROF DOES THE DEED: There's been a lot of concern in the blogosphere about the riot at SFSU, and whether the word would get out about it given the low-key response by the media. Glenn Reynolds has an excellent column on the subject on FoxNews, complete with links to Meryl and Joe's weblogs. This is one of the most important passages:

People shouldn’t be punished for demonstrating, or for counter-demonstrating, regardless of their views. Had the riot at SFSU targeted black, or gay, or Muslim students, there would have been a media explosion, and campus administrators around the country would be holding meetings and taking steps to prevent such events at their schools. But violence, threats of violence, theft and vandalism should be punished. No matter who the guilty party is.

There's three important ideas there. The first is that demonstrating is free speech, regardless of the viewpoint expressed - therefore, both the Jewish group and supporters, and the Palestinian group and supporters, had a right to be there. The second is that criminal behavior or the threat of it isn't less criminal because it comes in the context of otherwise free-speech demonstrations, and it should be punished - no matter who does it. On Fox News's O'Reilly on Tuesday night, SFSU students on both sides of the issue, both of whom were at the demonstration, spoke about it. I didn't hear the whole program (O'Reilly is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me), but I did hear the Palestinian student say that they were called "sand niggers" and death threats were made to them too. My instinct is to say, "yeah, right", but that isn't important. There is a video of the event. Authorities should review it and visit the consequences on anyone, regardless of the "side", who degenerated into threats. I'm all for self-defense if you're attacked, but terroristic threatening is a crime.

Finally, Glenn points out that there are cherished groups and there are unpopular groups on campuses, and threats or attacks on one are treated differently than threats or attacks on the other. Just who those "groups" are shifts with the times; currently, the "cherished" groups include (Glenn's list) gays, blacks and Muslims. The "unpopular" groups include Jews, conservatives and Christians. Conservative religious people (Christian or Jew) are doubly unpopular. But that is now, and tomorrow that could change. What is important is to establish that certain behaviors are always wrong, and will always be punished. I don't think the liberals realize that. One of the big reasons you protect basic freedoms, even when you might not use a particular freedom, is that tomorrow it may be your ox being gored. That is why, for instance, while I don't smoke and I get headaches when someone smokes near me, I would be first in line to vote against any measure to outlaw smoking in all public places. It's a personal choice, it should remain a personal choice. (Although I do ask that they be considerate.) Why do I care? Because tomorrow someone may try to censure my chocolate because it's not healthy for me. They're already trying, in fact. A simplistic example, but deliberately so, to show the concern free of the rabid emotions that attend discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

So SFSU presents us with two issues: Protection of the basic right to express yourself, to move about your world, free of abuse and threats, and amelioration of the hatred toward Jews as a religion/race because of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (or, at least for now, associated with that conflict). The latter is a cause for concern, and needs to be addressed, but the immediate concern is the abridgment of basic rights. We can't stop hate easily or quickly, but we can and should stop immediately this abusive and threatening behavior on campuses toward the Jewish people and their supporters. That is not a liberal-conservative issue. It's a human issue.

UPDATE: Here's an editorial about SFSU in the Washington Times, link via Instapundit.

SUBURBAN PRINCESS HITS A SNAG, and I can say I sympathize. But not to despair, Princess. With smarts like yours, you'll either a) learn it or b) make tons of money telling everyone about how it didn't work out, because all of us go through the same thing.

It is interesting, though, how much the emotions of a teenager resonate down the decades. Sometimes I think we're all still teenagers inside, somewhere, we've just learned better coping mechanisms, and hopefully improved our reasoning powers so we make better decisions.

But then that's not always true either, is it?

LIAR, LIAR: Tony Woodlief has a unique perspective on University of Michigan racial quotas, the subject of a recent supportive ruling.

And Tony, btw, is not the liar.

WEE NEED A TITLE IX FOR THIS.

Link courtesy of Curmudgeonry.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

Hey, my pacifism ends at my first row of beans.

(Scroll down to May 13 to find the context of the quote.)

FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS I have nothing to say today. Blogging will likely return tomorrow. Enjoy your day.

END YOUR DAY with a lovely squash blossom.

'SPLAIN ME SOMETIN’, LUCY, WA HAP’N’D? Tony Adragna thinks I’m picking on Jimmy Carter, and everyone else is too. He thinks it’s because Carter is in Cuba, and, of course, it is. But, in my case at least, it’s not about Carter in Cuba because Cuba is Cuba, but Carter in any country where he’s playing the role of statesman where he has no official standing.

Referring to my earlier post, Tony says:

Carter's "license" to travel to Cuba falls under the same guidelines by which journalists, academics, and organizations regularly travel to Cuba. That the trip was granted approval by the administration is no indication that the trip is anything less [or more] than what Mr. Carter asserts -- in fact, all travel to Cuba by persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction must be "licensed" by the U.S. government.

Yes, Tony, but those people don’t get the red-carpet treatment. The news media don’t say “THE FIRST US PREZ SINCE 1959 TO VISIT CUBA!” if, say, a Katie Couric touched down, or maybe even everyone’s favorite academic defender of the oppressed, Cornel West. And Couric or West aren’t going to get a security briefing which they can then spill to potential enemies. They don’t have the history or knowledge to humiliate the United States; we can mock them and shake our heads. They haven’t been presidents before, and they won’t command the attention of opinion leaders in the same way. They haven’t touched or held the power, and they can’t pretend to still have it, as a Carter can and, obviously, does. In my judgment Carter damages the ability of the United States to manage its foreign policy, and in his case I think he’s either too naïve or self-righteous to see it. He even annoyed Bill Clinton.

I don’t care if Carter oversees elections, or builds houses, or brings medicine. That’s great. I don’t have any interest in locking him up in Plains, other than he annoys me. But he needs to have his “statesman” pretensions exploded. Permanently.

As for why I didn’t take him down for previous trips, I can explain that too.

Lucy got a blog.

I was listening as I drove home to Steve Malzberg and Richard Bey, a radio talk show team on WABC 770 in NYC. Malzberg is conservative, Bey is mostly liberal but reserves the right to be all over the map depending on his mood. A caller who is British but living in the US called to say he didn’t understand political parties in the US and he didn’t know what he was – there are liberal Republicans, conservative Democrats, all other mixes. He said, how do I know what I am?

Bey said, look around, find some people who seem to be of good motive, who seem to have good ideas for making things better, and see what they are.

Malzberg said, “What do you believe?”

Bey emphasized people and feelings; Malzberg principle. I thought it a striking expression of liberalism and conservatism in a nutshell.

TO KILL OR NOT TO KILL: J Bowen at No Watermelons Allowed brings his usual thoughtful approach to the subject of euthanasia, specifically in the context of a televised case in England.

WHAT TO DO IN RESPONSE TO SFSU: Joe Katzman of Winds of Change has a thorough, reasoned post about how to respond, who and why. Excellent. But I'm still not quite sure what I can do. I'll think about what he's said, and see what my part can be. And he's right - it's not just about the Jewish community, although they are the point in that instance, and are shamefully the focus of this kind of thing all over the world. He says that it's also about campus conservatives, or any group that doesn't meet the universities' view of "protected group", where a "protected group" can actually attack another group with behaviors that if directed at the "protected group" would raise the ire of the university. If you're going to have protections, then apply them uniformly. If they won't, we have to make it happen.

SPOONS GETS IT, and says more with less than I've done for three days. Not that you're surprised. (Be nice.)

JONAH GOLDBERG IS AN ELITIST and proud of it.

THE SEWER OF JOURNALISM: That's what my professor called talk radio yesterday. I wanted to say, "Yeah, I've not been much impressed with NPR either."

Do you think my professor likes Rush?

At any rate, prof also had some serious problems with my core area proposal, so the revisions will be more complex than I originally thought. Starting Thursday, I'm on a research schedule, so blogging will have to fit around it. Maybe, if you're lucky, I'll blog about my research.

And I apologize for the virtual lack of serious takedowns and major bias alarms lately; I've been distracted by huge deadlines at work and the whole school thing. I'm also occasionally awash in a sense of futility - what can my horn-tooting do in this backwater of the Internet? I have amazing and bright readers, as those of you who leave messages and email (hint hint) attest. But when things like what happened at SFSU go on, and my own professor looks me in the face and tells me there's no media bias... ????? A few times when I've been in the "settings" section of my blog, I've thought about just hitting "delete this blog" and going to read a good book, or start cooking more again instead of eating so much cereal, or teaching another class because I miss teaching and could use the money...

But then, I realize the reason I started this blog - to say what I had to say to whomever would listen, as much for the way it makes me think through my own reactions and viewpoints as for spreading same - still stands. So you're stuck with me. And thank you for making this labor of ... well... sometimes love, sometimes screaming fury... an enrichment of my life and a source of pleasure and connection to some really amazing people - all of you.

THEY'RE JUST DEEP-LINK BULLIES: The Dallas Morning News is found out, via Ipse Dixit.

ANSWER TO THE SFSU SEMI-RIOT: Meryl Yourish has posted the text of a letter the SFSU president posted on campus following the Jewish peace rally there that ended as Palestinian students and supporters surrounded the Jewish students and their supporters with vicious verbal attacks and near riotous conditions; the peace rally supporters had to be escorted away by police. Meryl also has an email address for you to thank the president for (finally) addressing it, and also some ideas for a beginning of a response. Please join in.

CARTER KEEPS LOW PROFILE: Nice to see that Jimmy isn't getting involved in matters of state that have nothing to do with him:

Former President Jimmy Carter found himself in a debate on democracy with Cuban leader Fidel Castro, after he ignited an uproar at home by saying U.S. officials told him they had no evidence Cuba was involved in developing weapons of mass destruction.

Carter's statement, made Monday during a tour of Cuba's premier biotechnology lab, seemed to contradict assertions made last week by a top State Department official who said Cuba has conducted research on biological weapons and shared it with other countries.

And this is just offensive:

He [Carter] hinted that the State Department announcement was an attempt to undercut his visit.

Yes, Jimmy, honey, it's all about you. The Bush administration is setting up an elaborate scheme to discredit your (uh hmm) non-diplomatic visit. You are so powerful, after all, as an ex-prez 20 years gone, that the current President of the United States must needs resort to goofy back room measures to discredit you. Naturally it wouldn't have occurred to you to a) stay home or b) keep your mouth shut. I don't know what you heard, I don't know to what extent you're hallucinating or to what extent a State Department official briefing you may have misspoke, but I do know this: You are an arrogant and thus dangerous man, with no consideration for your country, no respect for confidentiality, no regard for anything but your own agenda.

Another point of interest - compare this excerpt from the Associated Press article on iWon:

Bush administration officials stood by Undersecretary of State John Bolton's earlier remarks that he believed Cuba had "provided dual-use biotechnology to other rogue states."

Secretary of State Colin Powell noted that it was not a new statement by the Bush administration.

To this excerpt from the NY Times:

His comments came as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cast some doubt on assertions last week by a senior State Department official that Cuba was making such weapons.

Huh?

CNN says this about Powell:

Cuban leader Fidel Castro has vehemently denied the biological weapons charge, which Secretary of State Colin Powell reiterated in an interview Sunday on Russian television.

"We know that Cuba has been doing some research with respect to biological offensive weapons possibly, and so we think that it is appropriate for us to point out this kind of activity," Powell said.

FoxNews says this:

Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday he does not know who briefed Carter. But he stood by Undersecretary of State John Bolton's statements last week that Cuba has the "capacity" to develop such arms.

The Boston Globe has no article on the flap. And the Washington Post says this:

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, asked about Carter's comments while traveling to Iceland to attend a NATO summit, said he stood by Bolton's comments and added that they were not the first such assertions made by the Bush administration.

I don't think CNN or the Washington Post have reason to misrepresent or downplay what Powell said. So whence comes the NY Times interpretation? I'll let you draw your own conclusion.

UPDATE: Damian Penny is much nicer to Carter than I am, but he still thinks Carter's latest pronouncement is stupid (ok, he says naive).

UPDATE: Bryan, that's more like it.

I've been threatening to do a takedown post on Carter as a "man of faith", which made my brother Alan (an evangelist himself) laugh at me. He said, "I think you are just in a malaise." I'll cogitate on it. I'm just offended at all Carter gets by with because he's such a "man of faith". I think it's wrong, and I think it's because he's a Democrat. Does Jerry Falwell (and I'm no fan of his really) get a pass because he's a "man of faith"? I'm thinking not.

UPDATE: And here's one more reason to admire the insight of Tony Woodlief.

UPDATE: And of course Bill Quick, the Daily Pundit, has something to say.

NORWEGIANS NON-GRATA? Sounds right to me.

WHEN I BEGAN READING THIS I thought Jonathan was talking about the situation at SFSU. But no, he's not. I'd kind of made the connection before, but when you read his piece after reading about the SFSU situation, all kinds of little neurons start connecting. I especially like the last paragraph.

Reading the two together also underscores why we need to take back our universities.

IF YOU LOVED BOOKS as a child, and have trouble getting rid of them as an adult, this will touch a chord. It did with me, as I sit surrounded by books that take up almost more room in my apartment than any other single thing.

READ IT AND WEEP.

OLD PRESIDENTS CLUB II: Just like I said before, Old Presidents need to have their traveling priviledges revoked unless specifically asked to go somewhere. And I'm not the only one who thinks so - it's nice to have validation from the likes of the National Review. I especially liked this article from USA Today, which confirmed what I thought - that Jimmy Carter is highly annoying (apparently he was to Clinton too), and that Clinton is using his presidency to eat well all over the world:

...they [Bush administration] are annoyed by former president Jimmy Carter's trip to Cuba, which began Sunday with a red-carpet reception. Bush officials see the visit, the first by a sitting or former U.S. president since the 1959 revolution, as a public-relations boon for Fidel Castro and a forum for Carter to espouse closer economic and diplomatic ties with Cuba -- views that conflict with administration policy.

Unlike officials who are appointed by and beholden to the current president, former presidents have no obligation to toe the administration line, of course. They often have their own political agendas and policy views. And they can command attention at home and abroad to have them heard.
All that is precisely why presidents are more likely to see their predecessors as mischief-makers than mediators. The fear: Former presidents will send mixed messages to foreign leaders, blunder into sensitive issues, take credit if something is achieved and perhaps even contribute to an impression that the current president can't manage things by himself.

…Since Clinton left office 16 months ago, he has visited 30 countries on six continents. He lunched last Wednesday in New York with former South African president Nelson Mandela; he leaves Saturday on a trip with stops in Japan, China, Singapore, Brunei and New Zealand.

…Clinton says he's careful to avoid criticizing Bush or complicating his job -- in part, aides say, because he remembers how irked he was as president when Carter injected himself into conflicts in North Korea and elsewhere. Since leaving office, Carter has won wide praise for monitoring elections, mediating disputes and addressing problems of poverty and human rights.

But he also has riled officials in the last administration and the current one. An op-ed column he wrote in The New York Times suggested Bush hadn't done enough to stem the violence in the Mideast.

Then there's Cuba.

Yes, then there's Cuba, and you know what I think about that.

Somebody put Carter in an Old Presidents' Home and throw away the key.

Links via The Weigh In.

THE POWER OF THE BLOG: This blog is now the first entry for anyone googling "susanna" and for anyone googling "cornett". If you google "susanna cornett", it's all over the place. But don't do it. I get "susanna cornett" google searches hitting my site pretty much daily, and it gives me a little bit of a weird feeling. Just who out there wants to know about me who doesn't already know about this site? Except, of course, for my friend Ben who refuses to either bookmark it or remember the web address, so each time he wants to read it he googles my name. But I know he's not reading it daily. So whence the googles?

At least it's better than getting hit for the google search "gym girl toes and bare feet photo page".

NO PALESTINIAN STATE? The Likud votes, Sharon is dissed, Netanyahu makes inroads. Damian Penny and Tal G in Israel comment.

IT'S NOT A DIPLOMATIC MISSION! IT'S A...WELL...DIPLOMATIC MISSION: I posted below about ex-prez Jimmy Carter and his jaunt to sunny Cuba, trading on his ex-prez status and mucking about when he should stay home. The article emphasized the trip as a "private" mission, and Tony Adragna defended Carter in the comments to my post. Carter arrived yesterday. Let's take a stroll through the NY Times coverage this weekend, and then you explain to me just how it's a non-diplomatic mission by a private, philanthropic citizen:

One:

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, on an historic visit to Cuba to try to patch up four decades of feuding with the United States, met on Sunday with the top echelons of the island's communist government.

Two:

Former President Jimmy Carter arrives in Cuba on Sunday as the most prominent American political figure to venture across the chasm between two nations separated by 90 miles and 43 years of Communist rule.

While no major policy breakthroughs are expected during his five-day visit, which is billed as a private one, many here hope that Mr. Carter's presence will advance their efforts for change.

Three:

"We are eager to personally see your achievements in education, health and culture," Mr. Carter said. "We also appreciate the opportunity to meet with President Castro, other members of the government and representatives of religious and other groups." Mr. Castro said Mr. Carter was free to meet with any dissidents he wished...

Bush administration officials said when they approved the visit that they hoped Mr. Carter would use the opportunity to promote human rights and democracy. A spokesman for Mr. Carter said at the time that administration officials had not tried to dissuade him nor had they asked him to carry specific messages

Those who favor more open relations with Cuba praised Mr. Carter's visit as an effort to start a new dialogue. The trip was denounced by others though, as a sop to Mr. Castro, whose country is facing economic problems and international criticism for its human rights record.

Four:

FORMER President Jimmy Carter is to board a Havana-bound jet today to continue a mission started a quarter-century ago ...

[Julia E. Sweig, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations] said, the insistence of the hard-liners within the Carter administration that Mr. Castro make a concession before continuing negotiations leaves her with a sense of "lost opportunity."

"Cuba will always provide a rationale for taking a hard line if we are going to look for one," she said. "But we were never as close as we were then."

...No one close to Mr. Carter wants to discuss what he hopes to accomplish with this five-day visit. Mr. Carter, who is going to Cuba at Mr. Castro's invitation, has said he opposes America's embargo. [Bernardo Benes, a prominent Miami banker who worked with Carter on his Cuban efforts during his presidency] said all anyone can do is hope that two elder statesmen can finally agree on some fundamental issues that may improve the quality of life for the people of Cuba.

But fortunately, Carter reassures us this is not a diplomatic visit:

Carter, the first former or sitting U.S. president to visit Cuba since Calvin Coolidge in 1928, has emphasized this is a private visit and that he will not be negotiating with the Cuban government.

I'm sure there's no connection to this:

President Bush is expected to spell out his own Cuba policy on May 20 in Miami at a ceremony celebrating the centennial of the founding of the Cuban republic.

I'm sure, really, it's a sunny vacation, a visit between old friends, and an opportunity for Carter to buy a few cigars. Just a quiet, private visit to check out the country.

Glad the media weren't notified. Gives the "private" label some credibility.

GIRLS WITH GUNS show men up. Really. There's proof.

NO MORAL EQUIVALENCE on Saudi television.

UPDATE: And a good catch by Desert Pundit.

What's that saying about giving someone enough rope?

CARTOON EQUIVALENCE: An interesting view of the Israeli/Palestinian situation, which Matt Haughey at A Whole Lotta Nothing says is the "the best critique of the Israel/Palestine conflict I've seen".

So, Matt, if this is a good analysis, then what is the best response? I would be curious to know how you would settle it. When neither side is more at fault, and both sides are equal agitators, you have to answer these questions:

1) Who has standing to end the conflict? Does it have to be an internal group or can it be an external group? (I'm assuming here that you don't really anticipate that Godman will crush both and save the world from having to make that decision.)
2) If it's external, how do you make that decision? How can you adjudge that a mediator/resolver is neutral? You can't assume an entity IS neutral just because the entity itself makes that claim (as in the case of, say, the UN). There needs to be clear criteria.
3) Once the decision is made, who gets to enforce it on the combatants? How aggressive/forceful can that entity be in ending it?
4) If no external entity has standing, then how does it end? Would it ultimately be, might makes right?
5) If it is might makes right, then isn't that what was already happening? Why would we hold back Israel?

I think it unlikely that most of those claiming moral equivalence actually believe it. But it would be useful to see what resolution they would propose from that perspective.

I'M CONFUSED. Why would gay college students agitate for mixed-gender housing? How is it heterosexist not to have it, and even if it is, why would they care? It seems to me that if you're gay, same-sex housing meets all your criteria. Puzzling...

Now if the frat boys were wanting to mix it up with the sorority floors, I might understand.

YOU MEAN THEY KILLED PEOPLE? The European countries who volunteered (yes, volunteered) to take the 13 terrorists exiled after leaving the Church of the Nativity are now reacting with shock and horror that these men actually killed people. Who knew?

Well, actually, Israel knew. Now they will too.

The EU didn't want Israel to grab that tiger by the tail, so Israel said, fine, if we let go they roam your lands.

How do you like your new mankillers, EU?

(Read LGF, Den Beste, DPM and InstaPundit for The Full Fisking.)

NO ONE'S LISTENING? Don't bomb mailboxes - blog.

ARE WE COPING TOO FAST? It seems Justin Weitz (link below) was prescient, at least about what the NY Times is thinking. This article looks at the role of media, most specifically television, in the country's recovery from 9/11, including discussions about how media should approach it. This was particularly interesting:

At a conference last fall of cable television executives, a psychiatrist, Bert Pepper, called on programmers to consider the effects of traumatic visual stimuli as they plan their schedules. "Do the programs help educate people about actual risks?" he said in an interview. "Or for the sake of marketing do they want to exaggerate the risk and increase the distress people continue to feel?"

Television overdramatizing to win market share? Of course not. Wouldn't happen.

The latest round of commemorative shows begins tonight with "Telling Nicholas" on HBO. I don't know that I could watch it; since I don't have HBO, I won't find out whether I would. But it's unsettling to think of the invasions in privacy and taste that we will likely see in the four months leading to the one year anniversary of 9/11.

IT'S ALL THE INTERNET'S FAULT: Thomas Friedman says Middle East Muslims are believing nasty things about America and the Israelis because of unfiltered Internet, and their own general stupidity about its unfettered nature and technology in general. It's an odd, worried, disconnected column, starting with an Indian journalist railing about Fox News, and ending with a fear that it's too late for one-on-one diplomacy.

Mr. Friedman... sir... it's not the Internet. People in the United States don't automatically believe everything on the Internet because we have a free press and a mix of ideas and access to all manner of viewpoints and sources of facts. If those people lived in a place with similar freedoms, and were taught to read and reason for themselves, I bet they'd be less likely to believe whatever came off The Internet. And people were hating and finding others to hate along with them long before telephones, even, or television, or Internet. Yeah, it's easier to form coalitions of hate, but also coalitions of truth. And the cure isn't diplomacy.

It's democracy.

MORE MONEY TO FIGHT AIDS: The Senate is getting behind the effort to tackle AIDS in Africa, and given the level of the problem there it's probably a good thing. I just worry though that the money will be diverted into the management of the organizations, the pockets of local officials and generally everywhere but into medicine for those who need it. And the spread of AIDS in Africa is not just about health conditions, but social conditions as well, and there is resistance to dealing with the social contexts that increase the likelihood of its spread. AIDS has never been treated the same as other contagious illnesses because of those same social contexts. None of us want children to suffer, or countries to teeter constantly on the edge of anarchy because of a preventable disease. But it doesn't help either situation to tie our own hands in addressing it for fear of offending people with agendas beyond tackling it in the most direct and effective ways possible.

ISRAEL BACKS DOWN? I'm not quite sure how to react to the postponement or maybe even abandonment of retaliation for the 15 dead from last week's suicide bomb attack. It's being hailed by the Arabs as a chance for diplomacy to work, and anything hailed by the Arabs is a frightening prospect. The article has this amusing note:

Israeli commentators said a Gaza sweep could have caused friction with Washington

I suspect the Israeli commentators here are NY Times reporters, editorial staff and cocktail buddies, with the possible addition of the increasingly disappointing Colin Powell.

However, one thing is true - Israel has stepped back from a righteous retaliation, in the name of diplomacy, so now we'll see the truth of the Palestinian and Arab claims of wanting peace.

IS 9/11 FADING? The American Kaiser's Justin Weitz looks at where America is in its stages of grief and recovery. I'm not sure I agree with him that the level that it's faded is a good thing, but I do agree that now is a lot different from then.

Just yesterday I was walking from my car to my apartment building, and saw a low-flying plane banking overhead. I'm in the flight path for Newark International, which is where two of the 9/11 planes came from. For just a moment, I considered whether that plane was so low that maybe, just maybe, it was headed toward a building. I think that almost instinctual fear will be with me for a very long time.

And I don't know that it's a bad thing.

THAT HATEFUL OLD ASHCROFT! Scutum Sobieski at Regurgablog dismantles a Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial whining about John Ashcroft, that mean old man trying to put guns in every pocket by finally recognizing that the Constitution means what it says.

SO WHAT SHOULD WOMEN PLAY? Quana X. Jones can't really think of a women's sport worth his time (ok, that's an extrapolation, but see if you agree), and he doesn't like basketball at all! His Eristic blog is cool, and his webblog oversight committee bovinishly compelling, but anyone who doesn't think men's college basketball, and especially the University of Kentucky Wildcats, is amazing and worthy of adulation... well... He's a Texan. Need I say more?

UPDATE: Yikes! While I was in the midst of posting the above, Quana was ripping a journalist a new one for defending the Saudis. He ripped so hard I think the journalist's entire immediate family and ancestors three generations back got a wakeup call. Not for those with delicate sensibilities:

Warning: I have been extremely frank in my comments on this article. Sometimes it is more than a matter of 'excusing my French'. I apologize to sensibilities in advance. I'm not going to change it. If certain four letter words and/or sexual comments offend you, please skip this jeremiad.

So if you're feeling brave, check it out.

UPDATE 2: Spoons busts the same piece. Great minds and all that. But can't have too much of that good thing, can you?

UPDATE 3: And the slams just keep coming. Solly Ezekiel at Gedankenpundit has another take on the piece, different enough from the other two to be worth your time.

WARNING: MASSACRE IMMINENT – Fifteen Israelis died this week, blown to bits by a Palestinian suicide bomber. Israel is going to retaliate. The Chicago Sun-Times does not talk about funerals of those who died, or the fears of the Israelis as the bombing starts again. No, it talks about this:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip--Residents here hoarded food and thronged bakeries Friday, while Palestinian gunmen patrolled streets and blocked camp entrances with mounds of rubble ahead of an anticipated Israeli military strike.

Be sure and get some of that canned milk, too, this may take a while and we don't want you to, you know, get hungry while you're waiting for a break to send more suicide bombers into Israel. Regular milk might spoil. We don't want your health to suffer.

After a passing reference to the Israeli deaths as context for the retaliation, we see this:

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, replying to a question about a possible incursion into Gaza, accused Israel of committing crimes against Palestinians. ''Our people are steadfast and will continue with all their power to defend our holy cities, Christian and Muslim places,'' he said at his West Bank headquarters.

We know what that means, Yassar - more suicide bombings.

And then the article goes into a long discussion of the standoff at the Church of the Nativity, which could, but doesn’t, say this:

73 Palestinian policemen and civilians were set free just in time to load their guns and strap on some dynamite for the next round.

Then the article reveals the continued delusion of the president:

President Bush said the end of the Bethlehem siege was a welcome sign and ''should advance the prospects for resuming a political peace process.''

We learn that even the Palestinians left before the obnoxious foreigners, four of them unfortunately Americans:

By midmorning, all Palestinians had left the church, but the standoff was not over. Ten foreigners, who had slipped into the church May 2 in a show of solidarity with the Palestinians, refused to come out--demanding a lawyer and insisting on holding a news conference.

Israeli riot police later entered the compound and removed them by force, with the approval of exasperated priests. The 10, including four Americans, were detained ahead of deportation.

I think the Americans should go straight from the airport into jail.

We then learn that Israel will limit it’s strikes to terrorist enclaves, that the head of Hamas is unconcerned (why should he be concerned? The world is either explicitly or implicitly on his side), and that Gaza actually used to be in Israel but the Israelis gave it up in an effort toward peace (huh, you mean the Israelis are serious about peace? Then...if THEY are... who isn'.....oh). And then, finally, we learn the sad and shocking news:

Gaza is one of the world's most densely populated areas, and many think that invading the strip on a scale similar to Israel's sweep through the West Bank last month in search of militants would result in high casualties among civilians and Israeli troops.

Apparently it is "a massacre waiting to happen", only this time the Israeli troops will not escape unscathed (um, they did last time?).

And who are the “many” who think that?

You can bet the four Americans who refused to leave the Church of the Nativity without holding a press conference are among the “many”, and so are the ones who predicted “the brutal Afghan winter”, and found a massacre in Jenin. I’m suspecting that, in the final analysis, we’ll learn that this “belief” was just as accurate as the other two. But that won't stop the predicting, or the spinning of the retaliation even before it's begun.

And Israeli somehow always comes out the bad guy.

THE OLD PRESIDENTS CLUB should have their speech and traveling priviledges revoked if they keep doing stunts like this. I used to have some sense of Jimmy Carter as ineffectual but fairly innocuous and at any rate humble. But I'm coming to see him more as a man arrogant in his self-righteous efforts to reshape the world as he sees fit, regardless of its impact on official US policy. As much as I did and do detest Bill Clinton, I would never have advocated George Bush 1 going to other countries on his own behest mucking about in foreign policy during the Clinton administration. It weakens the country's focus and makes us appear foolish in the eyes of a world already too prepared to criticize and mock. Carter has no official standing, and I personally think the White House should say so publically and explicitly. Then take away his passport.

SUCH TALENT: Dan at HappyFunPundit both deconstructs how juxtaposition makes lies seem like truths, and then astonishingly segues right into an original, evocative poem. All in the context of a post on Palestine.

How does he do it?

HOW TO RUIN A SATURDAY: My landlord informed me last night, fairly late (around 9) that this morning (around 9) the bug spray guy was going to come in, because someone in an apartment two floors below thinks he saw two roaches. I haven't seen any. So I have to pull everything out of the shelves in my kitchen, move it to another room, wait for them to spray, leave while it works, then wash all the dishes and put them back on the shelves. I really really find that whole process annoying.

It also means that until my kitchen is reassembled, posting will likely be low to non-existent. Sorry.

UPDATE: It was a good news/bad news thing. The good news was - I didn't have to dismantle my kitchen after all because they have this new process of putting bait in corners and under shelves, so nothing has to be moved or washed. The bad news is - I had already about halfway dismantled. Oh, well. Good exercise, right?

WHAT IS AN UNBORN CHILD if you can't say "unborn child" or "fetus"?

On Law&Order SVU tonight, they needed to get DNA after an abortion from the aborted fetus. So the police officer said:

"We need tissue from the products of conception."

I wonder how long they had to think to come up with that.

The power of words. Creating (or carefully avoiding creating) images. Think about it.

ARE WE FOOLS? A bus blows up in Jerusalem in 1995, killing, among others, an American citizen. The Palestinian suicide bomber is given a state funeral, with dancing and a 21-gun salute, when his body is returned by the Israelis in 2000. Meanwhile, the United States offers a reward for information leading to the conviction of those responsible.

David Tell, who’s article in The Weekly Standard details this, says:

Arafat must think we Americans are fools.

He then meticulously follows the path of money from the Saudis to the family of this same suicide bomber:

The Saudi royal family, according to its own internal records, has just recently paid a hefty cash prize for the murder of a U.S. citizen.

The Saudis, too, must think we Americans are fools.

David, they cannot just think it, they have confirmation through the impunity allotted their own actions.

Surely it would behoove our president to disabuse them of this notion?

Yes. So, surely it behooves us to let him know he must.

Soon.

UPDATE: Brian Sinclair at The Daily Babble has a different take on this.

THOSE WHO REMEMBER: The Angry Clam, on top of the Berkeley beat as usual, points out an op-ed in today's The Daily Cal by an avowed and known Holocaust revisionist (TAC says "denier"), which says the Jews use selective memory in laying claim to land that living memory would give to the Palestinians. He makes this good point:

I also wonder what the campus Jewish community is going to do in response to this. My guess is angry letters and lobbying... Let's not forget what people from the MSU and SJP [Students for Justice in Palestine] did when they were confronted with [a cartoon from Sept. 18 depicting two of the 9/11 terrorists in hell]. These people decided to lay siege to the Daily Californian offices and demand an apology. When that was not forthcoming, there was a large picket of the building and website hacking attempts. The Daily Cal remained unbowed, so the battle went to the ASUC senate where it was proposed that the rent for the paper's offices be hiked. The rent-hike proposal too was defeated. Finally, members of SJP...took it upon themselves to steal an entire press run of the paper. How much do you want to bet that Jewish students, who are right to be quite irked, do not resort to any of these actions?

Interesting how it is always the same story, just a different address, isn't it?

BIAS IN THE HARD SCIENCES? Say it ain't so! Bryan Preston at JunkYardBlog reports that it is.

I WOULD LINK TO RABBIT, but I have this and no one told me to.

IF YOU LIKE CROSSWORDS, here's one at Goliard blog on capitalism.

SCHOOL EXAMS DANGEROUS TO FAMILY MEMBERS: Accounting-blog called my attention to this 1990 study, which I think needs to be replicated with more recent data, and possibly made into a platform of the PTA.

RILYA ISN’T PRECIOUS DOE: I’ve posted before about the little five year old girl from Florida who went missing from her home in January 2001 and hasn’t been seen since. Tests were done to see if she was the little girl found beheaded in Kansas City last year; today we learn she wasn’t.

So where’s Rilya?

Florida's Department of Children & Families lost track of Rilya in January 2001. Geralyn Graham, who claims to be her grandmother, and Pamela Graham say Rilya was removed from their home by a woman who said she was a DCF worker and was never returned. DCF skipped required monthly visits and reported her missing April 25.

We don’t know if the person who took Rilya was a DCF worker, although we do know that the caseworker was horribly negligent in following Rilya’s case. We don’t know that Graham is really her grandmother. In fact, given the Grahams’ history, we don’t even really know that Rilya was taken by a DCF worker:

Geralyn Graham and her sister, Pamela Graham, both gave deceptive responses in a polygraph test administered earlier in the investigation, Miami-Dade County police spokesman Ed Munn said. Police would not disclose the questions, citing the ongoing criminal investigation.

"We can't take anybody at their word," said police director Carlos Alvarez.

Rilya was given as an infant to another family, with unfortunate results:

Rilya moved in with Graham after being removed from the home of Pamela Kendrick in April 2000. State officials had investigated allegations of abuse there in 1998 involving other children, but the inquiry was dropped, according to records…

"I was with her for the first three years of her life," Kendrick said in an interview Thursday with The Associated Press. "I made it possible that she could have a normal life, because I cared for her as my own."

“Caring for her as my own” is no comfort from someone accused of abuse. If, of course, the abuse really happened. We don’t know; we can’t quite trust DCF now, can we?

So just who did Rilya go to live with, when she was placed with the Grahams?

Court records in the Alamo case show that Geralyn Graham had at least 14 aliases, six driver's licenses and five Social Security numbers.

A psychologist concluded in another lawsuit that Geralyn Graham had suffered dementia, hallucinations and memory problems following the accident. Graham had sued Alamo Rent-A-Car in August 1996 for $2.5 million for injuries suffered when her sister ran over her with a rented van.

In an Aug. 12, 1997, video deposition in the Alamo lawsuit, Geralyn Graham said she does not remember her old jobs, being arrested in Tennessee for food stamp fraud or being married.

So, a 3-year-old child was given to a woman who forget she was married, who was arrested for food stamp fraud, who sued Alamo because her sister ran over her in Alamo’s van, who had a string of aliases, drivers’ licenses and Social Security numbers. This woman is now claiming that Rilya was essentially kidnapped, but she didn’t raise a stink about it for over a year.

If that was your child, wouldn’t you be sitting in the governor’s office about 10 minutes after getting the brush-off from DCF?

In the photos of Rilya, she is smiling so sweetly as only a little child can, and you just want to hug her. But you can’t. Because we don’t know where she is. Was she taken by DCF, placed elsewhere and the records lost? Was she taken by an imposter and kept, or killed? Was she taken at all? Is it possible that one of the Grahams hurt her, or someone associated with her did, and knowing the incompetence of her case worker they made up a story?

I don’t hold out much hope for Rilya; it’s been too long, and too many people in this world prey on children. But we need to dig and dig and dig until we know precisely what happened, because this will teach us what went wrong so we can fix it. Government can’t cover up its mistakes and make them go away. This is a child, not an “oops”. Maybe it was the juxtaposition of a lot of human error resulting in one huge tragedy. But we need to know.

For the sake of all the children who find themselves without champions, sucked into the family services government machines all over the nation, we must keep asking:

Where’s Rilya?

SADDAM REFERENDUM: Myria at It Can't Rain All The Time reveals the ballot options on the upcoming referendum on whether Saddam should stay in power.

GIVE THE ARABS WHAT THEY WANT: There is

…a growing sentiment that Arabs should distance themselves from the United States, and they want their governments to do likewise.

Excellent. Fine. Great. Pack your bags and go home, or pack our bags and send us out of your country. This is what it would do:

Purchases of American goods generated by 300 million Arabs form such a small part of American exports that even a widespread boycott would not cause much of a blip. Most trade consists of big ticket items like airplanes, with total American exports to the Middle East amounting to $20 billion in 2000, just 2.5 percent of America's total exports.

However, there are a few problems for the Arab countries:

…said Kholood Khatami, a 25-year-old Saudi journalist, “…I'm boycotting. Of course, there are some things you cannot avoid — technology and software is all American."

Khatami, be a man of conviction. Turn off that computer. Go back to your abacus. Don’t let the evil US mar your shores in any way.

Meanwhile, we should start drilling offshore, in Alaska, in Russia, in those old fields that are, amazingly, refilling. Let’s take our oil money out of the Middle East, and let the Arabs have what they want.

Just for the record, I’ve no interest in overwhelming the Arab culture with Western culture. And I also think that Americans of Arabian descent are just that - Americans. This is not about trashing Arabs as a people. But I think any nation that is actively working to harm the United States and its citizens should be withdrawn from physically and commercially. Period.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND: When speaking today of the terrorist bombing in Dagestan, Russia, that killed 34 people – 12 children – during a parade, Bush said the right thing:

President Bush said today … in a statement. "Terrorism and the killing of innocents can never be condoned or justified."

This is in direct contrast to what he said yesterday regarding Arafat, who is a terrorist:

Mr. Bush said that, despite reports in Israel, he had never indicated…[that] his administration was trying to move Mr. Arafat out of power.

"…my opinion is that Mr. Arafat has let the Palestinian people down. He hasn't led. And as a result, the Palestinians suffer and my heart breaks for the Palestinian moms and dads who wonder whether or not their children are going to be able to get a good education and whether or not there's going to be a job available for their children."

Or whether they will blow themselves up at the behest of Hamas or one of Arafat’s other terrorist organizations. “Let’s see… I could go to college… I could get a job… I could blow myself up. Looks like I’ll go with what’s behind Door Number 3, Monty!”

I still think GW is so much better than Algore that it’s not even a contest. But right now he’s no where near the leader I’d hoped for.

Maybe he should take lessons from the Dagestan leader:

The chairman of the Dagestan state council, Magomedali Magomedov, said the terrorists "must be destroyed as traitors who are not letting humanity live."

"It's very hard to call those who committed this act of vandalism people," he said. "They are subject to liquidation."

A TREE RISES IN SANTA CRUZ: Locals object to tree. Some online observers (well, one) think it may have responded to junk email with stunning success. Owner thinks everyone should get a grip (note what owner does for a living).

Children giggle.

Meanwhile, local psychologists report an increase in appearance anxiety amongst Santa Cruz men.

Arboreal bobbitization possible.

(Link via A Long View).

GOOD JOB, GUYS. But aim better next time.

THE LAST WORD ON MEDIA BIAS. Well, from Zonitics' Edward Boyd, anyway. He does an amazing job of researching, presenting and discussing the truth of left-right labeling in the media, originally reported by Nunberg in The American Prospect. Bravo, Edward.

Do we need to Google-bomb Nunberg so Zonitics' answer comes up high on any googling of Nunberg?

Link via Instapundit.

A VERY ODD THING I DO: When shopping for toilet paper, I'm always confused by the many choices: One ply, two ply, single roll, double roll, triple roll, four pak, six pack, 9 pak.

So I spend five minutes - and this is almost every shopping trip that includes TP - comparing cost per square foot, factoring in the one or two ply difference.

And wind up, usually, buying the two-ply Charmin six-pak.

Which saves me a dollar, maybe, over the other choices.

Then, of course, I go home and throw out the fresh basil I keep buying because I'm going to make homemade pesto again, someday, when I have time. Fresh basil, btw, is $2/bunch here.

I also hate math.

So what odd things do you do?

A ONE-DAY WEATHER FORECAST, according to my Snapple lid ("Real Fact" #65), "requires about 10 billion mathematical calculations".

Is that why it's usually wrong?

That margin of error thing, you know.

SMILE FOR THE MINNEBOMBER: You won't believe how the pipe bomber chose the locations.

Link via Ipse Dixit.

TRUTH BEYOND HORROR: Botox, hair implants, breast augmentation, artificial "beestung" lips, liposuction, on and on and on... I thought we were fashion obsessed, and placed too much emphasis on appearance in jobs, dating and just being friends. But this goes beyond vain and solidly into movie-style horror.

Link via Ye Old Blogge.

BYPASS ARAFAT: Adragna's Middle East solution.

SAUDI ARABIA AND CAT LITTER? USS Clueless finds the connection.

NEW (to me) BLOG SIGHTING: A C Douglas deconstructs the Arab/Israeli solution, takes down Jimmy Carter and in between has time to slice up attitudes about modern culture. Excellent reading, and I'm glad I found him. Check him out, if only for the cartoon of himself in the upper right corner. He's going on the blogroll.

THIS PAST WEEKEND, the 16-year-old son of a couple I know slightly in Kentucky was killed in a car accident. I had never met him, but his father is a preacher who lives what he preaches, and his mother was devoted to raising their four sons. I asked my brother, who went to the visitation, how they were doing. He said the mother said, “We’ll get through this”. Implicit in that, I knew, was, “With God’s help.”

I can’t say I know how they feel; I have no clue about the depths of sorrow losing a child must bring. But it has brought my wandering heart closer to home again, thinking about it. And then today I came across several excellent posts by friends and fellow travelers online, who are thinking about the world, faith, and the struggle we all have to put it together. I was especially moved by Tony Woodlief’s piece, where he said:

But [the words of a quoted Bible verse] don't promise that we will understand the purpose of a suffering in our lifetimes, or, should we discern the purpose, that we will judge it worthwhile. "All things work together for good." Notice that this does not tell us that every single thing by itself will produce good, nor that any resulting good will be manifest in the weeks or months following the affliction. The words instead describe a totality that many of us cannot see or understand, at least not here. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts..."

Tony is much more eloquent than I, and his words made me think about my own favorite passages, the ones that I say to myself when life seems hard, unfair, not what I planned, or too painful to bear; when the balances seem out of sync, and not likely to right themselves. This is the first, my always answer to “it’s not fair”:

Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going. I returned and saw under the sun that--
The race is not to the swift,
Nor the battle to the strong,
Nor bread to the wise,
Nor riches to men of understanding
Nor favor to men of skill;
But time and chance happen to them all.
--Ecclesiastes 9:10-11

The companion verse, for me, is:

No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.
--I Corinthians 10:13

I've written several closing paragraphs, but they all sound too preachy, or chirper, or annoyingly pious. So that's it. Food for thought on a rainy Thursday.

And my prayers are with Ben's family.

BEST PHOTO OF ARAFAT SO FAR.

GOODBYE, SGT. STRYKER. We'll miss you. I'm sorry you felt you needed to go. Best of luck always.

UPDATE: Wellll.... apparently the Sarge is gone but not his Wizard of Oz-like behind-the-curtain persona. For which we are all thankful.

OUTLAW CARS AND ALCOHOL: Bob Herbert uses statistics out of context and shows an odd conservative bent in his diatribe against John Ashcroft and the Justice Department's support of the Second Amendment in his NY Times column today.

First the stats. He informs us that 28,874 Americans were killed with guns in 1999. He doesn't explain the context, or break it down. How many were homicides? How many accidents? How many were actually homeowners protecting their homes, or the police protecting us all? If cold, hard numbers are sufficient reason, then let's outlaw cars: that same year, 41,471 people died in the US in car accidents, and it (not a gun) was the leading case of death for those between the ages of 6 to 27. Let's also outlaw alcohol: In 15,794 of those accidents, alcohol was involved. And while I don't have the statistics right here, I can assure you, based on my knowledge from criminal justice studies and teaching, that alcohol was involved in many of those gun deaths, and it's also involved in beating deaths, drowning deaths, on and on. Bare numbers are a starting place, not a stand-alone argument.

Now, that odd little conservatism. The term "conservative" doesn't mean "puritanical" or "gun rights" or "anti-abortion" or "no taxes". What it means is this: believing that there is value in institutions and approaches that have proven successful in the past, that we shouldn't change something just for the sake of change, that sometimes tradition is compelling in and of itself and needs very strong reasons to change. The other philosophies have become attached to "conservative" because they are views adhering to "traditional values" or "original source" (like, say, the Constitution).

Herbert says this little gem:

...when the Justice Department, in a pair of briefs filed with the court, rejected the long-held view of the court, the Justice Department itself and most legal scholars that the Second Amendment protects only the right of state-organized militias to own firearms. Under that interpretation, anchored by a Supreme Court ruling in 1939, Congress and local governmental authorities have great freedom to regulate the possession and use of firearms by individuals.

Herbert is sliding into a pure conservatism by arguing that, because the ruling stood for many years, it is ipso facto accurate. By this reasoning, Herbert is also saying that, for instance, the Dred Scott decision should have stood, rather than being overturned by the passage of the 13th (and 14th) Amendment. Or that Roe v. Wade should not have been allowed, since it went against the preponderance of court decisions, laws and public views for generations. I doubt seriously that Herbert believes Dred Scott should stand, or Roe v. Wade should be overturned. But you can't make the argument that the length of time one interpretation has stood is a sufficient reason not to change it, without accepting that it must then perforce be a sufficient reason in other contexts (i.e. Scott and R v W). Herbert is just thoughtlessly garnering arguments without considering their broader implications.

And speaking of thoughtless, just who are those "most legal scholars" he mentions? Must have been a skewed survey. I'd like to see his stats on that, too.

The rest of the column has about the same level of reasoning and reasonableness, so there's no need to waste time taking it down point by point. Herbert doesn't like guns. He'll use any means to advance his preference. He is an empty airbag. And DailyPundit thinks so too.

(The stats site I give is apparently a bit of an ambulance chaser site, but the numbers they give are similar to the CDC's numbers for 1996, so are credible. I just wanted to use the same year as Herbert used, and that was the best I could do quickly.)

ROCK ON, STEVE: I've been meaning to write about my rock collection for a while now, but with my rocky work schedule it just didn't mesh. I think today's the day.

It all started when I discovered this lovely quartz rock my mother had, and I wanted to see if I could find one. Over the years, I found fossil rocks, marble rocks, rock heads and, occasionally, pop rocks, but no really hard quartz rocks. And hard rock was what I wanted. I once even bought a rock record (Rock N Roll Heaven), but since it had curse words in it my mom broke it and threw it away (true story) so I was stuck singing Barry Manilow in the living room with the lights off (the better to imagine the crowds swaying). My skid through all kinds of rock proved fruitless - although, speaking of fruit, I did for a while collect stones. But they don't have quite the...cachet of real rock. I even went to a rock concert, only to discover that Shawn Cassidy was not true rock, just a red wiggling blur from the nosebleed seats, spouting bubblegum.

One Christmas, my mom tried to help by getting me a quartz watch. But that wasn't quite getting it either.

Finally, when I left a job several years ago, my favorite boss gifted me with...a quartz rock. I was ecstatic! Smooth bottom, lovely amethyst on top, it fit all my requirements. Since that time, the quartz rock has stayed with me, reminding me that when you keep searching, don't give up, someday your dreams will come true.

(If this makes absolutely no sense to you, you're not the only one, but HappyFunPundit can probably clue you in. BTW, Steve, I think my score just went up by 17. And this was not done to achieve a goal, no sir, it is a completely straightforward story of my heartwrenching lifelong search, thus innocent of any intent to introduce bias into your count. Nyah.)

THOUGHTS ON CRIME AND SENTENCING from a former New York State judge. The post is from February (I just came across it), and His Honor could use a little editing, but it's a good look inside the system. One excerpt:

...being soft on crime is not the same thing as using your discretion, in the right case.

He thinks mandatory sentences are more about the politicians and less about the criminals, and to a large degree I think he's right. At the same time, when the rehabilitative part of the system is so messed up, at least they're off the streets if they're in jail. A difficult balance.

WHEN A GUN'S TO YOUR HEAD, your character shows.

SOMEDAY, WE'LL ALL BE OLD. And, maybe, odd.

GOODBYE, X-FILES.

TOO GOOD TO CHOOSE: Media Minded has a raft of great posts today - I'm so glad he's back! So go on over and check it out, including an update on the journalism school where two administrators were forced to step down for "racist" attitudes.

(And btw, MM - thanks)

RADICAL CHEERLEADERS - hairy but happy.

(also at HappyFunPundit, the happy, fun site)

GOOD CATCH on the media bias, Steve, but...me and Quadrophenia?

FUNNY BECOMES NOT FUNNY: Michael Novak in NRO suggests an alternative for Catholics: The New (York Times) Catholic Church. Pretty funny, at least at first. However, to in any way equate what Cardinal Law is going through to what Christ went through is blasphemy. Cardinal Law might be villified beyond his deserts, but he is just a man, and he is also unquestionably complicit in the abuse of many children by dent of not preventing it. And the Catholic Church hierarchy is as well, for blinking at such horror for decades. Poke fun at the NYT, object to ugly characterizations of the Catholic Church when they aren't true, but don't equate man to Christ.

CIVIL WAR POST has been removed.

AN EXERCISE IN BIAS: InstaProf sends us today to Adam Curry's website to read the truth about Pim Fortuyn; it's an excellent overview, and you should read it too. I noticed toward the end that Curry began going off about something he calls The Big Lie, with digs about television coverage in general. For context, understand that Curry makes his living in media and that he for years was an MTV vj. Here's a section from near the end:

The Big Lie is all around us. It lives in the sense of security we have about our lives and surroundings.

Just as the US was shaken to the bone over the possibility of attcks on US soil. Now nuclear threats loom.

But the Big Lie also lives at the office and in schools. The news reports we're out of a recsssion, yet thousands lose their jobs.

The principal ensures your child is 'safe' in the hallways of school.

The business community found the Big Lie in the Anderson and Enron scandals.

The catholic church is in the middle of disaster recovery from The Big Lie.

Kinda scary, but your eye tends to skim through and, for most of you, likely it will be dismissed. Or so you think. However, it's made a connection in your head with some Big Conspiracy (because what else could it be, if all these disparate things are a part of it?) that includes the US government, your place of business, your children's schools, even the churches. You don't necessarily recognize it, but that's part of the charm.

This morning I was listening to the Art Bell radio talk show as I drove to work; a guest host and guest "expert" were discussing how the government knows that we are in grave biological and nuclear danger from terrorists, and even from the chemicals we excrete into what eventually becomes the water table, but we're not being told and we're not protected. When you disconnect your reasoning, it all sounds amazingly plausible. But if you know about Art Bell, you know his reputation for conspiracy theories, belief in aliens, and things of that nature. So you discount it. I think, however, that it still kind of sits in your mind waiting for another connection. Maybe other pieces from The Big Lie?

Curry identifies The Big Lie as the media:

We clamour to media as our security blanket. We want to feel safe and secure.

So how does this mechanism work? He links to the site of what appears to be a rather left-wing advocacy group seeking, in part, to disconnect people from their televisions. The specific article he links is The Zen TV Experiment. First, though, look at what he says in an earlier post about this experiment (which basically involves a conscious analysis of television techniques for creating story):

If you read me regularly you know how I feel about the trickery used in television. What is rewarded as 'art' is the equivalent of chewing gum for your brain. The metaphor really fits, if you think you're sitting in front of the tube and are relaxed, then you are sorely mistaken. Your brain is working quite hard on putting the images and sounds into some sort of logical flow.

When you see two actors talking at a kitchen table, plotting to do something and the next scene show the same two actors driving in a car, your brain fills in the missing pieces. TV makers have perfected this technique through 50 years of experience. They know exactly when to cut away from the first scene to the next, what music and 'tension curve' is needed to coax the viewer's brain into the task of filling in the blanks...

OK, I hear you thinking, who controls this evil machine Adam describes? How does one plan and execute the use of television for your own personal agenda?

Simple: Money

It's the rocket fuel of the industry. Money buys airtime. Airtime buys marketshare, marketshare buys mindshare. Once you own a share of someone's mind, you're in...

Soft money donations get people elected. Most of that money is spent on media, repetitive commercials and messages created by the same television professionals using the same tricks they play to sell you everything from zit-cream to life insurance...

I read the Zen article, and I find that it is actually an excellent deconstruction of how television creates story:

During usual viewing, however, our eyes do not see what is actually there because our narrative-trained mind overrides our eyes. We don't see with our eyes, we see with our programming, and we are programmed to see stories. TV programs are made so that we don't notice the "technical events," the details -- so that we don't pay attention. We are programmed to be unaware of the programming, the non-narrative structure and possibilities of that structure...

The problem is not that TV presents us with entertaining subject matter, but that TV presents all subject matter as entertaining. This transcends TV and spills over into our post-TV life experiences. TV trains us to orient toward and tune in to the entertainment quality of any experience, event, person. We look for that which is entertaining about any phenomenon rather than qualities of depth, social significance, spiritual resonance, beauty, etc. In this sense TV doesn't imitate life, but social life now aspires to imitate TV.

This has tremendous merit, and I was excited to read it - it partially quantifies a lot of what I've been thinking about media and policing, in terms of how media creates story with regards to policing, and then policing has to react to that. And I would recommend trying The Zen Experiment yourself, to help you see whether you're critically watching television, and if you understand how story is created. One of the most important statements is this:

In doing the TET, we notice the discrete segments of independent footage that are presented with a rapid-fire quality. As we watch, we, the "passive" viewers, apparently put together, synthesize and integrate the scenes: we link, we knit, we chain, we retain the past and anticipate the future. We methodically weave them all together into a coherent narrative. A high-speed filling-in-the-blanks and connecting-the-dots occurs.

This is a crucial point in understanding how media bias occurs; it's not that it is explicit, but rather that many times it is implicit in the structure, the word usage, the story selection, the photo selection - an admission made tangentially by the NY Times in this apology.

And that brings us back to Curry. He spends a lot of time and ink trashing television for its slight of hand, but he employs the same mechanism in his own writing. Look at the unsubstantiated inferences he makes about The Big Lie and who's involved. One of the difficulties in combating media bias is that the practitioners can rarely see their own practice of it.

I do agree with Curry and Adbusters that the point is not to turn off all media and all outside voices. The point is to be a conscious and logical consumer of information, using your own internal hermeneutic to arrive at The Big Truth through wide reading, an open mind and a refusal to "connect the dots" without support for doing so other than juxtaposition or isolation of detail.

INTOLERANCE IN ACADEME: Christina Hoff Sommers points out the overwhelming bias toward conservative professors in the nation’s universities, chilling to me as a doctoral student planning to teach on the university level. I am very conservative both politically and religiously, and that comes out clearly when I teach. I think this discrimination against conservatives isn’t just inappropriate, but actually damaging, as does Richard Redding, a professor of psychology at Villanova University, writing in a recent issue of American Psychologist:

Redding asks, rhetorically: "Do we want a professional world where our liberal world view prevents us from considering valuable strengths of conservative approaches to social problems ... where conservatives are reluctant to enter the profession and we tacitly discriminate against them if they do? That, in fact, is the academic world we now have...."

We are closing out a whole range of ideas, and that is always to the detriment of the whole – if the preponderance of professors were conservative in ideology, I would (as a conservative) be pushing for liberal representation. Sommers calls on John Stuart Mill to explain why that approach is necessary regardless of who has dominance:

The classical liberalism articulated by John Stuart Mill in his book "On Liberty" is no longer alive on campuses, having died of the very disease Mr. Mill warned of when he pointed out that ideas not freely and openly debated become "dead dogmas." Mill insisted that the intellectually free person must put himself in the "mental position of those who think differently" adding that dissident ideas are best understood "by hear[ing] them from persons who actually believe them."

I make it very clear to my students that I am conservative and approach all topics from my own ideology. And I make sure they understand that everyone does the same, and generally they have assignments that require them to look at issues from competing perspectives. The goal is not neutrality, but intellectual honesty and the willingness to hear out an argument that is presented clearly, with supporting studies or observations and with good faith. Any system that cuts out half that process is neither healthy nor admirable, and all its conclusions are suspect - I include religion as well as academics in this. That isn't to say you don't eventually reach a point where your foundational concepts have been repeatedly tried and held up through the fire of discourse. But even then you should be open to letting others hear the disputive position and consider its merits (this is also why I think intelligent design - not biblical creationism, but the scientific possibility and support for intelligent design - should be taught in schools.) We don't learn the process of argumentation and reasoning through logic without competing ideas.

(Link from Campus Nonsense via Conservative Economist.)

NO-SPIN-ZONE SPINS RADIO STARTUP: Bill O'Reilly's syndicator paid stations to take his show, according to Drudge; apparently the reason was marketing - so they could say this:

The Radio Factor With Bill O'Reilly is the Biggest Launch in the History of Talk Radio; To Air On a Record 205 Radio Stations Nationwide

The Washington Post takes O'Reilly's launch as an opportunity to whine about the lack of liberal talk show hosts; they take the usual pot-shots at Rush Limbaugh, and the lack of nuance (i.e. lack of sophistication, education, etc) amongst radio talk show listeners.

Interestingly, WaPo shifts back and forth between radio and television in pulling out its support:

The proliferation of conservative talk may, however, be as much about marketing as politics. The audience for broadcast news tends to be older (the average viewer of all-news cable TV is about 55 years old). As a rule, older people tend to be conservative. Ergo, a market niche.

But is that who listens to the radio programs? I listen to a lot of talk radio - daily, from the time I wake up until the time I go to bed at night, if the radio's on it's on WABC talk radio - and it seems from the callers, at any rate, that the demographic is much younger overall. Of course, that's anecdotal, but it's still more information about the actual radio audience than the WaPo article gives.

Some of the comments in the article are just laughable:

A few liberals and centrists -- Michael Kinsley, Paul Begala, James Carville -- do appear regularly on TV. But typically, they tend to be "canceled out" by a conservative in a "Crossfire"-style format, says Steve Rendall, a senior analyst at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a self-described progressive media watchdog group.

First, I don't see any centrists on that list of three. Second, more than a "few" liberals appear regularly - my list would include all three network anchors, and 75%+ of television reporters, anchors and commentators. Katie Couric is not a liberal? The Today Show is not a talk show? Please. It's not identified as a political show, sure, but if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, sounds like a duck... And while it's obvious that "progressive" means "liberal" in the article, still it's rather cute not to identify the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting organization as "flaming liberal". Just in case you aren't sure, here's the announcement from their recent 15th anniversary celebration:

FAIR celebrated its 15th anniversary at New York's Town Hall on January 22nd. FAIR founder Jeff Cohen, former CounterSpin host Laura Flanders and TV talk show host Phil Donahue were on hand to pay tribute to FAIR.

MIT professor Noam Chomsky, a pioneer in the field of media analysis and criticism, was our guest speaker for the evening.

Clinton is likely a little too conservative for these guys. And to say that Begala and Carville are "canceled out" by the conservatives on Crossfire... talk about victim complex.

It's weird, albeit not surprising, seeing this whining, especially when there's no acknowledgement of the dominant liberal media bias. They do make an effort, but let the person involved spin her way out:

Besides, [O'Reilly] adds, dangling new bait, "[National Public Radio] is all left, top to bottom. That's where the left goes. . . . They listen to Diane Rehm."

Rehm, the host of an NPR-distributed show out of WAMU-FM in Washington, replies: "If a liberal is a talk radio host who represents more than just one view, then I am indeed a liberal. . . . I've never felt there's just one way and one way only. [Some hosts] espouse one view over and over again, whereas our message is far more confusing because we're open to ideas and let you make up your own mind."

Did you all stand for Rehm's rendition of the Battle Hymn of the Republic? I don't know that I've ever listened to Rehm, so I won't comment on her show. But her quote is quite sanctimonious.

And now O'Reilly is coming out of the box having already emptied his slogan of any meaning other than puffery.

Competition is a good thing; I encourage it. However, O'Reilly is going to crash and burn. The man has no sense of humor about himself; he has no self-deprecation. That's what really kills the liberal talk shows - they take themselves far too seriously - and that's what will kill O'Reilly's.

(Thanks to Henry Hanks at Croooow blog for the heads up on this article.)

UPDATE: Instapundit Glenn Reynolds highlights Rehm's quote too, and adds a bit of insight from when he was a guest on her show.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Glenn has had a couple of responses to his earlier post, and his post on them is well worth the effort. I think his conclusion is an excellent summary of the whole problem:

...it's the unacknowledged but obvious bias of NPR that sticks in most people's throats.

STILL SEEKING RILYA: Officials are waiting on a DNA match to determine if the little five-year-old girl who went missing in Florida in January 2001 is the beheaded child found in Missouri in April 2001. Meanwhile, her caretakers and the caseworker supposedly overseeing her care for the state have both shut down, and the state is opening an investigation. It's being called an "isolated incident", but there's just no excuse for this kind of egregious dereliction of duty.

PICK YOUR DEATH SITE: Two suicide bombings in Israel, one in Pakistan.

Nine French citizens died in the Pakistani blast; the other deaths were a Pakistani bus driver and the bomber. Of the 34 injured, 16 were French. I hope this brings the terrorism closer to home for the EU. Innocents - innocence - dying. It has to stop.

The only people who should be dying are the people who bring these deaths to innocents.

MINNEBOMBER ARRESTED.

SECOND AMENDMENT JOINS THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION: Ipse Dixit has pertinent commentary.

EXPLOSION OF PALESTINIAN PEACE KILLS 15: It has to have been peace, right? Because they promised, right? It couldn't have been a suicide bomber. It couldn't have been evidence that Palestinians can't be trusted. It was just someone getting too exuberant over the vision of peace. Just blew up with joy.

Right?

TODAY AT THE WTC - photos from a Kiwi at Ground Zero.

MINNEBOMBER? Don't Be A Shamed suggests several names for the mailbox bomber being chased right now in Texas.

THE FORMER CIVIL WAR POST: Well, I have been called on the carpet and for good reason. One of the sites linked on this post originally I did not check out beyond the actual page linked, and when I did at a friend's recommendation, I found it was beyond awful. As those of you know who read me regularly, that's not me. For those of you who went there, I'm sorry. For those of you who did not, and are reading this, you don't need to know. I'll be more careful in the future.

I still think Kinen's comment about traitors was unfair, and the Civil War was less about slavery and more about approaches to life and governance. But since I can't sit down with each reader to explain, and I've likely already blotted my book with some good readers, I'm taking the whole thing down. I guess I'm with John - I won't touch on the War of Northern Aggression again for a while.

UPDATE: However, others have, somewhat. There's lively exchanges in the Comments section, which will remain, and Fritz Schrank has a oddly modern image of Jeff Davis.

UPDATE: Midwest Conservative Journal adds thoughtful comments to the Civil War discussion.

THE PhD COMMITTEE HAS SPOKEN: And the verdict is, via cell phone from my dean's car: revise and resubmit by May 15. The core proposal needs tightening and better focus, and the title is misleading (at least I'm staying true to my journalism roots).

It wasn't "completely redo". So that's a happy thing.

More details as they become available.

YEP: Stephen Hayes at The Weekly Standard explains why Stephanopolous hosting This Week isn't a problem, and many mainstream journalists are:

The griping about Stephanopolous obscures the real problem: left-leaning reporters who inject their biases into stories for unsuspecting readers and viewers. The fact that anyone paying even casual attention to politics over the past decade will remember Stephanopolous as a Clintonite is an advantage. Everything he says will be viewed through that prism.

As I've said until you're sick unto death over it, the problem isn't biased media, it's media that are biased, deny it and try to convince their audience they're neutral. Hayes also asks the right question:

The larger question for conservatives is this: Where is your faith in the market? If Stephanopolous is as bad as conservatives predict he will be, the show's ratings will plummet and he'll be canned as quickly as he was hired.

Hope springs eternal.

We won't discuss that commentator selection (Donaldson, Roberts, Stephanopolous) is another point of bias. I vote for Walter Williams to replace Stephanopolous when he crashes and burns.

(yes, this is the cliche edition of cut on the bias.)

MARK STEYN announces the first British Press Award for Total Fantasy.

WHY ITALY? WHY NOT...FRANCE? Thirteen of the gunmen holed up in the Church of the Nativity will be deported as part of the agreement to end the siege, and the negotiators offered them Italy (wine, women, song) as the option. As long as Saddam is in power, and the Saudis keep holding those telethons, they should live pretty well. But... Italy wasn't consulted! And they don't want them!

Negotiators had named Italy as their destination, but the Italian Foreign Ministry insisted that it had not been consulted or received any request to take them in.

The ministry said it "never received any information from the parties about the process of the negotiations, nor were any requests advanced in the past few days from these parties."

A statement added, "The issue of the acceptance in Italy of Palestinian citizens has never been posed, and up to the point that we have reached, it cannot be proposed."

...An Israeli Army spokesman, Olivier Rafowicz, said in Bethlehem: "We have reached an understanding to resolve the Church of the Nativity crisis. The implementation is being delayed because no country is willing to accept the terrorists."

What a perfect opportunity for France to step forward and show itself the loving, multi-cultural world power it is, to show its belief that the Palestinians aren't terrorists, by taking these men into its bountiful bosom. You know, put your country where your endlessly running mouth is.

The whole article is a wonderful expression of NY Times and/or Palestinian doublespeak. Take a look at a few excerpts:

This afternoon Israeli troops erected metal detectors and four large white panels near the low-slung "Gate of Humility" — the basilica's main entrance — apparently to keep those emerging from the view of journalists watching from rooftops overlooking Manger Square.

This is very funny. I can think, offhand, of four or five reasons for these precautions by Israelis, none of which involve blocking off journalists. But, on the other hand, I can also think of a variety of reasons for blocking off the journalists, collectively, that have nothing to do with a commitment to cutting off accurate, necessary information to the world at large and more to do with this:\

Inside the besieged church, one of the top wanted men, Abdullah Daoud, the head of Palestinian intelligence in Bethlehem, said he and 12 others had agreed to go into exile.

"If nothing goes wrong, I export to be deported to Italy with my colleagues this afternoon," he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

And we see again the journalists acting as if war is a sport, and every team member in both locker rooms needs a chance at the microphone. Of course, as I'm sure the media reasons, neither side would seek to manipulate information or use the media for its own ends. At least, the Palestinians wouldn't.

The two sides were arguing over whether the exile of the 13 would be permanent or temporary, with the Israelis seeking to make it permanent and the Palestinians demanding that it be for six months. Mr. Arafat was also said to be searching for a politically palatable label for the deportations, which he had resisted.

One Palestinian official said that when leaders of Mr. Arafat's Fatah faction complained to him about the possibility of deportations, he replied: "We have no deportation. It can be a six-month scholarship."

Sadly, it won't be a scholarship to Italy.

Back to the NY Times:

Both sides also had an interest in trying to manage the ending of the siege and the withdrawal of Israeli forces, each important symbolically.

Ok, so far so good. Both have an interest in managing the scenario. But then who's right to manage is supported by the Times? Here is the rest of the article - you tell me:

Palestinian officials said the roughly 80 people inside the church whom Israel does not consider a security threat should not have to leave the church under Israeli supervision and wanted the Israeli military to withdraw from Bethlehem first.

Such a departure would allow Palestinians who have been in the church for more than a month, and with almost no food for three weeks, to step into Manger Square in the company of Bethlehem residents — a potentially powerful display of solidarity.

But Palestinian officials said Israel had proposed spending 48 hours in Bethlehem after the siege ends. On Monday night, an official involved in the negotiations said all the people in the church would be taken out at the same time, an exit that would more closely follow Israel's preference.

I don't really think I need to comment, other than to point out that maybe the 80 non-security threats could also be known as "hostages". Could be the reason Israel wants them out separately. But we wouldn't want to prejudice by the words we use, now would we?

[NOTE: I can't find the flight school lawsuit link right now, but I know I saw it. I'll keep looking. Any help is appreciated.]
UPDATE: I couldn't find the link again, so I removed the section about it.

DISTRACTION AGAIN TODAY: I have a morning meeting, and I still don't know what the PhD committee decided on my core area proposal, so I'm vastly distracted this morning and barely able to read, much less post. I'll be putting up little things here and there, but it's unlikely there'll be anything long until tonight.

BACK PAGE: Or should that be, Page back? Anyway, The Last Page strings together a series of posts about her trip to the Carolinas and the two ceremonies of life and death that punctuated it. Start with the link and work your way up. Page, what happened to the marginally froo-froo, ethereal dress?

ARE YOU RACIST? Most likely, says Samizdata's Brian Micklethwait - and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

UNEMPLOYABLES? Natalie Solent has an excellent post on poverty, welfare and where the class divide is developing.

GO GET'EM, LEE ANN! Spinster.com eats up the Southern-hating Brit of Olive Garden fame, who this time is chomping on Mississippi.

WHY THE SAUDIS COULDN'T WIN A REAL WAR. They could, however, launch a fairly competent "funniest home videos".

I SAY BIAS, YOU SAY BULL: San Francisco Chronicle journalists Debra Saunders, a conservative, and Stephanie Salter, a liberal, go at it in columns published in the Chronicle yesterday. Fascinating.

Saunders identifies story selection as the primary location of bias, and gives excellent examples - worth the article themselves. But then she adds:

About the only journalists who won't admit that the news media are filled with liberals are lefties whose big beef is that the media are liberal instead of ultra-left.

Salter then proves that Saunders is right in more ways than one. She laughs at the concept of liberalism in mainstream media, pointing out all the “real liberals” at “alternative, left-wing news Web sites and periodicals ranging from mediawhoresonline.com to the Nation” [can you say, “ultra liberal”?]. She pokes at the capitalistic, money-grubbing bent of the powers in media. She devotes ink to the research American Prospect's Geoffrey Nunberg did on how many times the terms “liberal” and “conservative” were used in specific media outlets. Nunberg found that actually the media is biased in favor of conservatives, a conclusion that has been soundly debunked in the blogosphere. But Salter proves Saunders’ point definitively with this phrase:

…moderate Democratic [Senator] U.S. Dianne Feinstein

I rest Saunders’s case.

(Links via Romenesko).

JOURNALISTS SAY “NO COMMENT”: The two top administrators of the Greenlee School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Iowa State University have been relieved of their duties, but retained as faculty. The reason headlined by Romenesko, and the Ames Tribune, is racism – three junior faculty are leaving, and two of them are minorities.

The text of the article is a little clearer; the university provost said:

…the problems at the school are broader than racism. The school has a structure that pitted senior faculty against the department chair and junior faculty against senior faculty, he said.

"As far as I could tell John Eighmey [the head of the school] did everything he could to make the department as open and welcoming of a place as he could," [Provost] Richmond said.

So where’s the racism? Nobody’s talking. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t, but the spin creates that impression without any real support. And then, from this journalism school, we have this:

Dick Haws, an associate professor of journalism…said faculty members were advised not to talk to the media because it would look bad for the department.

Now, just how crucified would, say, the business department or the sports teams be if they said the same thing?

I love journalism.

FEMINISTS THEN AND NOW: Ann Marlowe in Salon makes a case for why women shouldn't allow men to "pay" for them:

Transfers of money are more powerfully charged in our culture, and as long as we construe gender as being about the flow of funds from men to women, in some deep but inescapable way all women are prostitutes, and all men are johns.

I think Ms. Marlowe needs to unwad her panties and get a life. Ann, honey, it's lunch. Just because your sense of worth is tied up in parsing your way through life doesn't mean all women are prostitutes who don't follow your example. This is the Maureen Dowd School of Bitter Feminism.

I prefer feminism as defined by the high school Suburban Princess who writes the charming Life as a Vole.

Even if it doesn't go over well at a Catholic school.

LOW POSTing today. Work is very busy, and I didn't get going this morning in time for my usual blogging. Likely I'll post during lunch, and then tonight. But if you weren't on over the weekend, there's still a bunch to read.

CARVALA CUTTHROATS: DailyPundit Bill Quick agrees with me. Mostly.

DEVIL IN DETAILS: FoxNews' PC Watch has details from the CAIR report that anti-Muslim threats increased in the US last year; they include a woman who thinks low fluid levels in her car's engine which caused the engine to seize is a result of anti-Muslim sentiment at her local garage. It's near the middle of the list, under "One Man's Abuse..." The other items are funny too.

SUBWAY HUMOR: I understand the concern, but it's still funny.

VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY EXPOSED: Some of you may have seen this before, but today I discovered the site dedicated to tracking and exposing the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy: Media Transparency. It's absolutely amazing; webmaster Rob Levine dedicated apparently large amounts of time and money investigating various non-profit organizations and how they have (supposedly) interconnected to form this huge financial system to support conservative initiatives, publications, think tanks, faith based groups, etc, all over the country.

This may not be new to some of you, but it's very new to me. And, actually, pretty funny. Another Oliver Stone acolyte at work. Here's an excerpt:

For more than three decades, conservative strategists have mounted an extraordinary effort to reshape politics and public policy priorities at the national, state and local level. Although this effort has often been described as a "war of ideas", it has involved far more than scholarly debate within the halls of academe.

Indeed, waging the war of ideas has required the development of a vast and interconnected institutional apparatus. Since the 1960s, conservative forces have shaped public consciousness and influenced elite opinion, recruited and trained new leaders, mobilized core constituencies, and applied significant rightward pressure on mainstream institutions, such as Congress, state legislatures, colleges and universities, the federal judiciary and philanthropy itself.

Media Transparency is a subsite of Cursor.org, in the Twin Cities. It's been around a while, so I'm sure there are stories to tell about its proprietor and its antics. So, I'm all ears.

And, if the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is watching, that's two n's and no z's in the first name, no e after the t's in the last. Any amount is fine.

THIS IS A BIT MUCH. I mean, really.

BENNETT DISBELIEVES: I just heard Bill Bennett interviewed on Glenn Beck’s radio program, on WABC 770 in NYC. Bennett isn’t buying the rope-a-dope concept at all; he thinks current attitudes in the Bush administration are “muddying” the moral clarity that Bush had last fall, and that Bennett thought Bush had regained early last week. He said he didn’t like the visit to Crawford by the Saudi prince, and he called the efforts by the UN to investigate the Jenin site “hypocrisy”. He said the UN didn’t investigate the suicide bombers to see if there was PLO involvement, which he said of course there was, so this effort was clearly biased. He said, I don’t know what this draw is to move to the middle.

Bennett said Americans should be much less concerned about moral equivalence, and more concerned about the fact that we were bombed, and how we feel about it.

Bennett also doesn’t think the Israeli/Palestinian fighting is distracting or diverting attention from Iraq, or lessening either the ability or likelihood of our “toppling” that terrorist regime. He thinks the fact that Israel has made such a strong showing, and is our ally, actually opens the door for an attack on Iraq, and puts the United States in a stronger position.

Interesting interview. I was in my car when I heard it so I couldn’t get exact quotes, or take notes to remember more. But it gave me new insights. I have a lot of respect for Bennett, and certainly he knows more than I do about this situation.

Bennett has a new book out called Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism. Here is the review at National Review.

BAD NEWS IS THE ONLY NEWS? David Nieporent at Jumping to Conclusions notes a bit of good news that made it into the NY Times - buried, but there. Have I mentioned before that omission is as much a bias issue as inclusion or skewing?

SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE: James D. Miller at Conservative Economist has an excellent suggestion for the NY Times.

GUNS, BRITS AND COPS: Interesting thoughts from firearms instructor James Rummel on his Handbasket blog.