Wild weekend ride - 16 August 2008

[silveradept]

A quick shot of material for the weekend. The summer reading program officially ends today, so I've managed to survive that wild ride.

My professional self wants to know the rationale behind a truly WTF decision - a knitting group is being excluded from a library for not being "literary" enough, while the library promotes other non-literary activities such as video gaming. There's room for both at the library, and both should be encouraged as ways to get people to the library. Thus, it's weird that "crafts"-type group meetings are being told to go elsewhere.

My professional self also has a chuckle at a comic where the agent has to go undercover as a "sexy librarian", where the definition is apparently more like a pr0n-star in the library (and lampshaded as such by the agent that has to put the outfit on) rather than a librarian that exudes sexiness. Well, the profession does desperately need a hit or five of sexy, but I don't think that's the way we're going to go about it.

Internationally, the blood pressure keeps going up - Poland will be hosting missile defense outposts that the United States has wanted in Eastern Europe for a while now. While supposedly there to counter threats from a potentially-nuclear Iran, one can only guess hwo much this will make Mr. Putin's tensions rise.

In Iraq, The AP believes there are hit squads training in Iran, to be deployed at just the right time to kill targeted American and Iraqi officials and re-de-stabilize the country. So, look for the next few months to see if the victory goes sour again.

Our domestic news section has quite the round-up of interesting things said by candidates or about them - the juxtaposition of a rich lobbyist talking about Senator Obama's celebrity status, and then showing off the celebrity-like extravagance of his own house, the Republican candidate putting his foot in his mouth twice, once for stating "In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations", and again withcalling the Russia-Georgia conflict "the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War"... apparently, the Senator is getting senile. He's forgotten the United States-Iraq conflict twice now in his sound bites. Even further, Jackson Browne, a singer/songwriter, is suing the Ohio Republican Party and John McCain for using his song "Running on Empty" in a political advertisement for the candidate without his permission or license, not only committing copyright infringement, but also creating the impression of a false endorsement. I wonder whether there will be a hurried change in the laws of the DMCA if this goes through and the campaign gets smacked with damages for infringement. It's just the right case for them to generate loopholes with.

Speaking of candidates, the Democratic National Committee appears to be taking the same attitude toward protesters the Republicans have been for years, complete with chain-link fence, barbed wire, and stun guns. The city was going to tell people about it, of course, but those reporters showed up unannounced and started filming while the door was open.

Desperately un-funny comedian Rush Limbaugh denigrates Elizabeth Edwards, saying on-air that the reason John Edwards had an affair was because she was smarter than him and he was looking for a woman "that did something more with her mouth than just talk", trying to make him into a henpecked, undersexed, cowering man with a domineering wife. I'm waiting for the slander suit to be filed. Also, I wonder if Mr. Edwards would resent the implication that he would cheat on his wife because another woman had a variety of oral talents.

In addition, in the care of INS officials on an overstayed visa, a man developed pains and died wihtout receiving treatment. The post-mortem diagnosis was cancer that spread as the government accused the detainee, Mr. Ng, of faking his illness.

Furthermore, a federal judge upheld the University of California's refusal to accept Biblical-based denial-of-evolution courses as acceptable science credit for admission to the UC. They will also probably deny anyone who seriously posits that the Earth is flat.

A Texas school district, citing the need to protect students and deter potential shooters from coming to school and opening fire, is permitting teachers to carry firearms. Which could be a deterrent effect. Or which could be the new method by which the shooter operates - figure out which teachers carry, and where they have the guns, and then use their weapons to attack. The only possible "good" thing about this is that the teachers can theoretically then shoot the rampaging student sooner, assuming that the student doesn't decide to shoot every teacher he comes across because they might be armed, and then take the weapons of those that are. How rare are school shootings, again? Do we need to have all of these measures in place, or are we over-reacting again to a statistical anomaly, and should be putting our attention in places so as to remove the causes and reasons why students shoot classmates and teachers?

Despite all of this, The General posts a poem about how people can still get past all the regulation and fear in the airport to bond as a community. While at times it feels like getting back to normal is like trying to find the yeti, perhaps in a less toxic environment, we could do just that.

Staying with the strange theme for a bit, A gent pays half of his new truck purchase with coins, because of a distrust of paper money. The other half came by check. There's also the provenance to an otherwise unremarkable picture, involving the perception that someone does not have permission to take a picture of a building from a public street, the ensuing conversation, and an apoplexy by the guard attempting to tell someone they couldn't exercise a public right in a public place because it was taking a picture of a private building.

And then there's the allegation that the father of the mayor of Detroit was involved in some schemes to steer city contracts to certain companies. Man, Detroit, could you not implode so quickly? The rest of the country is still a little jittery about being forced into what was real for you a decade or two ago. After all, when Donald Trump buys Ed McMahon's house to stop it from being foreclosed, you know the economy's doing some really strange things.

Finally hitting our opinionated stride, Paul Craig Roberts wants President Bush to shut up, to stop trying to ring Russia with U.S.-friendly states using NATO and other organizations, and to stop trying to put on the facade that the U.S. has any credibility at all about invasions and conflicts being bad, with our own invasion still there for all to see. Francis Fukuyama illustrates this, noting that while there has been progress, the reason for invading Iraq was still wrong. Which won't stop Melik Kaylan from saying the U.S> needs to gobble up all the post-Soviet nations, rather than let Russia rebuild.

bradhicks is absolutely furious that the United States is basically letting the first debate of the presidential season be conducted by an evangelist about how Christian the candidates for office are, despite the "no religious tests" part of the Constitution, and the fact that the fundamentalists are such a small segment of the voting populace that they shouldn't get pandered to in such a big way.

The WSJ thinks lower corporate taxes is a great way or not only getting corporations to pay taxes, but to give greater revenues to the government because companies aren't trying to exploit all the loopholes to avoid paying the current tax rate. I think there will always be corporations looking to exploit the tax rate and pay nothing - I also am unsure that the tax rate is the sole reason, that America is "uncompetitive" and that we're shedding jobs to other nations. After all, if rule changes can permit companies to hire foreign workers to work for much less than prevailing wage, assuming it's in the right industry, then it would make more sense for those companies to skip the rule changes and set up shop completely in the countries where the labor force is cheapest.

Last out of this sequence, Philip K. Howard believes that with our insistence on safety in childrens' play, we're generating more obese children, because risk (and learning to manage it) is one of the things that attracts the interest of kids. Being able to go fast means possibly falling down, and the like, including some safety features backfiring a bit, like the soft rubbery blacktop becoming hot enough to hurt young feet and teaching the value of wearing shoes. If the country became a little less safety-and-lawsuit obsessed, the benefits would be an active and healthier populace.

In science and technology, political problems in Russia could ground the U.S. from launching material and people up to the Space Station. Beyond that, fighting spam and contributing to the digitization of older texts, through the use of CAPTCHAs, a breakthrough in creating and modeling virtual hair, posible solar cells without the use of fossil fuel, swallowable medical robots, and new ways to dope for extra athletic power.

Artistic but morbid are pictures of ash containers that have begun to corrode. Much mroe artistic is the world's smallest solar vehicle, a design for a really portable laptop, some vintage postcards, some of which really should have gotten a second look before publication, and LEGO recreations of famous photographs.

Last for today, though, lightning in very slow motion, and for penguin-lovers everywhere, the knighting of a Norwegian Colonel-in-Chief, the only penguin to hold the rank so far, no doubt.

Comments

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

The test is not being required by the government, but the people of this country at least like to pretend that we are a Christian nation. Why shouldn't the candidates answer to the climate of the people?

After all, the test could just as much be to make sure that we don't get another (percieved) religious zealot like Bush.

-=TK

[aoanla.livejournal.com]

Because the Constitution is more important than the climate of the people, deliberately, to prevent dictatorships and oppression. In this case, clearly, it is against the spirit of the Constitution to suggest that the fitness of a candidate be determined by the religion they practice - indeed, considering that at least half the Founding Fathers weren't Christian, it seems like it would be more fitting to have a non-Christian President.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

In a democracy, is not the will of the people most important? Is that not the purpose of our government, to protect the will of the people? If not, then there is no purpose to the social contract. If the majority of the people want to know about the spiritual fitness of their chosen leader, then by all means, it should be discussed. This is not a test to see whether the candidates may go on the ballot; this is a public demonstration before the people, allowing them to make a full and informed decision. This is what democracy is all about.

-=TK

[binarywraith.livejournal.com]

Perhaps, but in a country that enshrines freedom of religion and separation of church and state, there is little relevance to a candidate's religious views when considered against their leanings on policy. You know, the things they could actually openly act on without major congressional backlash.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Truly, the most important part of this is the fact that the anti-Democratic elements in the country have spread lies and fear surrounding Barak Obama, claiming that he is a muslim sympathizer who will hand the nation over to the jihadists. THis was not helped at all by the issues revolving around Jeremiah Wright. The people must know where he stands and what he intends to do with his faith once he is in office. On the other hand, McCain represents the party that typically sews up the "religious right" in each election, and would be a fool not to attend this conversation.

Aside from that, people are scared right now. As I've already hinted, we are at war not with a specific territory, but with a religious sect. The same people who were frightened by Bush's fundamentalism are every bit as scared by the terrorists who claim their terrorism is a jihad against "the great Satan" that most people in the world call the United States. That does not mean the government; it means all of the people in the nation. Their jihad is against all of us. They don't have a constitution which bans faith-based government. In fact, most of the nations which harbor the terrorists have constitutions which mandate Islam as the one, true faith.

Finally, no matter how much you try to separate the state from church, you cannot separate the men in the state from the church. One's faith makes up who one is. Their religious views will speak volumes about who they are, and how they intend to run the nation. Frankly, I think this debate is more important than any other topic they could discuss, simply because it will be the one that most reveals their true character. We would be fools not to put these men to task on this issue.

-=TK

[binarywraith.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm just overly secular, but I'd consider a candidate's positions on economic, foreign, and social policy a lot more important than what he does with his Sunday mornings.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Perhaps you are, enough that you don't understand the strength of this part of their identity. All three of those things will be affected directly by the strength of faith these men have. As I said above, "Their religious views will speak volumes about who they are, and how they intend to run the nation. Frankly, I think this debate is more important than any other topic they could discuss, simply because it will be the one that most reveals their true character."

-=TK

[silveradept]

I disagree with this line of reasoning, and use the current administrator as an example - as a nominally professed Christian, even of an evangelizing segment, one would expect him to be interested in social programs, a lack of war, forgiveness, trying to avoid the death penalty and incarceration, and in favor of church attendance, neighborhood cohesion, and opportunities in education to prevent jail. I do not see any of those things in the current administrator. So either he is a very poor example of his religious beliefs, or he was using the name "Christian" for political gain without actually believing in its tenets. The shorthand of his faith said very little about his ruling style.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Were he a Christian moderate, yes. But George Bush is a fundamentalist. His actions have been very much in line with that.

-=TK

[silveradept]

Did he ever say he was a fundamentalist? Because if all he said was that he was a Christian, then he leaves it up to us to decide whether he's a moderate Christian or a fundamentalist Christian. Leaving an ambiguity like that makes it that much harder for anyone to make a useful deduction from the assertion that Mr. Bush is a Christian. Even Mr. Obama's church affiliation doesn't really say anything about what kind of Christian he is, and what branch's philosophy and morality will be guiding his decisions.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Which is why this upcoming debate is a good thing.

-=TK

[aoanla.livejournal.com]

George Bush actually claims to be a United Methodist. Just from that, you'd have guessed he'd be relatively moderate in his ethical beliefs - the UMC, for example, condemns capital punishment, and accepts that abortions may be necessary in some circumstances.

I suggest, therefore, that it is very much flawed reasoning to assume that, by getting politicians to talk about their supposed religious beliefs, you are getting either a true reflection of the ethical behaviour, or even a true reflection of those religious positions.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Exactly why such a debate is important. Note that I said that Bush is a Fundamentalist; I did not say he is a Baptist. I, too, am a Baptist; however, I am rather... atypical. I am a deacon, youth teacher, and lead the indoctrination course for new members; yet I am a calvinist theologian. I don't eschew alcohol, am socially liberal, enjoy dancing, and refuse to condemn homosexuals. Oh, yes, I'm also white, and it's an African-American congregation. Can you judge me, therefore, by the church I sign to? In fact, you can't even judge our congregation by the name we put on the door: our congregation's doctrine is atypical for American Baptist, which is an atypical organization for Baptists in general. These debates reveal the character of the men participating.

Finally and most importantly, the debates are voluntary, and were established not by the government but by a private organization. The constitution forbids religious tests only by the government, but also forbids interference by the government in the religious affiliation of its people. In other words, it would be unconstitutional to stop the debates. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. To forbid such a debate would be to establish atheism as the official religion of the United States. We will not go down that road, paved by people who declared faith and religion illegal in their nations. Those men are known as tyrants, megalomaniacs, and commiters of heinous crimes against humanity. Countless millions have died in their wake, and I, for one, will fight until my own death against any who attempt to do the same in the United States.

-=TK

[silveradept]

We're not saying that such debates should be banned. We're saying that they generate heat, rather than light, and that for a nation that enshrines both the establishment and the free exercise clauses, it seems very much against the spirit of the system envisioned by the Constitution for the first head-to-head matchup between candidates to be about how religious they are, and how much they will pander to a particular religion's ideology and doctrine.

For Joe American, had it been a Muslim imam talking to the candidates about how Muslim they were, or a Wiccan talking to the candidates about how Wiccan they were, or a panel of avowed atheist scientists discussing ethical decisions, it would have been intolerable and seen as special interest pandering or a sign that the country had no morals or was following the wrong path.

Because it's Christianity, however, most people don't see that as odd, but reason the same way that you are - it shows what their moral character is, based on the assumption that Christian principles are morally correct and should be followed.

Debates like those can't be stopped, and nobody should try to do so. It just sends a very bad message about the political process in America when the first time the two major candidates go head-to-head with each other, it's moderated by an evangelical Christian asking questions about whether or not the candidates conform to Christianity.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

No one stopped anyone else from having their debates first.

-=TK

[silveradept]

That's sidestepping the issue, but aoanla is picking up that thread below. In response, though, we generally like our presumptive nominees to actually be the nominees before we start having presidential debates. Keeps someone from having egg on their face in case of a convention revolt or a campaign where there have to be decisions made between two good candidates.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Actually, no it isn't. You brought us back to the point the conversation was about scheduling, which means we are hitting the nail on the head with this point.

An upset at the conventions was not part of the conversation in the least.

So, to conclude the conversation, no one has required the candidates to join in this debate first. It was reccomended to them by a mutual friend, and both agreed. It is not the fault of any one of them that there were no debates arranged prior to the one in question.

-=TK

[silveradept]

On that very narrow band of conclusion, yes, you are correct. They were not forced, they could have refused, they did not have anything scheduled beforehand.

[aoanla.livejournal.com]

...come, now. Whilst some of the Communist states banned religion, the horrible acts that they may have also committed are not connected directly to this. To make such a connection is to reveal a total lack of understanding, not only of atheist thought, but also of Communist philosophy. I might as well claim that Adolf Hitler's avowed Christian faith (and intolerance of those of other religions) was the basis of his own unpleasant activities. Of course, it wasn't - people are equally capable of being oppressive gits regardless of their religious affliation or their opinions on religion in general.
What's more, current research suggests that people's opinions on God almost always echo their own personal states of mind - it appears that, in the majority, their ethics influence their interpretation of their religions as much as, if not more than, the other direction. Ergo, it is not clear that Men of Faith are in any way more moral or ethical than those without faith, except in the trivial sense (that I reject) that they have faith at all.

You still haven't addressed the primary issues with this debate - that, not only does it strongly imply that Christian faith is the preferred faith for a President (can you imagine Barack Obama being elected if he was genuinely a Muslim, regardless of his policies?), but it also doesn't really do anything to show the true beliefs of the candidates - anyone can quote from the holy book of their choice and sound pious on demand.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

1) Hitler banned the church much as the Chinese do. The "official" Nazi church was no more free than that in Beijing.

2) Point out to me a president who has not been affiliated with a church. The American people do prefer at least nominally Christian presidents, specifically, protestants (history records that Kennedy's election was viewed by many as scandalous because he was Irish Catholic). As I said, the US prefers to maintain a myth that we are a Christian nation, so the public does prefer Christian candidates.

-=TK

[aoanla.livejournal.com]

John Adams and John Quincy Adams were Unitarian, at least, and Jefferson was a "Deist" for much of his life and rejected the concept of Jesus as saviour. It has been argued that, despite his nominal Episcopalian faith, that John Tyler was also Deist in his personal beliefs.
And, of course, there is famous controversy over precisely what faith Abraham Lincoln had - it is certainly clear that he wasn't a conventional Christian.

Is that enough for you?

[silveradept]

Why do the people want to know about the spiritual fitness of their leader, though? Someone with no faith should be able to administrate as well as the most pious of mono- or polytheists, assuming she has sound policies, good advisers, and isn't interested only in paying his benefactors to the detriment of the country. Whether or not they go to the same church or celebrate Shabbat together should be meaningless as to whether they will be a good administrator. If religious fidelity trumps actual policy or intelligence or competence, then the country's priorities are misplaced, and we shouldn't be surprised if we elect someone who can't lead.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I think someone who is grounded in a healthy faith will be a far better leader, primarily because it establishes a rigorous set of morals, generates strength of character, and perserverance.

"Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."

-=TK

[silveradept]

All excellent ideas. All doable by someone without faith, but that's the line of reasoning above.

What I'm worried about is that people will use that religious declaration as a shorthand to make assumptions about what the candidate does, is, and will be, despite indications to the contrary. If you had a campaign on which the only information released by the candidates was their religious affiliation and nothing else, would you want to pick a candidate?

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

It wouldn't be the first vote I've made on a faith-based decision.

-=TK

[silveradept]

Fair enough. Now, what if they all just said "Christian", and nobody knew whether any of the candidates were W-style fundamentalists or more moderate Methodists, or perhaps another Catholic, scandal of scandals?

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Then I would delve deeper. *shrugs*

-=TK

[silveradept]

In the theoretical exercise, there is no other information available, even though in the real world, there's no way you can blackout that successfully. Given that the sum total of your available information and the only information that you will be able to find is that all of them say they are "Christian", is that sufficient for you to pick one over others?

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure whether that's a straw-man or not.

In the past, yes, I have voted for the one who would confess his faith over the one who did not, and solely on that conclusion, though I certainly had plenty of other reasons to dislike the opponent.

-=TK

[silveradept]

I don't want it to end up being a straw-man, but making a decision in a vacuum, based on a single ambiguous data point about a candidate, where all the candidates are claiming that same data point as applying to them, on the basis of anything other than random selection doesn't make sense.

Bringing that out into the real world, giving higher weight to a highly ambiguous data point when more concrete data points are available doesn't seem to be something the candidates or the political system should be encouraging, even though they are free to do with their schedules what they will, and people will vote however they decide to.

[aoanla.livejournal.com]

Define a "healthy faith" for me, please. It looked to me (and I'm just a secular European, so I may be misreading the signals) that the "contest" was over how Christian the candidates were, not over how much Faith they had in whatever religion they professed.
And that, of course, is pretty much totally against the spirit of the Constitution.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

As I said above, this assembly is protected by the Constitution. It is a privately organized assembly, which has been made available for public viewing. The only thing unconstitutional would be if a government agency had arranged it. (And no, neither the DNP or the GOP are government agencies.)

-=TK

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

The results are in, and the debate was quite useful.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910117767951201.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

[silveradept]

That's not a new line of reasoning - I've seen opinions and articles asking for a while now when Seantor Obama will be giving hard numbers on his economic plans. Most of the material I've seen, though, has been "John McCain gave a short/the right (depending on viewpoint) answer as to when life begins. Barack Obama didn't." The religious message, rather than the policy one, is the one getting airtime. We knew the candidates' positions already. How is making them say them useful?

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Well, for starters, many of the questions were secular, or had to do with key voter policy.

Second, asking short, concise questions made them give concise answers. The moderator took away their ability to beat around the bush. In all, I'd say it was a good thing.

-=TK

[silveradept]

After reading the transcript, I must disagree. I'm more inclined to believe the question selection, while appearing open-ended, secular and issues-based, were really about sussing out how much a particular candidate conformed to the version of Protestant Christianity everyone is assumed to have in the country. Abortion, stem cells, judges, faith, gay marriage, whether current conflicts are just wars, religious persecution elsewhere - with some other questions that might not be obviously referring to bits of the writings included, but certainly looked like softballs for both candidates to answer in the expected American way. (Do you really expect a candidate to say "No. We shouldn't intervene in places where genocide is happening"?)

[aoanla.livejournal.com]

I'd note that, generally, the candidate who has given short, concise answers has also been the candidate that I'd not have voted for. Long considered answers often imply that you've thought about the issues involved and realise that they are complex and multifaceted - certainly, if you look at the Bush/Kerry debates, Bush's answers were short, concise, and generally misleadingly simplistic. (Kerry's were long-winded and considered, which hurt him in the sound-bite stakes.)

[silveradept]

Which is what's happening to Senator Obama, as well. Those long, considered answers fuel the "elitist" argument, where in the average mind, "elite" means "unabashedly intellectual".

[aoanla.livejournal.com]

Well, the average mind in the USA (and, increasingly, in the UK), certainly.

I think that France and Germany both went through periods of preferring intellectual leaders (and, indeed, probably still do, although my grasp of French and German politics isn't detailed enough to be certain about that).

This issue is, of course, partly an education issue.

[silveradept]

Education meaning that we're not getting the details and data that we need to make informed decisions, or education as in we're not being taught how to think well enough to realize that smart leaders are preferable, subsisting on useless standardized tests that have us played for fools by some elites accusing other elites of being anti-American?

[aoanla.livejournal.com]

Education in that apparently the education system in the US and the UK leaves the majority suspicious of the highly educated or intellectual.

[silveradept]

Oh. At some point, I probably tried to investigate why that was. I don't know if I got any data or conclusions out of it, but I'm pretty sure I had some theories.

How is something that's supposed to make people intellectual turn out people who are suspicious of them?

[aoanla.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure, but I suspect it has something to do with an interaction with the media, combined with the way some subjects are taught.
With the general media representation of Science (in particular) as being That Really Hard Stuff that Might End The World, and the associated reaction of those in education to badly taught science and mathematics classes (and, possibly, history, as well - at least in the UK), you're building an unhealthy attitude to hard thought and questioning investigation.

[silveradept]

Hu? Which reaction is the one you're talking about? An educator's reaction to badly taught science and math? Or the populace's reaction to the requirements of hard thought and stringency currently in science and math?

[aoanla.livejournal.com]

The latter, mainly. Although, the unconscious biases of educators might be an influence.