January 25, 2005
The Vision Thing
By now everybody has reacted to the President's inaugural speech and the reaction has been fairly predictable -- most on the right liked it and most on the left disliked it. What struck me about the speech is that it represents a bottom up approach to world peace.
Often we get confused by methods and goals and think that people who advocate a different method are advocating a different goal. Most Americans want our nation's foreign policy to ultimately advance the goal of world peace. The disagreements are typically over methods. The method that has been favored by the left and enjoyed the ascendancy in the past century was the top down solution of world government. The League of Nations. The United Nations. They were (are) both miserable failures, and resulted instead in a ravaged century.
President Bush offers a different solution -- empowering every individual to construct representative governments that respect the rights of all individual. This is a pretty radical concept for some.
In the top down, you have a collection of governments, ranging from the virtuous (Canada) to the self-centered (France) to the downright evil (North Korea, working at cross purposes in the UN, and achieving little more than frenzied feeding at the public trough. You could argue that if all governments were as virtuous as Canada, then the UN would be a smashing success. The problem is, as recent history has demonstrated, all governments aren't as virtuous, and the UN itself can't solve that problem. In fact, by it's nature it acts as a brake on attempts to reform countries.
So President Bush advocates a different approach - improve the individual nations, one by one, until something like the UN could actually work, instead of it counting bribe money while millions are murdered. Work on the virtue bubbling up from the bottom instead of trying to impose it from the top.
I think it's a noble vision, and a workable method, but like so may other things that are worth doing, it takes time, effort, and perserverence.
Reality Based Community
No, I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about something important - reality TV shows.
Page Davis was fired from Trading Spaces. Since the New York Post brought up (again) the rumor that Page Davis made a sex tape years ago, my traffic has spiked. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I have to say I've always liked Page, and I'm sorry to see her go, but we don't watch the show much in the funMurphy household anymore. It seems as if Christi was the last good designer the show hired, and some of the old good ones don't show up too much any more.
The good news is that the screechers, Victoria and Jonathan were eliminated. As bad as Jonathan was, and he was bad, Victoria would screech back just as I was developing sympathy for her. Oh well, I guess that's why they are a couple. The bad news is that Amber and Boston Rob from survivor are going to be on the next Amazing Race. I didn't notice Amber on her first survivor (or second for that matter), Rob was even more obnoxious on Survivor All Stars than he was on his first time, and frankly I don't want to see them again. Can't you enjoy your money in peace and let me watch my shows in peace? I have to agree with Mr. Denhart:
"This “stunt casting” dilutes the show’s quality. It misses the point that the fun of the show was always watching ordinary people in these situations. And when producers refuse to take action when their cast goes too far, the show suffers."
To think people complained about Terry and Ian.
I'd like to know what Ms. Olsen's budget is and if she owns stock in a pot light manufacturer.
Who'd of ever thunk that watching poker on TV would be enjoyable (well, it's better than watching golf). But celebrity Black Jack? I'm sorry, when it get's real celebrities and loses the goofy voice ove, I'll consider wasting my time watching it.
American Idol is back, and we'll probably watch the audition shows and then a few of the competition shows, but given how crazy the voting was last time, I don't think we can stick it out until the end. If they ever raised the eligibility age to 43, I'd go on and be the only one who, when told they couldn't sing, would say -- "gee, I thought everybody was kidding when they told me I was a lousy singer".
January 24, 2005
What happens to aborted babies?
For many years a Dr. Warren Hern has been operating an abortion clinic in Boulder, Colorado, right across from the hospital in North Boulder. He and the clinic have been protested on and off for many years, but the abortion clinic is still in operation.
Hern gives the discarded babies (fetuses, tissue, or whatever you want to call them) to Crist Mortuary, who cremates them. Hern and Crist have had this arrangement for 6 years. That part was public but not very well known. However, other news came out this weekend . . .
Crist Mortuary, for 6 years, has been giving the remaining ashes to Sacred Heart of Mary Catholic church, a church in the open space along South Boulder Road (without Hern's knowledge). Sacred Heart has been giving the ashes a proper Christian burial, and they have a "Memorial Wall" stating that the ashes buried here are from aborted babies. Sacred Heart is not really a public place, but any visitor can drive in and look around. That's where local residents vote.
Anyway, Sacred Heart "went public" this weekend with the information that they are burying the aborted fetuses from Hern's clinic after Crist cremates them. Going public may have been a mistake. Of course there was an uproar, and Dr. Hern denounced the "cynical exploitation of private grief for political purposes." I don't know why Sacred Heart went public after 6 years, but they did. There was also a report in the Boulder Daily Camera saying that Sacred Heart's practice had been described in the Daily Camera about 4 years ago. I don't know if the connection to Hern's clinic through Crist Mortuary was made clear, though.
Here is the story on CNN.com (January 24, 2005):
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/24/abortion.ap/index.html
Dr. Hern will probably stop sending the aborted babies to Crist Mortuary at this point. I don't know what he will do with them.
The CNN article states that Hern had a contract with Crist, which contradicts the story that I heard saying that Crist was doing the cremations free of charge. A legally valid contract specifies that both parties contribute something. If Crist was doing the cremations free of charge, then Hern is without a valid contract and has no reason to complain.
I fail to see why Dr. Hern is complaining, anyway. According to him, the aborted babies are "just tissue", right? If somebody wants to bury them a certain way, what is that to him? He doesn't own every landfill in Colorado. Sacred Heart is not a grave robber, they're a landfill robber if anything. If some flake wanted to give my empty milk cartons a "proper burial", I would go on record as saying they're stupid and wasting their time. Then I would set out the milk cartons for collection. I might even rinse them out!
Lots of things to think about.
A lot of people like to dump on Boulder as this immoral town full of decadent hippies and evil oppression and strange cults and so on, but the picture on CNN.com shows 250 parishioners gathering to pray for the aborted babies. At least 250 people in Boulder County care very much what happens to what they believe is a very young human being, even in death. 250 people revere what they believe to be human life, and go to a lot of effort to respect that life. Maybe Boulder is somewhat weird and fitness-crazed, but some Boulderites also believe in things eternal.
January 15, 2005
Honesty. How Refreshing
Apple continues to create buzz, and their latest product and earning announcements sure helped. I happened to read an outstanding column in Motley Fool (link may require free registration) from a link at McSurfer's Daily News. What's outstanding in my opinion isn't so much the analysis, although I have to applaud a financial writer that doesn't take his eye off the bottom line when looking at a company that knows how to create hype like Apple, but his honesty in admitting past error. Would that we all could be so forthright. It's even more amazing when it comes from an industry not known for admitting error or honesty.
As an Apple stock owner (yes, this also constitutes full disclosure), I applaud the outstanding earnings. As an Apple enthusiast, I applaud the technical and marketing know how put on display with the latest product announcements. I can't remember anymore where I read it, but I was clued into one of the thoughts behind the box only mini-Mac: in addition to reducing the quoted price, it's aimed at switchers from PCs. The thinking goes that if you switch, you already have a keyboard, monitor, and mouse, so why buy a new set? I thought that was pretty clever, especially since I know people who are fed up with the internet experience (i.e. malware) of PCs. I might just mention the mini-Mac to them - for a minimal investment, they can put a Mac between them and the internet, and could continue to use their PC by changing a few cables (they could even network the Mac and PC with a cable to move files). I'll just stick to my iMacs.
Don't Spam In Texas
I have to applaud Texas prosecuting a spammer. Now if they would just live up to their reputation and execute these guys, I'd feel even better.
Pictures from Another Planet
I know Titan is technically a moon, but I still consider that the Huygens Probe landed on another planet and sent back images that to my untrained eye look a lot like Mars, only with more atmosphere.
The probe's mission was another fine scientific joint venture between the USA and Europe. Back when I was a rocket scientist, I worked on the launches of IRAS, which was another spectacular joint venture, and on EXOSAT, which was all European except for the launch, which was switched to Delta (which is what I worked on) from Ariane at the last minute because of an Ariane launch failure. I had a great time working with the Europeans on EXOSAT, and it just goes to show that in those endevors where Europe can pull its own weight (or more!) they make fine partners.
January 12, 2005
Science Trio
I saw three interesting science stories today, and amazingly, they had nothing to do with intestinal bacteria!
First up is the launch of Deep Impact, which isn't a movie but a satellite designed to rendezvous with the comet Temple1 and launch an "impactor" spacecraft designed to use kinetic energy to blow a big hole in the comet, allowing the mothership to take pictures and analyze the material ejected during the impact. That way we'll know what comets are really made of -- dirty snowballs, or something else below the surface. In the interest of full disclosure, I didn't take $250,000 to report this, but I used to work on the Delta program in my long lost youth. The fireworks are scheduled for, when else, the Fourth of July
Hopefully, Greenpeace etc. won't protest this major destruction of comet habitat in the name of science.
Secondly, it isn't a story about a large wooden badger, but a giant dinosaur eating badger. Yes, you heard me right, fossils have been discovered in China of large badger like mammals that ate dinosaurs -- they found the fossilized dino in the belly of the fossil badger. In the words of one of the scientists, it was a "short-legged but powerful animal with fearsome teeth." Perhaps he meant big pointy teeth. I mean, the finding does competely overturn the view of mamals from that time as being small cuddly cuties that wouldn't hurt a fly (if there were any).
And lastly, Scientists now believe that the Universe isn't made of string, but is a giant flat bell. OK, I'm inflating things abit. Alright, enough cosmological humor. Scientists have confirmed that the early Universe rang with sound and the sound waves influenced the structure - galaxies etc. - of the universe. The good news is that the Universe is flat but wavy; the bad news is that the expansion of the universe isn't stopping; what began with a bang won't end at all.
January 10, 2005
We Just Disagree
Donald Sensing and Jason Van Steenwyk look at the same Frederick Kagan article on Donald Rumsfeld and the war and have different views on it's correctness. I think Jason presents the better arguments that Rumsfeld isn't as bad as he's made out to be.
Two quick interjections of my own -- I think it's wrong to claim that:
"The secretary of defense simply chose to prioritize preparing America's military for future conventional conflict rather than for the current mission. That position, based on the hope that the current mission would be of short duration and the recognition that the future may arrive at any moment, is understandable. It just turns out to have been wrong."
The simple truth is that transformation of the Army is to fight the current war --the war against Islamofascism -- not some far off war in the future. It's just that it takes time, and is in fact harder to transform while fighting, but it is necessary.
And I for one am getting a little tired of the whole "Shenseki warned us we'd need a lot more troops" for the simple reason that Shenseki's intent wasn't an honest assessment but just another in a long list of deliberately setting the requirements too high for action to occur. The Army doesn't have the manpower to sustain the force levels Shenseki said it would take to take and hold Iraq - it can barely sustain the levels we are using.
He and his Army predecessors always required too much and threw up too many roadblocks throughout the Clinton presidency and so the Army never took action -- it was the Navy and Airforce in successful actions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the Navy in fruitlless cruise missile strikes in Sudan and Afganistan. In Kosovo, when finally ordered to send in Apaches, the Army fiddled around with force protection and training issues long enough to keep their precious helicopters out of harm's way. When Shenseki told the Bush adminstration his ridiculous estimate of the manpower and time requirements for any action in Afganistan, that was the end of Shenseki's influence and the end to inaction. And if Shenseki was such a brilliant guy, why didn't he push transformation in 1998 instead of WWII redux?
January 8, 2005
Tree Blogging
After downpours here that seeped into the basement followed by a coating of snow last night, I'm in the mood for some of the glories of Autumn. So here is a picture of tree in my neighborhood that was gorgeous this fall.
Dog Blogging
I know the tradition that Fridays are for Cat Blogging, but I have no idea when you're supposed to dog blog. So I'm going to do mine on Saturday:
He loves pillows.
It's The Other Side's Fault
I used to post frequently on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch forums in their various incarnations (my user name was, oddly enough, kevin murphy) but got tired of it for various reasons - one of which was the polarization of the debate. Where once there was a group of people discussing various issues (endlessly without conclusion), there became two sides locked in a life and death struggle to show that the other side was evil root and branch. Mark at Kaedrin has noticed the same thing and has decided to try a new approach suggested by Benjamin Franklin. I'm hoping he'll let us know how it turns out.
January 7, 2005
Torture
What is torture? Is it simply inflicting pain? What about discomfort? Is torture, like one judge's definition of obscenity something you recognize when you see it? If we want to discuss torture, don't we have to agree what it is before we can make any sense of the subject? We could take the approach for discussion to describe it as extreme pain inflicted either as punishment , a means of political control, or to elict information, frequently causing injury and possibly death.
If you wanted to write guidelines about what is acceptable and what isn't, you would have to be far more detailed. And as soon as you start the sorting process, you'll be forced to conclude that a particular method isn't quite torture, and then the carping begins that you're in favor of torture or a big meenie who likes inflicting pain etc. Heather McDonald has a pretty complete report on the interrogation of prisoners, which is what most of the current controversy is about, and the effect or our inability to have an honest debate on the uncomfortable subject has. Certainly the official sanction of anything resembling torture comes from the desire for information; there is no doubt an element of punishment (or revenge) in the actual conduct.
Is it always wrong? That's certainly what my heart tells me. But can I leave it to my heart? I suppose you can even define torture as the amount of pain that is wrong to inflict. There are plenty of people who take an absolute stand that it is always wrong, and there are those who think that it isn't. Is there any basis for thinking there might be a time a place for torture?
One of the objections is that it is ineffective - it plain doesn't work. For punishment, for terror, for keeping a tyrant in power, clearly torture works. The historical record clearly shows that repressive regimes fall not when the it performs too much torture, but when it doesn't. Saddam stayed firmly in power, "winning" 100% of the "vote", because he was always willing to do whatever it took to stay in power. Pol Pot wasn't toppled because of Cambodian revulsion at his killing fields, but because Vietnam invaded.
But clearly anyone with a shred of conscience condemns torture as a means of punishment and/or political control. Although a California attorney general didn't seem to mind rape as a punishment, and the American public seems unconcerned over prison rape, with it's probability that more men than women are raped in America. I suppose that indifference goes hand in hand with the policy of having another country do our torture for us - if it's not done by someone actually on the US government payroll, we have no guilt.
But what about interrogation? Is torture better at getting the truth than less painful methods? I doubt there are any scientific studies on the subject, so what we are left with is reasoning and anecdote. The reasoning is that under torture, people will say anything to make it stop, and so will tell the torturer what they think he wants to hear, not the truth. Realistically, I don't think that means that it doesn't work, I think it means that the torturer has to excercise care not to lead the torturee -- a position analagous to how investigators question children these days after it was discovered they too were quite malleable at the expense of numerous daycare workers. On the other hand, it's always easier to tell the truth than to lie, and if the torturee believes the torture will stop if they tell the truth, the torturer may be more likely to get the truth using torture than other methods. Clearly there are some people who won't tell the truth no matter what, but the question is if you get more truth, not if you always get the truth.
Ace of Spades provides an anecdote that torture works: an Sri Lankan intellegence officer loosend the tongues of his remaining two captives but shooting the third dead in front of them and threatening them with the same. Quite frankly, if torture was truly ineffective, we wouldn't even be having this discussion as the practice would have died out long ago.
So we are left with the question: should we forgo a method of some effectiveness because of our moral concerns? I for one have no trouble answering that question Yes in general and in several specific cases - embryonic stem cell research for one. But we need to understand and agree that we are making a tradeoff.
Let's look at some similar tradeoffs. Pat Buchannen of all people put his finger on the main one as recounted by Radley Balko:
How is it, Buchanan asked, that a smart person could support a war that will certainly kill hundreds, probably thousands of innocent Iraqis -- and a good number of Americans -- in the name of preventing another 9/11, but not support torturing a man who has made no bones about his desire to murder as many Americans as possible, if doing so might prevent another 9/11?
In other words, the means of war are morally wrong, we know innocents will die, yet there are times when the purposes of war are right and just. So then, there are times when the purposes of torture for information are right and just. If your choice is between torturing the few and many others living, or not torturing and many others dying, then you torture the few. Of course, you are not the one responsible for killing the many, the terrorists are, while you are responsible for torturing the few.
Consider vaccination. We have mandatory vaccination programs in this country even though we know any given vaccine will cause serious adverse reactions, including death, in those vaccinated. We again substitute the suffering death of the few for the suffering of the many. So to answer Calpundit's question via Eve Tushnet:Is it OK for a doctor to torture prisoners if the end result is a medical therapy that could save thousands? No, because we don't know in advance tha the therapy will save millions, but we do vaccinate kids knowing that some will suffer horribly because it will save thousands of others from suffering.
In reality it's a moral calculus problem to which we already know the answer - if we know that suffering we cause clearly outweighs the suffering we prevent and if we minimize the suffering of the innocent. So now torture for information becomes not so much a moral question as a process question -- how can we minimize the suffering of the innocent, and how we make sure the the suffering we cause outweighs the suffering we prevent?
There are other concerns - the "slippery slope" -- will torture become the new ritalin? In other words, if seen as effective, it's use will continue far beyond the bounds of efficacy, and now the the suffering we cause will not be outweighed by the suffering we save. I do think this is a very real danger because we've seen it so many times before in so many ways. And sure, we'll come to realize the problem, but what about all those people who were unneccesarily tortured?
How do you know the person you're torturing has information that can prevent the suffering of others? I think only rarely will you know this -- only in special circumstances. What about the people who conduct the torture? What happens to them?
Clearly, there is a lot to think about. Not that I've got my head completely wrapped around it, but I think in order to make the process right, the use of torture cannot be a policy of the US government, but given the right circumstances an individual or group could use torture to get information and I would agree that they did the right thing. Ultimately, my read on the moral calculus is that only rarely will it work out as a good thing (while acknowledging that clearly it can), and the only way to keep it rare is to make it against policy. Yes, I'm running the risk that many innocents will suffer, but I'm forgoing the risk that many innocents will suffer.
Sadly, that doensn't help the poor person who has to draw the line between torture and non-torture.
We're Here To Help
All help isn't equal, as Eamon Fitzgerald reminds us:
"A tidal wave of compassion is bearing down on Sri Lanka. A guy on the radio is saying that his travel company will fly people from Ireland to the Indian Ocean island to help the victims of the tsunami. You pony up 850 euros for the flight and he'll take care of the accommodation. Skills required? None. The hungry have to be fed, the homeless housed and the grieving counselled. So what if you don't understand the dialect or can't put a splint on a broken leg? Love conquers all. Righ?"
He goes on to demonstrate the essence of wisdom by relating someone else's pertinant anecdote.
But It Sure Feels Nice
If brevity is the soul of wit, compare these two opinion pieces on Senator Boxer's content-free challenge to President Bush's re-election:
Which one does the better job of capturing the essence of the challenge?
January 5, 2005
Since You've Been Gone
You may have noticed, but I haven't been blogging too much recently. All kinds of stuff has been going on while I've been otherwise occupied.
Charles Austen is handing out Christmas wishes and once again I've been overlooked. That's OK, I'm used to it. And really, the list of fine bloggers is present enough, because, as I explained below, really I don't need anything I don't already have.
John Conyers, one of my favorite politicians, looks to have got caught sending turkeys meant for the poor to pals. Yeah, I know, isn't that really what politics is about?
I caught Don Luskin on the radio the other morning on my way to work. He was talking about ways to improve Social Security and I have to say he gives great radio. I was a little surprised because he was very calm, matter of fact, stuck with the facts, wouldn't let himself get diverted and politely stayed on topic when Smash (one of the hosts) tried to pull him off. I say surprised because he comes off more as an in your face kind of guy on his website.
Shelley (whose Burningbird I adore) reports on the firing of a St. Louis Post-Dispatch writer for what he wrote on his blog. I have to say, since I post under my own name I have no illusions that what I write here won't be used against me, so I write accordingly. Number one, nothing about work, and very little about the field I work in. I don't think my writing suffers because I don't dis my coworkers or employer here; it's not something I do (much) anyway and it would only be of interest to people I work with.
Kevin "Mr. Wizbang to You" responds to Corey Pein, the author of a piece in the CJR about Dan Rather and the blogosphere. Speaking of which, still no release of the big investigation report. Powerline has their own response. Me? Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.
I'm told that Tom Brokaw retired. I have no idea if this is true as I haven't seen a network news broadcast in years. They say he's been replaced with Brian Williams, who always seemed a pleasant fellow on CNBC or MSNBC or whatever cable outfit I saw him on. Something odd about his eyes though.
The guys at Powerline are engaged in a pissing contest with a man who buys civit cat juice by the barrel. Good luck guys. Interestingly enough, McQ at QandO has a bone to pick with Powerline as well (thankfully he doesn't bring genitalia into his critique.
In an attempt to be Seinfeldesq, I'll note that Jon Henke of QandO has pointed out a wee bit of dead horse beating on the part of Dan Rather.
I know I'm late to the party on this one, but John Hawkins has the 40 Most Obnoxious Quotes of 2004
Da Goddess and son have a funny encounter with a Bush-hater. Although I agree with the lady that God doesn't vote Republican - God doesn't vote period (I'm a Deus Vult kind of guy), and IMHO takes far more interest in individuals than political parties.
A Look Back
I had a good Christmas. Since I realistically lack for nothing but time (and I'm sure if I had my priorities right I wouldn't even lack for that) I was happy to get a few things I wanted for Christmas, but more importantly to give a few things other people wanted. OK, I suppose if to love and be loved is a need, then I got to exchange something I and others needed.
My 2004 was a year like most of my others. The FunMurphys had a great time in Colorado this summer (you might get to see all the photos, you might not) switched jobs for the Very Large Corporation of America; the Fruit of the Murphy Loins are a year older and thus closer to the dreaded teenage years (OK, my daughter is already there, but just at the start), and I didn't wake up to find what little I had taken away from me the day after Christmas. I suppose that sums up my look back at 2004.
January 3, 2005
What Does the Moon Look Like Above the Overcast Sky?
I was faced with a variant of the "if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it (or blog it)" puzzle tonight when my younger son came inside very upset because he had to draw a picture of the moon but it was too overcast to see it. To draw a picture of the moon you have to see it (those of you with small children know what I am talking about as Dave Barry would advise), fortunately some googling turned up the Virtual Reality Moon Phase Pictures (courtesy of the US Naval Observatory).
