Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Day-After Pill

NYT reported A high-ranking Food and Drug Administration official resigned Wednesday in protest over the agency's refusal to allow over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception. Susan Wood, director of FDA's Office of Women's Health, announced her resignation in an e-mail to colleagues at the agency.

Good. One less person there pushing to release it for over the counter sales.
The e-mail was released by contraception advocates. The FDA last Friday postponed indefinitely its decision on whether to allow the morning-after pill, called Plan B, to be sold without a prescription. The agency said it was safe for adults to use without a doctor's guidance but was unable to decide how to keep it out of the hands of young teenagers without a prescription -- a decision contrary to the advice of its own scientific advisers.

Read More...

Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey

NYT reports In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools. The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

I do not object to Creationism being taught along with Evolution, but I would also like to see Intelligent Design included as well. Creationism says that the story in Genesis is literally true, while the Secular Humanist version of Evolution that is being taught says that Creation happened completely by random chance, and there was no Supreme Being involved. I prefer the Intelligent Design approach, which says that God did create everything, and that evolution was one of the tools he used to allow various species to adapt to their environment, but that he was involved in the creation of the major species, including man.
In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.
I say teach all three. I respect religious people that believe that the story in Genesis is literally true, but I would also like to see my point of view taught as well.
The poll was conducted July 7-17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.

John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."
Actually they just want to be sure their version is taught too.
"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.' It seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the scientists," said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio. Eugenie C. Scott, the director of the National Center for Science Education and a prominent defender of evolution, said the findings were not surprising because "Americans react very positively to the fairness or equal time kind of argument." "In fact, it's the strongest thing that creationists have got going for them because their science is dismal," Ms. Scott said. "But they do have American culture on their side."
The science behind Creationism may be scant, but the science behind ID is not. ID accepts everything about Darwinism Evolution that has been proven, by fossil evidence, but it just substitutes its own solution where Darwinism tries to blow smoke in people's faces when it speculates how one species could "evolve" into another one, without fossil evidence for any intermediate species. ID has an answer for those gaps: "God did it"
This year, the National Center for Science Education has tracked 70 new controversies over evolution in 26 states, some in school districts, others in the state legislatures. President Bush joined the debate on Aug. 2, telling reporters that both evolution and the theory of intelligent design should be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about." Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, took the same position a few weeks later.

Intelligent design, a descendant of creationism, is the belief that life is so intricate that only a supreme being could have designed it.
A decendant??? Are you saying Creationism evolved into ID? <grin>
The poll showed 41 percent of respondents wanted parents to have the primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who said teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who said school boards should. Asked whether they believed creationism should be taught instead of evolution, 38 percent were in favor, and 49 percent were opposed. More of those who believe in creationism said they were "very certain" of their views (63 percent), compared with those who believe in evolution (32 percent).

The poll also asked about religion and politics, government financing of religious charities, and gay men and lesbians in the military. Most of these questions were asked of a smaller pool of 1,000 respondents, and the margin of error was 2.5 percentage points, Pew researchers said. The public's impression of the Democratic Party has changed in the last year, the survey found. Only 29 percent of respondents said they viewed Democrats as being "friendly toward religion," down from 40 percent in August of 2004. Meanwhile, 55 percent said the Republican Party was friendly toward religion.
Sounds right to me, although I think the 55 percent number may be larger.
Luis E. Lugo, the director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, said: "I think this is a continuation of the Republican Party's very successful use of the values issue in the 2004 election, and the Democrats not being able up until now to answer that successfully. Some of the more visible leaders, such as Howard Dean and others, have reinforced that image of a secular party. Of course, if you look at the Democratic Party, there's a large religious constituency there."
They just vote Republican
Survey respondents agreed in nearly equal numbers that nonreligious liberals had "too much control" over the Democratic Party (44 percent), and that religious conservatives had too much control over the Republican Party (45 percent).

On religion-based charities, two-thirds of respondents favored allowing churches and houses of worship to apply for government financing to provide social services. But support for such financing declined from 75 percent in early 2001, when Mr. Bush rolled out his religion-based initiative.

On gay men and lesbians in the military, 58 percent of those polled said they should be allowed to serve openly, a modest increase from 1994, when 52 percent agreed. Strong opposition has fallen in that time, to 15 percent from 26 percent in 1994.


Steve M. blogged So, if we're going to treat evolution as debatable in American schools -- if we're going to "teach the controversy," as an apparent majority of Americans would prefer -- why stop with evolution? There's lots of "controversy" out there, after all. Why not "teach the controversy" and give equal time to the theory that HIV doesn't cause AIDS? .... Or 9/11 -- there are lots of controversies surrounding that day. The juiciest, of course, says that 4,000 Jews got advance warning of the attacks and therefore escaped death. We should teach that controversy, too -- no?
Once you get over 40% of the American people believing them, then perhaps
Ann Althouse blogged I don't think it's so much that Americans are anti-science as that they are much less committed to scientific values than to the values of free speech and open dialogue. This is not not as antithetical to science as it may seem at first to people who strongly believe (as I do) that science classes should contain only bona fide science.
ID has a lot of science behind it, since it accepts the part of Darwinism that can be proven (has fossil evidence), and just offers another answer for the part that cannot be scientifically proven.
There ought to be better social studies classes to teach students about the relationship between religion and science.

Sloanasaurus commented I have a solution to the creationism issue. Make evolution a college course.

Read More...

Firefox Problems

I love FireFox, and particularly its LiveBookmark support of RSS feeds, and only slightly less its Tabbed Browsing. I even wrote several articles on it, including this and this.

But there is one thing about Firefox which really makes me mad. Every hour my computer locks up for about 5 minutes, with almost 100% CPU utilization, interleaved with short periods when the CPU utilization seems to drop off, but I still cant use my machine, because the Hard Drive is being accesses solidly. All of this is caused by Firefox updating my RSS feeds. I do have a large number of Live Bookmarks (RSS Feeds), but then that is the reason I use Firefox in the first place.

I certainly have reported the problem, but what else is there I can do? I finally decided to create a new blog, Firefox Problems, in the hopes that others having the same problem could post their problems here as well, and maybe we can persuade someone to tackle these problems.

In my case, it would seem to me very reasonable if rather than just bitspinning while it is updating the RSS feeds, I wish the Firefox programmers would create a separate task to do the job, and give it a very low priority. It might not update as fast, but it could do its updates without disturbing what I am doing.

If for some reason they can't do that, then could they not make the one hour refresh a configurable time. If I could set the refresh to only happen every four hours, I could go eat lunch, or something like that, whenever they felt they needed to do an update. But not every 60 minutes, please.

If you have been having problems with Firefox, please go to Firefox Problems, and describe your problems in the comments. Please encourage any other bloggers you know with Firefox problems to participate there as well, and if we can get enough bloggers posting there, maybe we can get some attention from the folks at Firefox.

Read More...

New Orleans Is Lost

The Dawn Patrol blogged From reader James T. Freeman III:

..... The question of New Orleans' survival as a city was in some question an hour ago. Now, I think the question may have been answered. New Orleans will not be habitable for a very long time, and then only after the expenditure of unfathomable treasure.

May God have mercy. Lord have mercy. I am out of words for prayer other than that. Lord have mercy.

I think I am going to go cry now.
Please pray for the victims and their families, and donate to relief organizations such as the Salvation Army.

I went to sleep when Katrina was still in the Gulf praying for the people of New Orleans, and all others in Katrina's path. I woke up thinking New Orleans had dodged a bullet, and that Mississippi and Alabama were getting the worst, but with the failure of the levee it appears New Orleans has been ruined as much as if the storm had not jigged east. I pray for all affected by Katrina.

Read More...

Why Don't More Bloggers Participate On Other Blogs?

Jim Logan blogged I read a good number of blogs, across a variety of topics - marketing, sales, general business, fitness, exercise, diet, personal and investment finance - about 168 altogether. The reason I read blogs is for breadth of perspective. I believe reading blogs gives me greater perspective on options, ideas, and alternatives on the subject matter I’m reading. I don’t think you should just read blogs though, you should join a blog – comment, voice an opinion, join in the conversation. That’s what makes reading blogs valuable, you can participate.

I completely agree. If a blogger has trackback's enabled (as Jim does), a blogger can post on his own blog and trackback to the other blogs post, thus exposing both blog's readers to his thoughts, and if trackbacks are not available, one can still comment.
Participation expands the discussion and broadens understanding. It’s a way to share ideas and mature thought. Using my blogs and blogging experience on other sites, it’s amazing to me how many bloggers you never see attributed to a comment. Indeed, there are many bloggers that comment and participate on other blogs, mine included…it just seems it’s the same small group of bloggers you see commenting everywhere. A very small group. Why don’t more bloggers join in the experience of other blogs?
And even if a person does not have the time to have a blog of their own, why don't they participate in the blogs they read by leaving comments with their thoughts.

Read More...

Accounting for the Final Report

Edward Morrissey wrote in Weekly Standard In 2003, as part of that year's Intelligence Authorization Act, Congress specifically authorized the creation and funding of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, which quickly and simply changed its common name to the 9/11 Commission. Congress mandated that this entity not just examine and report on the facts of the attacks themselves--which they did in the gripping narrative that comprises the first part of their report--but also to "make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States' preparedness for, and immediate response to, the attacks." The Act also required the new panel to submit its recommendations for "corrective measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism."

The birth of the Commission can trace itself to the mistrust of Congress, which had tried--and failed--to effectively investigate the circumstances of 9/11 and the al Qaeda threat through a joint inquiry between the House and Senate Intelligence Committees prior to forming this commission. The vestiges of the rancor in which the Commission was forged shows clearly in the language of the Act itself, which demands an exact method of selection for the panel members. The Act authorized ten commissioners, no more than five of which could have the same party affiliation. None could currently work in federal, state, or local governments. Republicans and Democrats got five selections each, and only one of those selections came from the White House, Commission chair Thomas Kean.

The biggest problem, IMHO, is that one of the commission members was former Deputy AG Jamie Gorelick, who rather than being a member of the commission, should have been a witness, sworn to tell the truth. As a member of the commission, the other commission members tried to cover up what she had done.
Captain Ed blogged Three weeks after Able Danger, it behooves us to review all of the information that has come out which the Commission apparently never considered when deriving its conclusions. One has to wonder why, as most of this had previously been known to at least the agencies involved in the 9/11 investigations. Most of it came from previously-published reports, and all of it undermines the panel's main conclusions. Now that Congress has scheduled hearings to review this, perhaps the Exempt Media will take all of it more seriously and refrain from duplicating the mistakes made by the Commission and themsleves the first time around: reporting only that which fits their predetermined narrative.

Read More...

Fewer See Dems As Religion-Friendly

AP reported Democrats' efforts to improve their image with religious voters after the 2004 presidential election appear to be getting off to a bumpy start. Fewer people see Democrats as friendly to religion now than felt that way a year ago, according to a poll released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. That number has dropped from 40 percent in August 2004 who thought the Democrats were friendly to religion to 29 percent now. "The change is seen across all groups," said Scott Keeter, director of survey research for the Pew Research Center, which conducted the poll for the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

After Democrats fared poorly with religious voters in the 2004 election, the Democratic National Committee initiated numerous efforts to strengthen its standing with religious voters. The DNC hired someone to coordinate religious outreach, encouraged state parties to work more closely with the religious community, and had Chairman Howard Dean meet with clergy and others in the religious community during his travels around the country.

But the American People were too smart to be fooled like that.
"We're at the beginning," said Democratic spokeswoman Karen Finney, who said religious voters share many of the values of the Democratic Party. "But we know we need to do a better job of talking about our values in a way that people see we share their values." More than half of those polled, 55 percent, said the Republican Party is friendly to religion.

A majority of political independents, 54 percent, said religious conservatives have too much influence over the GOP.
Then they need to get more involved in the Republican Party. But by expressing this point the AP shows its bias, because the full quote from the report is "More than four-in-ten say that liberals who are not religious have too much control over the Democratic Party, while an almost identical percentage says that religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party."
Fewer than half of independents said those who are not religious have too much impact on the Democratic Party. The poll of 2,000 adults was conducted July 7-17 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Read More...

A nation of outlaws

La Shawn Barber wrote in Townhall America has been invaded by an army of illegal aliens. Just last week in Arizona, an American was forced to surrender his land to illegal aliens who claimed he had assaulted them. The two criminals were caught trespassing on his property after crossing the border in violation of federal law. Unfortunately, this is part of a larger trend, one that grants more rights to illegal immigrants than American citizens.

That particular example proves two things. As LaShawn indicates it shows that immigration is out of control, but it also shows that our judicial system is also out of control.
Illegal immigration costs American taxpayers billions of dollars each year. In California alone the cost is $10.5 billion annually. The price tag for the rest of the country, especially border states, is incomprehensible. Illegal immigration is also a public safety risk because aliens do not undergo a medical screening before entering the United States. As a result, diseases once eradicated or virtually eradicated have resurfaced in America. Where is the so-called protection we’re entitled to as American citizens?
Good question
According to the 2000 Census, an estimated eight million illegal aliens were living in the U.S., and they continue to flood across the border at the rate of one million per year. Mexican citizens are required to have either a non-immigration visa or Border Crossing Card to enter the country, and no immigrant is to be admitted unless he has suitable and valid travel documentation. In violation of federal law, millions of foreigners don’t possess these documents. They are outlaws. Detractors will ask, “Do you really expect the government to round up each illegal alien and kick him out?” In a word, yes.
Rather than spenting a lot of money to round them up, I would rather see much of that money spent keeping them out. We need a wall just like Israel is building. And when the illegals who are here now go to request some government service (health care, education, etc) we should identify the illegals, and ship them out immediately.
The money spent educating, imprisoning and providing health care to criminal aliens should be diverted to reinforcing the borders and enforcing immigration law.But the federal government seems uninterested in enforcing the law. As a result, local governments are illegally using public funds to alleviate the damage caused by the invasion. On August 16, 2005, the Herndon Town Council in Herndon, Virginia, voted 5-2 to approve a plan to build an illegal gathering spot for “day laborers” so they can wait for lawbreaking employers to illegally hire them. More outlaws.
We could save a lot of money by refusing to send any federal money to states or cities that provide specific accomodations for illegals, or who prevent their police and other city workers from identifying and reporting illegals.
One group is trying to do what the U.S. government refuses to do. Judicial Watch, a group dedicated to protecting citizens from the government, will file a lawsuit against Herndon. “[N]o public official has any inherent power to authorize or facilitate unlawful acts using taxpayer funds….Law enforcement is in order, not taxpayer subsidies,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. Because the federal government is indifferent to its problem, the Town of Herndon was essentially forced to break the law. I asked Council Member Dennis Husch, who voted against the plan, whether Herndon law enforcement officials were allowed to ask so-called day laborers about their citizenship status. “[Immigration Customs and Enforcement] has refused to enforce immigration laws in Herndon and has refused to allow Herndon police to enforce federal immigration laws,” he said. I called Herndon’s mayor for comment, but the call was not returned. I wanted to know what Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) had to say about the day labor center. So I spoke with Jamie Zuiebach, a spokesperson for ICE, who told me I’d have to speak to a “local official in Herndon,” on the matter.

“I thought I’d also speak to someone at ICE, the government entity charged with enforcing immigration law,” I said. Zuiebach responded with a canned and not-so-accurate line: “We continue to work closely with law enforcement partners to enforce immigration laws, and I don’t have anything to say about a local issue.” The federal agency responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws has nothing to say about the “local issue” of illegal immigration. Meanwhile, Herndon citizens will contribute to an illegal enterprise for illegal aliens who should be sitting in deportation hearings instead of a brand new building waiting for off-the-books jobs.

What would the American founders say about the state of our country? One of them, President John Adams, made a prediction about the collapse of democracy. “It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Illegal immigration has burdened America and changed our culture for the worse, and our own government refuses to do anything about it. We are no longer a nation ruled by the people and for the people. We are a nation of outlaws.


LaShawn linked to her own story from this blog entry. I dont agree with the rest of this particular post, but I do agree that something needs to be done regarding immigration.

Read More...

Common enemy in Gaza: religious zealotry

Mona Eltahawy writes in CSM Watching Israeli soldiers drag Jewish settlers from Gaza was a reminder of just how much Palestinians and Israelis need each other. Without the "enemy," Israelis and Palestinians would divide along the fault lines barely concealed beneath the face of unity each side puts up to confront the other. And there is no bigger fault line than the secular/religious crack that exists in both societies.

When I lived in Jerusalem in 1998, many of my Israeli friends were clear in their contempt for the settlers. They could not understand them, least of all their religious zeal. "Many in Israel hope now that we are beginning a process of being normal," one of them said to me last week. "Until now, the settlers imposed on us their agenda, and there were two types of laws and rules: for the people and for them. We hope that the priorities will change." The religious/secular confrontation in Israeli society does not always take such dramatic turns as the scenes we saw from Gaza, but it's there. And fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Muslims are often each other's mirror images.

I do not agree with that. The Jewish settlers may have settled the land that they thought was theirs, but they did not send suicide bombers into the Arab areas to blow themselves up, and they did not even shoot at Arabs unless they were being shot at themselves.
Which takes me to the question that everyone in Palestinian society should be asking now that Israel has completed its withdrawal from Gaza: When push comes to shove, will the Palestinian Authority confront its fundamentalists in the same way that Israel confronted the religious zealots in the settlements? When the greater good of Palestinians is at stake, is the Palestinian Authority (PA) willing to curb the activities of Hamas, the militant Islamic organization?
I wish they would, but I dont expect them to.
Hamas is trying to portray Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza as a victory for its campaign of violence and terrorism. But any such victory for Hamas would be a defeat for the Palestinian people, caught between the brutality of the Israeli occupation and Hamas's bloodletting. The second intifada, propelled and inspired by Hamas' tactics, was a failure and a disaster for Palestinians. Unlike the first intifada, which galvanized world opinion for the "children of the rocks,"
I don't even agree that the first intifada was successful, because it focused all of the blame on the Israelis, when it was the governments of Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab countries that forced the Palestinians into slum like living conditions. Jews that had lived in Jordan for generations were forced to leave, and they were accepted into Israel, and housing was found for them. Arabs that did not want to live in Israel were not accepted in other Arab countries, but were forced into terrible refugee camps that just caused hate to rise for generations.
the second was an exercise in nihilism that hurt the Palestinians more than it helped them. The PA, under the late Yasser Arafat, must bear its responsibility too. Its corruption and lack of democracy and transparency left a vacuum Hamas was all too willing and ready to fill. With Gaza free of settlers and soldiers, now is Mahmoud Abbas's chance to show Palestinians how far he is willing to go to assert his authority. If Abbas doubts for a second how important it is to curb the religious zealotry of Hamas, he need only remember Yusra Azzami. Earlier this year, the young Palestinian woman was sitting in a car with her sister, her fiancé, and his brother when masked Hamas gunmen forced their car to stop in a Gaza neighborhood and killed her for "immoral behavior."

When the settlers and soldiers were still in Gaza, these kinds of crimes were easier to conceal. Palestinian families who have suffered at the hands of Hamas have long been intimidated into silence for the sake of Palestine. With the settlers and soldiers gone from Gaza, Hamas's zealotry must be curbed for the sake of Palestine and its people. The best way to strengthen Abbas's hand would be to make life better for Palestinians. Gaza needs investment if Abbas is to deliver the homes and jobs that he's promised. The international community can show its confidence in the Palestinian people by directing some money their way,
That would be foolish, because the money would just be spent on weapons. If countries want to help, they can fund companies in their own country that will go into Gaza and construct housing for the citizens, and provide jobs by hiring locals to help with the construction, but they should only send in building materials, not money.
and the Palestinian Authority can return that confidence by ensuring that every cent goes into the future of Gaza and not toward building more villas for Palestinian officials.

Read More...

The new constitution has more virtues than risks.

OpinionJournal editorialized "A formula for civil war," says Senator Joe Biden. He's referring to the Sunni rejection of the new Iraq constitution, and it's always possible that this time he'll be right. Then again, he and many others also predicted disaster before January's wildly successful Iraq elections. "It's going to be ugly," the Delaware Democrat said at the time.

The Senator has said many other foolish things in his life.
So here's a radical thought: How about letting Iraqis debate and vote on their new national charter before we Americans summarily denounce it as a failure?
Sounds like a good idea. And even if they vote it down, if they then move on to elections to elect a new assembly to try again, that is up to them.
By any existing Middle East standard, the new constitution is a great achievement. It promises to protect human rights, including free speech and the right to worship. It applies the very American principle of federalism, or decentralized power, to reassure multiethnic regions and various Muslim denominations and thus keep the country together.
In the US we are proud of "States Rights", yet many of us cirticize Iraq for wanting the same thing. Consider, they just went through a long period where a small minority had absolute rule over the entire country (just as we have had 40 years when the Dems controlled both houses of Congress). Isn't it reasonable that they want to maintain as much control of their area as they can get?
The majority Shiites, far from seeking to dominate other ethnic groups from Baghdad, are asking largely for the power to govern themselves. The entire country will now spend six weeks debating all of this leading up to an October referendum that will be freer and more open than the presidential election that Egypt will hold this coming weekend.

This result would certainly be better if Sunni leaders, including some on the drafting committee, were not urging other Sunnis to defeat it. But consider this: For the Sunnis to defeat the constitution they will have to participate in the vote. That's more than they did in January's elections, and by itself represents a commitment to a democratic process that many Americans insist isn't possible in an Arab culture.

It is also by no means clear that the constitution will be rejected by Iraq's voters. The pact must be repudiated by a two-thirds vote in at least three of Iraq's 18 provinces. A large Sunni turnout could mean "no" votes in two of Iraq's three predominantly Sunni provinces--Anbar and Sulemaniyah--but is less likely in Nineveh, which has a large Kurdish population. Ratification in the other 15 predominantly Kurdish or Shiite provinces is all but assured.

In the secrecy of the voting booth, many Sunnis may even favor the charter that their ostensible leaders denounce. The constitution's protections are one shield against Shiite religious domination.
And if they reject this constitution, and another has to be written, those protections might not be in a new constitution.
Super-majority clauses also guarantee Sunni influence in parliament.....

For all of Iraq's security problems, the present moment is one of remarkable promise. A constitution, written in a spirit of compromise rare in the Middle East, has now been adopted by a freely elected, multiethnic, multidenominational Muslim government. This government now intends to put the constitution to a vote and--what's more amazing--abide by the result.

Four years ago, such a scenario for Iraq would have seemed improbable, to say the least. That it should now be denounced as inadequate is perhaps the best measure of how much progress a free Iraq has made.

Read More...

Wednesday, August 31

This Day In History

  • 1886   An earthquake rocked Charleston, S.C., killing up to 110 people.
  • 1852   The United States Congress passed legislation creating the first prestamped envelopes.
  • 1887   Thomas A. Edison received a patent for his ''Kinetoscope,'' a device that produced moving pictures.
  • 1888   Mary Ann Nicholls was found murdered in London's East End. She is generally regarded as the first victim of Jack the Ripper.
  • 1903   The first automobile trip from San Francisco to New York City was completed. A Packard made the trip in 52 days.
  • 1935   President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an act prohibiting the export of U.S. arms to belligerents.
  • 1954   Hurricane Carol hit the northeastern United States, resulting in nearly 70 deaths and millions of dollars in damage.
  • 1962   The Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago became independent within the British Commonwealth.
  • 1963   Walter Cronkite started showing up in living rooms during the dinner hour as anchor of the "CBS Evening News", a job he took over from Douglas Edwards on April 16, 1962. Previous to this night, "CBS Evening News" had been shown from 7:30-7:45 p.m. and 7:15-7:30 p.m.
  • 1964   California officially became the most populated of the United States.
  • 1969   Boxer Rocky Marciano died in a light airplane crash in Iowa, the day before his 46th birthday.
  • 1980   Poland's Solidarity labor movement was born with an agreement signed in Gdansk that ended a 17-day strike.
  • 1985   Richard Ramirez, later convicted of California's ''Night Stalker'' killings, was captured by residents of an East Los Angeles neighborhood.
  • 1986   An Aeromexico jetliner and a small private plane collided over Cerritos, Calif., killing 82 people.
  • 1992   White separatist Randy Weaver surrendered to authorities in Naples, Idaho, ending an 11-day siege by federal agents that claimed the lives of Weaver's wife, son and a deputy U.S. marshal.
  • 1994   The Irish Republican Army declared a cease-fire.
  • 1994   Russia officially ended its military presence in the former East Germany and the Baltics after half a century.
  • 1997   Diana, Britain’s Princess of Wales, was killed in an early-morning car crash in Paris, France. Also killed was her millionaire companion, Harrods department store heir, Dodi Fayed. The couple was being chased by aggressive paparazzie (photographers) on motorcycles at the time of the crash.
  • 2001   A Bronx, N.Y., team's third-place finish in the Little League World Series was ruled invalid because pitching star Danny Almonte was found to be two years older than the age limit of 12.
  • 2002   Jazz musician and bandleader Lionel Hampton died at age 94.
Happy Birthday To

  • 1870   Maria Montessori (educator: first woman to attend medical school, first female Doctor of Medicine in Italy, worked with handicapped and socially deprived children, developed unique educational method known as the Montessori method; Montessori Schools named for her; died May 6, 1952)
  • 1903   Arthur (Morton) Godfrey (ukulele playing, TV/radio entertainer: Arthur Godfrey’s Talent Scouts, Arthur Godfrey and Friends; Lipton Tea commercials; died Mar 16, 1983)
  • 1908   William Saroyan (Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright)
  • 1916   Daniel Schorr (journalist)
  • 1924   Buddy Hackett (Leonard Hacker) (comedian, actor)
  • 1928   James Coburn (actor)
  • 1935   Eldridge Cleaver (black activist; died May 1, 1998)
  • 1945   Itzhak Perlman (violinist: recorded with Andre Previn and Scott Joplin)
  • 1949   Richard Gere (actor)

Read More...

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Global warming and Mother Nature

Rich Lowry wrote in National Review Online If cable TV had existed in 1886, everyone in the U.S. might have been whipped into a hurricane panic. A record seven hurricanes made landfall that year, including a Category 4 storm that hit Texas and would have had on-the-spot cable newscasters dramatically fighting the wind to deliver their reports. All during the 1890s, reporters could have done the same along the Atlantic seaboard, as it was hammered by more powerful hurricanes than it would be in any decade except the 1950s. Hurricane Katrina, which slammed the Gulf Coast and got eyewall-to-eyewall media coverage, is sure to increase the sense that there is an epidemic of hurricanes (along, of course, with an epidemic of shark attacks and missing blond girls). Which inevitably raises the question: "What can we do about it?" For some scientists and activists — working on the assumption that anything they don't like must be caused by industrial emissions — the answer is stop global warming. There is hardly an undesirable natural event, from wildfires to hurricanes, that former Vice President Al Gore hasn't blamed on global warming. As if it weren't for fossil-fuel emissions, the weather would always be predictable and pleasant. An outfit called Scientists and Engineers for Change put up a billboard in Florida before last year's presidential election stating it starkly: "Global warming = Worse hurricanes. George Bush just doesn't get it." Ah, yes: Why are Bush and the neocons focused on the war in Iraq, when there is a very real threat to the U.S. they should be addressing in the waters of the Atlantic? Has global warming increased the frequency of hurricanes? One of the nation's foremost hurricane experts, William Gray, points out that if global warming is at work, cyclones should be increasing not just in the Atlantic but elsewhere, in the West Pacific, East Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. They aren't.

There was a Tsunami, but you can't blame an underseas earthquake on global warming, at least if you have any sense.
The number of cyclones per year worldwide fluctuates pretty steadily between 80 and 100. There's actually been a small overall decline in tropical cyclones since 1995, and Atlantic hurricanes declined from 1970 to 1994, even as the globe was heating up. It seems that Atlantic hurricanes come in spurts, or as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration puts it in more technical language, "a quasi-cyclic multi-decade regime that alternates between active and quiet phases." The late 1920s through the 1960s were active; the 1970s to early 1990s quiet; and since 1995 — as anyone living in Florida or Gulfport, Miss., can tell you — seems to be another active phase.

But if hurricanes aren't more frequent, are they more powerful? Warm water fuels hurricanes, so the theory is that as the ocean's surface heats up, hurricanes will pack more punch. An article in Nature — after questionable jiggering with the historical wind data — argues that hurricanes have doubled in strength because of global warming. Climatologist Patrick Michaels counters that if hurricanes had doubled in their power it would be obvious to everyone and there would be no need to write controversial papers about it. Indeed, if you adjust for population growth and skyrocketing property values,
Including a LOT more building of expensive houses right on the ocean, as well as in areas subject to major forest fires, mudslides, earquakes, etc.
hurricanes don't appear to be any more destructive today. According to the work of Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, of the top five most destructive storms this century, only one occurred after 1950 — Hurricane Andrew in 1992. An NOAA analysis says there have been fewer Category 4 storms throughout the past 35 years than would have been expected given 20th-century averages.

None of this data matters particularly, since proponents of global warming will continue to link warming with hurricanes. It generates headlines in a way that debates about tiny increments of warming don't. And it feeds a conceit that is oddly comforting: that whatever is wrong with the world is caused by us and fixable by us. Alas, it's not so. Mother Nature can be a cruel and unpredictable mistress, and sometimes all we can do is head for the high ground.

Read More...

Is it time

Mark Tapscott wrote in Townhall Thanks to the incredible expansion of federal entitlements, regulations and pork spending sanctioned by the GOP leadership in Congress since 2001, there is virtually no chance that Big Government is going to be shrunk even a little any time soon. And since there is no sign the folks running Congress are willing to change course, why shouldn’t conservatives dump the GOP?

Because the alternative (the Dems) is even worse. They will raise taxes much more than the freespending Republicans, and will waste even more money on even bigger government projects.
Now, all you party loyalists who started gasping while reading that last sentence can take a deep breath. I’m not saying we should just up and bolt right now. What I am saying is this: The rebirth of limited government will remain a conservative pipedream as long as the people in charge of the GOP refuse to sober up.
Republicans are big spenders because they know that bringing home the bacon is the way to be reelected. What we need is a constitutional ammendment that would legalize the line item veto.
Put another way, it’s time for an intervention. That’s when the family and closest friends and professional associates of an addict confront the abuser with an ultimatum – get sober and get help now … or else. The presence of the spouse with suitcases packed and the boss with pink slip in-hand helps the abuser realize the consequences of not getting help will be immediate and unpleasant. More than a few lives and careers have been saved over the years by such interventions.

But sometimes interventions work and sometimes they don’t. There is no guarantee that the GOP leaders will get the message, either. Quite frankly, I am not optimistic because I’ve seen the Stan Evans Law in operation for too long. Evans is the retired conservative activist/journalist who years ago said: “When one of our people gets elected, sooner or later he [or she] stops being one of our people.”

Read More...

Realpolitik vs. pretendpolitik

Diana West wrote in JWR Unbowed, if unemployed, Michael Graham (fired from WMAL for saying Islam is a Terrorist Organization) issued a thought-provoking challenge as his airtime on "The O'Reilly Factor" ran down to a break. Before discussing Graham's final words on "O'Reilly," it's worth mentioning that Graham's argument linking terrorism to Islam is posted at JewishWorldReview.com in a column he wrote after the second London Underground bombing. Sure, the stand-alone scare quote ("I. is a T.O.") collides head-on with 21st-century sensibilities, but Graham builds his argument carefully.

And after reading his article I think more of him than I did when I just heard the quote he was fired for.
He makes the politically incorrect kind of sense, supported by fact (e.g., more than one in four British Muslims said they wouldn't tell police of a planned terrorist attack) and observation (Islamic teachings drive terrorist jihad), that the open-eyed child in "The Emperor's New Clothes" would instantly recognize.... And then, in closing, Graham said this: "(t)ell me one terrorist attack that's going to be stopped because we stopped this conversation" — that is, by WMAL taking Graham off the air.... Surely, we are more "sensitive," meaning more guarded, even nervous about what is currently permissible to say, at least according to CAIR's enforcers. Even so, ending a conversation about jihad and Islam doesn't end Islamic jihad.
CAIR's objective is to promote, not end, Islamic Jihad, but if they can intimidate people not to talk about it, the Jihadists will have a better chance.
Nor does cutting the talk about links between Islam and terrorism cut the links between Islam and terrorism. The fact is, the train of logic doesn't change its destination no matter how many of us — radio stations, pundits, academics, politicians — hop off.... This reality includes the fact that what we know as "terrorism" is directly linked to the centrality of jihad (holy war) and dhimmitude (non-Muslim inferiority) in Islam, no hijackings necessary.... Protected against reality, we see only good in any religion because it is a religion. Secure from the truth, we see only liberty and justice in any constitution because it is a constitution.
I am not sure I agree with this. As a religion the five pillars of Islam are not bad, but some evil people have hijacked Islam. Our Holy Bible describes times when people were slaves, and when women had no rights. But we do not claim that because those things happened 2,000 years ago, they should still happen today.
Our only problems stem from "extremism," which not only defines nothing, but also offends no one. Or does it? Out of Great Britain this month came a communique from nearly 40 Muslim leaders and groups. Their message? In part to renounce the label of "extremism." They wrote: "To equate 'extremism' with the aspirations of Muslims for Sharia laws in the Muslim world or the desire to see unification towards a Caliphate in the Muslim lands ... is inaccurate and disingenuous.
If the British Muslims really aspire to having Sharia laws apply in the Muslim world, why dont they leave Britain and go live in a Muslim country. They are asking for Sharia to apply to them in Britain.
It indicates ignorance of what Sharia is and what a Caliphate is and will alienate and victimize the Muslim community unnecessarily." In other words, not only does terrorism have nothing to do with Islam, as WMAL seems to have determined, but sharia (repressive Islamic law) and the caliphate (Islamic empire) have nothing to do with extremism, as Britain's Muslim leaders have explained.
They must have written that after smoking hashish.
Clearly, our vocabulary is shrinking as fast the ranks of bold talk-show hosts. But isn't there so much more to talk about?

Read More...

Ethics matter

Barbara Kelley wrote in CSM I've just finished reading the narrative evaluations my journalism students fill out at the end of each quarter. Good reporting is "soooo much work" wrote one student. "Decisions," wrote another in big fat caps. "Never as easy as they seem." A third concluded: "I've realized that ethics are HUGE in journalism."

This is a revelation?

There's a scary subtext when even journalism students come to class assuming that ethics are a nonissue, and are surprised and relieved to find that they play front and center. I have to wonder if these kids are like canaries in the coal mines, telling us more than we want to know about not only the public perception of journalism, but about the future of the press itself.

No, they have just been reading and watching the Main Stream Media, where ethics do not matter, no matter how much they should matter.
Journalism can be a tough sell. Polls tell us that public trust in the media is at an all-time low, with public distaste at an all-time high. Add to that the cognitive dissonance that occurs when reporting classes coexist with courses on critical media theory, and you can imagine how dicey it can be to teach a potential crop of reporters not only how to do it right - but why to do it at all.

I suspect, in fact, that ours is not the only communication department whose graduates are more likely to join PR shops than newsrooms. Not surprising, I'll concede, when you consider the cost of college loans, and the disparity in pay between corporate communication jobs and small newsrooms where reporters are likely to start their careers. But what makes me shudder are comments I sometimes hear from students who find PR to be a much more "acceptable" profession - as opposed to journalism, which they find, "you know, like, a little bit sleazy"?
Right. After all, if you are going to be sleezy, you should be a lot sleezy, and get paid more for it.
Research suggests these kids are only running with the curve. A June survey by the Pew Research Center found that while most respondents look favorably upon their local media, their perception of the press in general is more negative than ever. "The public is not rejecting the principles underlying traditional journalism," wrote Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, and Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists. "Rather it suspects journalists are not living up to those principles."
I always thought journalists and principles was an oxymoron.

Read More...

Just one question

Dennis Prager wrote in Townhall All those who support the American war in Iraq should make a deal with anyone opposed to the war. Offer to answer any 20 questions the opponents wish to ask if they will answer just one:

Do you believe we are fighting evil people in Iraq?

That is how supporters of the war regard the Baathists and the Islamic suicide terrorists, the people we are fighting in Iraq. Because if you cannot answer it, or avoid answering it, or answer "no," we know enough about your moral compass to know that further dialogue is unnecessary. In fact, dialogue is impossible. Our understanding of good and evil is so different from yours, there is simply nothing to discuss.

That is absolutely true.
Someone who was asked a hundred years ago "Do you believe that whites who lynch blacks are evil?" and refused to answer in the affirmative was not someone one could dialogue with.... It is one thing to oppose the war in Iraq; it is quite another to deny the evil of those we fight there. That is what the Left in America routinely does. And that is why the culture war in America is as important as the military war in Iraq.

Read More...

News councils

CSM reports Fairness, accuracy, and balance. They've become media buzzwords, but what do they really mean?

It is fairly obvious. It means reporting the facts, including both sides of issues, without allowing your political or other opinions to influence what you report, and how you report it.
Our community storytellers - the news media - sometimes need correcting. Yes, it's important to know how many people marched on the State Capitol, but citizens also want to know what's important and why. News councils are one way to help encourage that conversation by holding news organizations accountable while respecting their autonomy. That's tough to pull off, and some journalists who think any form of accountability is "chilling" resist cooperating.
That is ok. Once their papers or stations go out of business because no one is reading/watching, they will be out of a job.
As someone familiar with two news councils in Minnesota and Washington State, I can offer firsthand testimony that news councils are great places for journalists and citizens to talk about news coverage, learn from each other, and strengthen the relationships between news organizations and their communities.

News councils provide a nonthreatening, neutral way to explore citizen complaints about media coverage, to examine ethics, and to communicate more clearly about the purpose and techniques of journalism. The American public has made it clear that journalism as practiced today is not serving them well. Many viewers and readers have responded by simply turning off the TV or radio, or canceling subscriptions.
Or they go to cable news services, and online sources, including blogs, for their information and commentary.
Other consumers of news, overloaded with media babble, have found frequent "media fasts" crucial to their mental health. News councils offer better ways to reflect on what's working and what's not. Few institutions in today's culture are strong on reflection; this one encourages it....

The two news councils active today are independent organizations comprised of a mix of volunteers - 12 media people and 12 community members, who represent only themselves. The Minnesota News Council was created by newspaper publishers. The Washington News Council was created by media critics, retired journalists, and concerned citizens. Both have proved themselves important, impartial institutions holding up standards of the best in journalism. Here's how the arbitration process works: The councils mediate between media organizations and individuals or groups who feel they've been harmed by media coverage but agree not to take the case to court. Often the situation is resolved by the complainant getting his or her perspective published, but otherwise a hearing is held and the council votes on the validity of each complaint. Though the council can't mete out punishment, the process is publicized, and that can have considerable weight....
Sounds interesting
Through a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation of Miami, two new news councils will form next year. The Minnesota and Washington State news councils will offer seed money of $75,000 to each of the two best proposals submitted by February 15, 2006. (Guidelines and application form can be found at the websites of the Minnesota and Washington news councils.)

News councils in other states could take a different form. They might be started by journalism schools, civic groups, media outlets - or, perhaps ideally, coalitions of these organizations. Would fairness and balance look different in California, Kansas, New York, or Florida? We welcome serious proposals. Doesn't every state deserve a news council?

Read More...

Where a Cuddle With Your Baby Requires a Bribe

NYT reports Bangalore, India - Just as the painful ordeal of childbirth finally ended and Nesam Velankanni waited for a nurse to lay her squalling newborn on her chest, the maternity hospital's ritual of extortion began. Before she even glimpsed her baby, she said, a nurse whisked the infant away and an attendant demanded a bribe. If you want to see your child, families are told, the price is $12 for a boy and $7 for a girl, a lot of money for slum dwellers scraping by on a dollar a day. The practice is common here in the city, surveys confirm. Mrs. Velankanni was penniless, and her mother-in-law had to pawn gold earrings that had been a precious marriage gift so she could give the money to the attendant, or ayah. Mrs. Velankanni, a migrant to Bangalore who had been unprepared for the demand, wept in frustration. "The ayah told my mother-in-law to pay up fast because the night duty doctor was leaving at 8 a.m. and wanted a share," she recalled.

The bribes vary from place to place and in the services affected, but stretch from cradle to grave, according to surveys and anticorruption investigators. People pay to give birth, and to collect their loved ones' bodies from mortuaries, and for everything in between: garbage collection, clean water, medicines, admission to public schools. Even policemen double as shakedown artists. Such petty bribery acts as a hidden regressive tax, according to research financed by the World Bank Institute, the bank's educational and research arm. In Zambia, for example, poor people paid 17 percent of their incomes in bribes for medical care, while the middle class paid only 3 percent. The comparable figures for Paraguay were 7 percent for the poor and only 1 percent for the middle class.

Nagaratna Hanumanthu, 23, and her husband, Hanumanthu, 28, a sugar-cane-juice vendor with a single name, lost their first baby to a raging fever just two days after he was born. Their anxieties were high last November when their daughter was born at Austin Town. The moment the baby emerged, the nurses took her away and demanded $7, the parents said. But Mr. Hanumanthu, a tall, imposing man, said he pretended he knew important people and threatened to complain. The nurses backed down, he said. But then his fears grew that the staff might hurt the baby. "We had already lost one child, and we were worried we would lose this child, too," he said. Mr. Hanumanthu, who earns about $1 a day, turned to his mother, who makes $11 a month sweeping floors and washing dishes. She gave him money for the bribe.


Stories like these are terrible. Some brain damaged liberals will say we should just pour more money into these countries, but more money will do nothing to stop greedy people who have power over their fellow citizens.

Read More...

Constitution-writing is flourishing around the world.

CSM reported Despite Iraq's troubled effort to craft a government, the world today is in a golden era of national constitutionmaking. From ex-Soviet nations shedding communist-era laws to candidates for European Union membership buffing credentials, and developing countries striving for internal reconciliation, states everywhere are looking to these thin documents as a powerful symbol of political legitimacy. Since the 1980s, some 100 national constitutions - about half the globe's total - have been created, rewritten, or substantially revised.

Having a constitution is not everything, but it is a very important step.
But there's at least one difference between the constitutions of today and those that are hundreds of years old. In the past, framers often had sharp differences but also shared visions. Think Philadelphia in 1787, when all knew they wanted a democratic, liberal state.
There might be some question about what is meant by "democratic" and "liberal"
By contrast, the framers of today are often just looking for a way of living together without major disagreements.
And is that such a bad thing?
They want to manage differences as much as settle them. "New constitutionalism is ... a conversation, conducted by all concerned, open to new entrants and issues, seeking a workable formula," concludes a United States Institute of Peace (USIP) special report on democratic constitutionmaking.....

Constitutions are still a booming business. There are now at least 185 in the world, according to John Paul Jones, a University of Richmond law professor who maintains a website with the text of national constitutions. And more pop up every year. Qatar finished a rewrite recently, for instance. Kyrgyzstan will probably start one soon. "It's a moving target," says Professor Jones. The heyday of new constitutionmaking followed the dissolution of the Soviet Union, he adds. The USSR's East European satellites already had constitutions, of course - fine-sounding ones that guaranteed human rights and so on. They were ineffective in practice because they limited the powers of government, but not those of the Communist Party - the real power in the Soviet era. Most ex-Soviet bloc states wanted a fresh start. Not all constitutional exercises result in formal constitutions, notes Jones, who call constitution-writing "theater that is stimulated by political necessity." In Zimbabwe, for instance, President Robert Mugabe reluctantly established a constitutional commission in 1999 following pressure from civil-society groups and his political opposition. But Mr. Mugabe manipulated the drafting process, and in 2000 it was rejected by the nation's electorate, 54 to 46 percent.
No constitution is better than a bad constitution.
Nor are all constitutions written down. Britain famously has no written formal constitution - but it does have Magna Carta, and the precedents of centuries of democratic practice that by now are as binding as any paper..... The United States did not come to its constitution easily. It took 11 years to get from the Declaration of Independence to the 1787 constitutional convention.
And it was not until December 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights was approved.

Read More...

Living Constitution

Jack M. Balkin wrote in Slate We are all living constitutionalists now. But only some of us are willing to admit it. The notion of a Constitution that evolves in response to changing conditions didn't start with the Warren Court of the 1960s; it began at the founding itself.

Absolutely. They created the mechanism for change. It is in Article V, and it has been used 27 times, including one change that reversed another change
The framers expected that their language, not their intentions, would control future generations. They created, in John Marshall's words, a "constitution, intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs".... The living Constitution is central to the American constitutional tradition, so central that even its loudest critics actually believe in it.
They just dont believe in unelected judges making changes that should be made by the Legislature.
Many Americans fail to realize how much of our current law and institutions are inconsistent with the original expectations of the founding generation.

Stuart Buck blogged Balkin says that under the "living Constitution," you start the "the meanings the words had when they were first enacted," and then apply "those words to today's circumstances." How far does this get the proponents of the "living Constitution"? A constitutional provision authorizing Congress to "coin" money can easily be read to allow paper money; a provision authorizing Congress to raise an army can be extended to the Air Force; a provision protecting against unreasonable "searches" can be extended to electronic means of searching that weren't in existence even 10 years ago. But this doesn't even remotely justify, say, Griswold, which Balkin praises elsewhere in the essay.... By the reasoning in Griswold, an activist conservative might construe the "zones of privacy" in the Constitution as a reason to strike down: 1) all laws regulating home businesses; 2) the IRS (which demands an intrusive amount of information on people's private lives); 3) all laws regulating what sorts of guns people can own in private; etc.

Orin Kerr blogged Jack Balkin tries to make the case in a provocative essay over at Slate. I think the essay is less an argument for a living Constitution than an argument against originalism, but it's an interesting read either way.

Read More...