Buddha's skull found

The Telegraph reports on a possible finding in Nanjing:

Source: Telegraph (UK) (11-24-08)

The pagoda was wedged tightly inside an iron case that was discovered at the site of a former temple in the city in August.



The four-storey pagoda, which is almost four feet high and one-and-a-half feet wide, is thought by archaeologists to be one of the 84,000 pagodas commissioned by Ashoka the Great in the second century BC to house the remains of the Buddha.



Ashoka, one of India's greatest emperors, converted to Buddhism after waging a bloody war in the eastern state of Orissa. He is widely credited with spreading Buddhism throughout Asia, and across his kingdom, which stretched from Pakistan through Afghanistan and into Iran.



The pagoda found in Nanjing is crafted from wood, gilded with silver and inlaid with gold, coloured glass and amber. It matches a description of another of Ashoka's pagodas which used to be housed underneath the Changgan Buddhist temple in Nanjing.



A description of the contents of the pagoda was also found: a gold coffin bearing part of Buddha's skull inside a silver box. Although scans have confirmed that there are two small metal boxes inside the pagoda, experts have not yet peered inside. The pagoda is currently on display in the museum.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

New Series: Words I hate

Hate is a strong word, that's why I used it. Actually, an astute reader may take issue with me using the word 'hate' after reading some of my posts, but for now we can just call it that, for irony I guess. Anyway, I think I'm going to start a new series (hopefully more successful than my previous ones) regarding common words of today that I 'hate'. Generally these words will have negative connotations, here are a few examples I may consider:


gay (meaning stupid); good & evil (as in supreme good & evil); mainstream media; liberal & conservative; terrorist & patriot; bias...


I hope it will be interesting and controversial.

A New Foreign Policy

I agree:

One of the better political websites, politico.com, has a number of articles speculating that Obama will be hawkish in foreign policy. The likelihood Gates will stay at defense, Clinton going to State, Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, etc., seem to indicate influence from the less dovish wing of the party. That may be a premature assumption.

My colleague Steve Pane, an adept political commentator, music historian, professional pianist and pastry addict, noted that by putting ‘hawks’ in these positions it would make it easier for the US to leave Iraq more quickly — people who might have criticized it if outside would now be in the Administration. That’s true, though I think the issue goes beyond Iraq. If President elect Obama keeps Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, and puts Hillary Clinton in the State Department, he will have a credible team in place to create a new approach to foreign policy, one which likely could significantly cut military spending. This defies conventional wisdom, as Gates is seen as a Bush holdover who would seem to suggest some continuity, and Hillary Clinton ran as a hawk in her recent campaign.

Robert Gates was a leader in the Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton which advocated negotiations with other regional actors, including Iran and Syria. By all accounts, Gates agreed with that recommendation. When he joined the Bush Administration he could not advocate such positions publicly because he had to represent and implement Administration policy. By keeping him on, Obama could move towards those aspects of the ISG findings which President Bush rejected. It’s clear that as the US leaves, future Iraqi stability requires involving Iran and Syria, especially because of Iran’s intense influence on the Iraqi government and various militias. Gates is a realist, not a neo-conservative. Realists are less willing to use military means to achieve policy results, they focus on diplomacy, and in fact are willing to negotiate with enemies because that’s where you need diplomacy the most. Gates thus serves two uses for Obama: a) his approach to diplomacy is likely similar to Obama’s, and b) because he was in the Bush cabinet he will help lend credibility to the Obama foreign policy from the right.

Hillary Clinton as a hawk reflects an amazing metamorphisis from her earlier career. I have no reason to think that she really is a hawk, or truly supports large military budgets. She was positioning herself for a Presidential run, and she knew that as a Democratic woman she needed to have credibility on security issues. Moreover, those who opposed the 1991 Iraq war were hurt later by that opposition, so she figured that supporting President Bush was smarter politically. Because of her recently won credibility on defense and security issues, she could also help Obama reshape American foreign policy.

So what needs to be done? First, the US to accept the reality that we are no longer in a position to simply demand things be done our way or we’ll just not play. If the US seriously negotiates and participates in efforts at creating international accords, we’ll have considerable influence on the outcome. We should do that and make necessary compromises in order to develop solutions to global problems. European and Asian states will embrace an America working for the collective good rather than focused solely on maintaining maximum independence and supporting a narrow national interest.

Second, the US needs to cut military spending and military commitments abroad. This is not something Obama could say in the campaign, as he would have quickly been painted as weak, not understanding the threats of terrorism and Islamic extremism. I would argue, however, that our military strength has been more a liability than an assett. It lured us into thinking there was a military solution to the terrorist threat and made Iraq a tempting target for military aggression. By some accounts the real cost of that war is now over $3.6 trillion, money which could have better been used to bring health to our economy. Even those who try to say we’ve succeeded in Iraq because violence is down have to admit that overall as a country that war has hurt us on numerous fronts. It does dramatically demonstrate that modern global problems defy military solutions. Solutions are primarily political, while terrorism requires not a major military machine able to win large wars, but a well oiled counter terrorism policy with special operations and sophisticated intelligence.

Obama should shift the military from “a big 20th century mechanized machine designed to fight for control of Europe” to a “sophisticated, intelligent, versatile athlete able to make well targeted interventions when necessary against both state and non-state actors.” Moreover, we don’t need to spend half the world’s military budget to achieve this; we can have an effective military option at a lower price, especially since no major power can seriously threaten our domestic security. The threats are small terrorist groups that escape the grasp of a huge military machine; we must adapt.

Finally, the US to seriously address the need for a global set of standards on economic regulation and development, environmental issues, and energy — the three E’s. Not only is there widespread agreement that action needs to be taken on these problems, but these are areas where real bipartisanship is possible. They can help guide the US towards a consensus on a more internationalist policy perspective. The US can show leadership and flexibility, compromising where in the past we’d have gotten up and gone home; leading where in the past we’d have avoided the issue. None of those issues can be dealt with at a national level alone, and all of them are of vital importance to the future of the planet. A cooperative and progressive America working with the rest of the world on these issues will symbolize a new era of American foreign policy, and play to the strengths of Hillary Clinton’s diplomatic skills in support of Obama’s vision.

So three major components: move towards a more internationalist approach, cut military spending and reorganize the military to be smaller and more nimble, and begin a major effort to build international agreements on energy, the economy and the environment. Done right, such a policy could not move us into a truly stable post-Cold War system, and avoid the perils caused by the economic and foreign policy failures of the Bush Administration.

Some people will never agree for military spending cuts, and of course, nationalists will always distrust international institutions. But the world is in crisis, Obama will have an overwhelming majority in Congress, and now is the time for some bold and decisive actions. I suspect the economic crisis will force cuts across the budgetary board anyway, and military spending is one of the least effective ways to stimulate the economy. Obama has proven that he will follow principle rather than political expediency; here he will have to show true leadership.

There are a couple biases about America. The European left often sees the US as a force for militarism, exploitation and evil in the world, while the American right sees the US as superior in ideology and values to the rest of the world. Both biases are absurdly off base, and represent caricatured views of a complex country with diverse opinions. A new foreign policy can bury these biases, and help build the foundation for dealing with the vast problems of this new century.

[From A New Foreign Policy]

I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Kudos to the Daily Dish for pointing this out:

The Onion

I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians

BY JANET COSGROVE

CHRISTIAN

NOVEMBER 19, 2008 | ISSUE 44•47

ARTICLE TOOLS

Share This

Email This

Print This

Sponsored by

RELATED ARTICLES

Waitress Punished For Sins Of The World

JANUARY 30, 2002

Fellow Dormmates Warned About Christian In 462

SEPTEMBER 2, 1998

RELATED MEDIA

Slideshow:

Religion

SEPTEMBER 18, 2008

Onion News Network:

Christian Charity Raising Money To Feed Non-Gay Famine Victims

NOVEMBER 1, 2007

Everybody has this image of "crazy Christians" based on what they hear in the media, but it's just not true. Most Christians are normal, decent folks. We don't all blindly follow a bunch of outdated biblical tenets or go all fanatical about every bit of dogma. What I'm trying to say is, don't let the actions of a vocal few color your perceptions about what the majority of us are like.

Like me. I may be a Christian, but it's not like I'm one of those wacko "love your neighbor as yourself " types.

God forbid!

[From I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians | The Onion - America's Finest News Source]

Copernicus's remains identified

Source: Telegraph (UK) (11-21-08)

Researchers compared DNA samples taken from bones retrieved from Frombork Cathedral in northern Poland, long believed to be the scientist's last resting place, with those of hairs found in a book which once belonged to Copernicus.



The results confirmed that the remains are almost certainly those of the astronomer, who was the first man to put forward the hypothesis that the sun, not the earth, formed the centre of the universe.



Professor Jerzy Gassowski, who led the archaeological team that found the body three years ago in a grave near the altar, said that although they had been sure the remains were those of Copernicus "a grain of doubt remained" so they had sent a vertebrae, a tooth and femur to Uppsala University in Sweden.



Swedish scientists then took hairs from the astronomer's book, which is in the university's possession, and ran DNA tests.



"We collected four hairs and two of them are from the same individual as the bones," said Marie Allen, a genetic expert from Uppsala.



The new findings confirm earlier evidence that indicated the bones were those of the sixteenth-century scientist. A forensic facial reconstruction of the skull looked similar to a portrait of the astronomer, and the bones belonged to man of about 70, the same age Copernicus was when he died in 1543.

[From Copernicus's remains identified]

Because all the cool kids on Flickr do Scrabble shots

I agree.

Because all the cool kids on Flickr do Scrabble shots

Blogged with the Flock Browser

I think I just confessed my faith...

So this instance teaches all of us lacking in grammar that the 'tense' really does effect your meaning and how people see you. For example, I just accidentally confessed to being a devout Lutheran in my philosophy test. I meant to write, 'Leibniz, as a devout Lutheran'....but instead wrote, 'As a devout Lutheran, I think Leibniz'....oops. Now I need to explain myself as a heretic...or maybe I'll get a better grade as a Lutheran. Do Catholics like Lutherans or heretics more?

Hitler & Stalin

So I’m finishing up my research for a paper that is due on Thursday and the subject has become increasingly interesting, I must admit. At first, I was not that interested in studying the diplomatic relations between Hitler and Stalin from 1939-1941. For some reason, World War II just doesn’t interest me that much, I don’t know why, I can’t explain it logically I just find myself bored with the story at times. World War II is like the Wal-Mart of wars, and my disdain for Wal-Mart is coincidentally similar to my boredom with World War II - there’s just too much. The Second World War did everything big; genocide, firepower, dictators (at least four counting the latter days of the Vichy), human rights violations commited by ‘civilized powers’ such as the U.S., Japan, Germany, etc. I feel that for the study of World War II we are much better off being what Francis Bacon would have called the ant, gather as much information as you like but infer little. It’s inevitable that the closer one is to any historic moment the more flawed, biased and generally unobjective our view is on the matter. One of my History Instructors at SAHEC (Southeast Area Higher Education Center) once said that you should wait at least 50 years until you study a subject - that would render much work regarding World War II as useless. Now if you pressured me I wouldn’t tell you to do such a thing, throw away numerous scholarly accounts of the war, because it really boils down to a matter of taste. I am still developing my Philosophy of History along with my personal values and attitudes on a number of things, part of growing up I guess, so I will just call my views on World War II a prejudice of a sort. And keeping with traditional prejudice, it has no logical backing whatsoever.
Anyway, this post is about Hitler and Stalin, not my views on the period of World History from 1939-1945. I have read multiple accounts of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact/Nazi-Soviet Pact, its history and consequences. Which is basically the story of the alliance of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Two countries that ideologically hated each other, and somehow moved beyond such ideological quarrels to carve up most of Eastern Europe. In a twisted sort of way, its a beautiful story, something told on Lifetime or Oxygen with different character names and replace ‘carve up most of Eastern Europe’ with ‘love’.
Since I need to get my brain working so I can write the blasted paper I thought I would tell some of the story here. Prior to Hitler’s rise to power, Germany and the USSR shared a diplomatic-commercial-military ‘friendliness’ of sorts. They cooperated up until the author of Mein Kampf became Chancellor. The Soviets inevitablly wanted to know if Hitler and the Nazi government were planning to carry out Hitler’s vision in Mein Kampf, telling Berlin that they understood the difference between ideology and policy - always the pragmatists those Soviets. At a startling speed the two countries experienced a deteriation in relations. The Soviets recognized the threat the Germans posed, with Hitler’s military buildup, and began to make manouvers to check them. The Soviet Union spent much of the 1930s supporting a military doctrine called Collective Security. One neednot go into the details here, the doctrine spells out just how it reads. Of course, for the Soviets to have an effective Collective Security policy they required the help of France and Britain.
Triple alliance negotations began and ended in a rather quick way. The Soviets, especially Stalin, were suspicious of Anglo-French goals and they seemed to suspect that the two powers wanted the Soviets and Nazis to destroy each other. This was probably a hope, but a pipe-dream hope of the two. While these negotiations took place, Berlin began to make tentative overtures to the Russians. Why? Well, we are now in 1939 and Hitler had Poland on the mind. As plans began to finalize themselves and the German Army was prepared to invade, Berlin’s ‘overtures’ began to become more intense. Moscow quickly found itself as the prom date with the overzealous boyfriend. Like the boyfriend, Berlin made a lot of promises for the day after - some kept, others not. So the two ended up signing what various historians and politicians then and now have described as the most notorious diplomatic episode in the history of the world. Quite a description I must admit. The Commintern (Communist International) were baffled, briefly, with what to say - the fascists were the great enemy and now they were the ally. The ideolological shift from enemy to ally and then later back to enemy should not be hard to understand. Americans performed the same dance with their views on the Soviet Union before, during and after the Second World War. The period following the signing of the pact was marked by Hitler taking much of Western Europe and Stalin taking the Baltic and grabbing at the Balkans. Historians seem to regard the latter as the pretext for war Hitler used when he invaded the Soviet Union, June 1941.
Here, we come to Mein Kampf again. Therein we find a passage detailing how Germany’s future lay not in the West but in the East. Some Historians claim that Hitler always planned on invading Russia just as Mein Kampf had claimed, others, say that Britains refusal to lay down and die, coupled with a few key episodes in the Balkans were the reasons, not just the pretext, for invasion.
The reasons matter of course. One was policy and the other was ideology. There is a distinct difference in principle and those leaders who blur the two tend to repeat such blunders as Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812. As I research the two, I have gained a more intimate portrait of Stalin than Hitler. This may because Stalin was the star during this period. He was the prom date who the rest of the world was courting and only Hitler had what it took to win him over - I think it was the mutual love of facial hair.