Friday, January 1, 2010

Oxford 1

So this is the end of day three for Oxford 2010. Thus far I have been to London, gone grocery shopping (3 times), fought with a boiler, forced out of the shower by a fire alarm, and offended the Taxi guild in these parts. Overall? Pretty productive by my standards.

To begin, the boiler in our apartment has been kinky (not in a good way) since we arrived. The first day the shower was scalding hot. The second day the hot water was gone. The third day it was scalding hot again. Matt managed to pry the apparently stuck knob and has fixed the shower, he reports. It should be noted that I had posted on Facebook just minutes before that I would sell my soul for a decent shower so it may already have a taker. Faster than my best eBay auction. I should have asked for more. One of the OSAP guys talked us through fixing the boiler from our own tampering (the washer still won't work).

As for the Taxi guild. This was our first mistake in England. We approached the third taxi in a row and asked for a ride. Why? Because the first taxi was empty and the second had a guy leaning halfway through the window talking to some man. Turns out that man was another taxi driver from car 1. The third guy, instead of being greedy and fearing the wrath of the taxi guild, asked us, "what's the matter with that taxi?" To which I replied, "He's talking to some guy." To which he replied, "He's a taxi driver too!" To which I replied, "Oh."

London is worth a separate post. Since I did it today I should wait for it to ferment in my head. That way I can obscure the facts and blame it on memory.


Monday, April 27, 2009

Health Pandemics and Dissent

In light of the hell breaking loose on Mexican soil over the last few
days I thought I'd pose a question that occurred to me while listening
to the BBC in my car, "Could fear of a possible pandemic give a
government sufficient weight to stamp out dissent?" It seems highly
probable and I'm curious to find out if it has been tried in the past.
After all, an unpopular regime, especially one with some kind of germ
theory, could announce a new disease and then prohibit groups of 4 or
more. For those conspiracy nuts out there, I'm not accusing the
Mexican government of doing this, but I recognize the potential. Fear
is a prime motivator to sacrifice your rights, after all you can
always try and get back your rights, right?

Fwd: Column about US torture policy

An early edition of my dad's weekly column: 

Veterans News and Views

 

Justifying the Means

 

Jack Dragoni

 

In the discussions about the use of "harsh techniques"/torture by US interrogators, former Vice President Cheney and others have claimed that the use of these methods did result in the US gaining valuable information from terror suspects. That defense is, in effect, saying that the ends justify the means. The question this raises is whether we want a government that will utilize any methods to accomplish its goals? Further, what levels of government should we allow to do this and under what justification?

 

Should the police be allowed to use these methods on suspected violent criminals to extract confessions? After all, if these suspects are guilty, putting them in prison is in the public interest. Remember also that we prosecuted Japanese for war crimes after WW II for using waterboarding on US POWs.

 

The reply to this point is often that the terror suspects are not American citizens and their rights are not protected. Really? In other words, the statements that governments do not bestow rights and that rights are granted by the Creator are not true? Or is it that US government officials are permitted to refuse to honor rights granted by God? It also does not matter if members of congress were informed of government actions that restrict rights. If government actions are in violation of the US Constitution, congress cannot authorize a change in the US Constitution to legalize them. This must be done by amendment.

 

The individual rights we proclaim and celebrate make it more difficult to guarantee protection from all threats. That is the reason that some governments have limited those rights for the "greater good"/ national security. Fascist and communist governments have long allowed no limitations of searches and have denied legal representation and legal due process, prohibited the ownership of weapons, prohibited dissent, and restricted religious activities all in the name of national security. Are we to believe that justification is acceptable? What individual rights are protected from government restriction?

 

This is a serious issue that rises above partisan politics, and it deserves to be debated. Those who make the discussions about this a partisan issue ignore the fact that it is a legitimate constitutional question.

Monday, March 23, 2009

From The Best of Times by Haynes Johnson

History of horrors for entertainment 141

Not that the phenomenon of exploiting tragedy and sensation is new. American, indeed human, history is replete with notorious examples, from Roman emperors offering their subjects bread and circuses in the form of staged brutal spectacles to divert them from other matters to Hitler applying that ancient lesson well by staging massive torchlight rallies before wildly cheering crowds, diverting them from horrors being committed by the Nazi regime. In every age, crowds gather instantly at scenes of suffering, and the greater the calamity, the greater the celebrated figure, the greater the crowds. Always accompanying them are the merchants of misery cashing in on the latest scandalous spectacle.


Saturday, March 14, 2009

Lie to Me

The beauty of Fox's Lie to Me  is not lost on me. It oversimplifies science, dramatizes a profession, introduces sexy people into a not-so-sexy person job, and enables a 'job' to be finished within the span of an hour - this last point is cited often in TV shows because of the lack of chronology and continuity in the shows; the viewer has no conception of time. 
Yet, it does in simplistic terms what science sets out to do. Namely, unify us. Lie to Me claims that there are universal attributes that all people share and that these attributes are impossible to overcome and ignore. They make up the very fabric of our humanity. I realize that this is a simplistic rendition of actual psychology and body language but at the same time I believe that science tells us the same thing in much more complex terms. 

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

The Thirty Days of Barack Obama - The New York Review of Books


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22450

Great article on the first 30 days of Obama's administration. Critical but fair, I think. 

Saturday, March 7, 2009

A Nation of Tax-Evaders

"What kind of civilized society can dispense with these things?"

Finally someone said it. I'm so happy I've been ranting about this for days. 

http://hnn.us/articles/62344.html

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Kindle for the iPhone

I recently purchased a Kindle 2, my insatiable need to have all that's
new and pretty. Yesterday, I received an email regarding the release
of the Kindle app for the iPhone. I wasn't as furious as might be
expected. One, the current app is rather limited. Two, I love the
simplicity of my Kindle it does what it's built to do, and it does it
quite well. Three, annotations are much easier with actual buttons to
press - no nonfiction is out. As for now, I'm using my iPhone at the
gym to read fiction.
I'm a little discouraged by some of the reviews. Many compare the
Kindle app to the Kindle itself, they also compare the Kindle app to
the features of other reader apps (eReader). This is fair, but one
buys a toaster for toast. I buy an e-reader to read books. Amazon as a
massive library readily available to iPhone users. Plus, the books are
a lot cheaper. It's obviously a work in process but the library
itself, available to all these new users will, I hope, stimulate an
even greater expansion of the library Amazon has.

Sunday, March 1, 2009

02/27/2009 - Stimulus protesters rally at the Gateway Arch - STLtoday.com

Like the idiots of the Whiskey Rebellion, these people think the colonists fought a war over taxes. It was a war over representation! To quote the Scottish rebel, "No taxation WITHOUT representation." My fellow constituents are represented by one of the most conservative members of the House, Todd Akin. I think the conservatives of St. Louis County can claim adequate representation so the Tea Party thing is moot. 

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/D3FFA37E8AF777BA8625756A00642DC0?OpenDocument

Monday, February 23, 2009

One Big Unhappy Family - The New York Review of Books


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22412

Interesting review of The Bin Ladens by Steven Coll as well as a in-depth discussion of Saudi history. 

Here's an excerpt: 

"Here the point is very well made by Coll that the origins and development of Osama's thinking are not to be found in anything traditional or scriptural, but are, rather, a response to the tensions of modern Saudi Arabia and of the Middle East as a whole."

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

N. Korea, terrorist watch list

Just saw a story about a Japanese family who have had loved ones
abducted by North Korea. They are calling for Sec. Clinton and Pres.
Obama to add North Korea back onto the Axis of Evil.
Not only is this contrary to Obama's campaign and presidential rhetoic
it's simply unwise. Unless Korea does something illogical we should
not act illogically. Refusing diplomatic relations with a country is
one step short of all out war. Americans don't want to fight North
Korea, many forget that we have already. Of course, now, China is less
ideological so the prospect invasion is considerably less. Regardless
it would be a mistake and I'll be shocked if Obama does anything of
the sort.
I symapthize with the families, I do not know the solution but most
idiots can see a bad solution.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Vatican Voices « World in Motion

Beautiful description of the use and legacy of the Catholic Church. I often lose myself in rants and forget that the Catholic Church helped 'Western Civilization' be reincarnated after the fall of Rome.  

http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/vatican-voices/

C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership

C-SPAN has had historians rank all the Presidents. Most interesting to me is their comparison of the last time they did this back in 2000. Bill Clinton has certainly gone up (or down if you want to be technical) in rank. Now he is no.15. Not bad and I'm not posting this to start a debate. It's interesting to me that he has done so much better in 2009 than in 2000. Do the years afford more objectivity, or is this simply a comparison to Bush (no. 36)? I think its a little of both. 

http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/default.aspx

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Different rhetoric?

In the past, this would say, "Your gonna burn in..."  

IMG_0052

 


H-Net Review Publication: 'How Do I Know? The Bible Tells Me So'

Is it wrong that I love such snobbish rhetoric? I hope not.

>
> Lori Anne Ferrell. The Bible and the People. New Haven Yale
> University Press, 2009. 288 pp. $32.50 (cloth), ISBN
> 978-0-300-11424-9.
>
> Reviewed by Arthur Williamson (California State University-Sacramento)
> Published on H-Albion (February, 2009)
> Commissioned by Brian S. Weiser
>
> How Do I Know? The Bible Tells Me So
>
> Lori Anne Ferrell presents a briskly written discussion of the
> Bible's shifting role and significance within major Anglophone
> cultures. Her trajectory is a long one. Beginning with the early
> Norman Gundulf Bible, she proceeds to the thirteenth-century portable
> Paris Bibles of the traveling mendicant orders, to the Wycliffe
> scriptures and the Lollards. Naturally enough, the Reformation
> figures prominently and, most centrally, the King James Version, her
> study continuing through the world of the Enlightenment, the
> Victorians, and into the present moment. The book closes with a
> discussion of the eighth-century Lindisfarne Gospels and modern
> reproductions of the manuscript, thus joining the medieval world with
> the present and reflecting with Walter Benjamin on "authenticity,"
> reproduction, and text--the central theme of the volume.
>
> The book, therefore, at once offers a history of a book as well as a
> history of what a "book" meant, an undertaking inherently involving
> scribal and print culture studies. Here surely lies a daunting
> challenge for both author and reader. Or does it? Ferrell wears her
> learning lightly. _The Bible and the People_ visibly seeks to be
> accessible, for Ferrell writes in a chatty, self-regarding style that
> many will doubtless find engaging. The formidable complexities lie
> beneath the surface awaiting for those who wish to pursue them.
>
> The thesis is straightforward: throughout its history in the West,
> the Bible has rarely appeared ever in its original languages, has
> been continuously "translated" in every sense of the word, and still
> the text has remained remarkably, even amazingly, stable over the
> centuries. Thus, the Bible has, at times, found itself transformed
> from a working book to a venerated item. It has been universalized
> through vernacular translations. It has been sliced, diced, and
> reassembled by figures as different as the pious Nicholas Ferrar and
> the Deist Thomas Jefferson. It has been gender selected and pared
> down, most notably by Elizabeth Cady Stanton. It has been inflated
> and overwhelmed with Victorian illustrations. It has been made
> available in parcels through subscription. It has appeared in
> disposable magazine form. This "impossible book"--unique in the
> Western experience--can never be gotten right, and yet has always
> contrived to be right. It has spoken in a near infinity of voices
> and yet maintained a common coherence. That, for Ferrell, is its
> mystery, its wonder.
>
> Along the way, Ferrell makes a number of interesting observations.
> As she rightly points out, the renowned King James Authorized Version
> (1611) needs to be seen as a reactionary document that sought to undo
> the radicalism of the Geneva Bible (1560). The latter's commentary,
> with its historical vision of human experience--so well suited to
> that revolutionary decade--was stripped away. The word "church"
> replaced the far less hierarchical and less clerical "congregation."
> Further, "congregation" might also carry classical political
> meanings. Scotland's revolutionary leaders in 1559-60 called
> themselves the "Lords of the Congregation," unimaginable as the Lords
> of the "Church." The King James Bible arose during a period of
> deepening conservatism in Britain and throughout Europe. Small
> wonder the Geneva Bible persisted in radical Scotland well after
> 1611. And yet the language of the King James Bible was harnessed to
> revolutionary causes right into the 1960s and beyond. Its cadences
> eventually reached so deeply into the Anglophone mind that more
> accurate renderings of the original could only seem "inauthentic,"
> not "really" the Bible. The well-known line from Isaiah 1:18
> (reputedly Lyndon Johnson's favorite) ran, "Come now, let us reason
> together." The New English Bible (1961) gave the passage, apparently
> closer to the sense of the Hebrew, as "Come now, let us argue it
> out." The accurate and the authentic palpably diverge.
>
> Ferrell's approach to the Bible and its multiple Anglophone
> incarnations is decidedly conservative, one characterized by awe,
> splendor, wonder, and reverence rather than critical distance.
> Higher criticism of the late nineteenth century barely surfaces,
> while the anticlericalism and anti-scripturalism of Anatole France,
> Robert Ingersoll, or even the Quakers run completely counter to the
> spirit of the book. Theirs is a vanished world, however much of the
> people, and out of tune with late twentieth-century sensibility.
> Ferrell notes the Tridentine prohibition of any vernacular version of
> scripture or any Latin version other than the Jerome's Vulgate. But
> she declines to consider the fraught confessional conflict about
> understanding the Bible, where skepticism emerged as the great weapon
> of the Counter-Reformation.[1] It is hard to imagine a more central
> dispute about spirituality and its connection to the sacred text.
>
> Perhaps surprising, neo-Catholic revisionism also informs _The Bible
> and the People_ in important ways. We encounter sixteenth-century
> "Reformations" rather than a single coherent Reformation. In
> contrast, the medieval world emerges as an integrated, almost organic
> structure from which heretical departure occurred only inadvertently.
> The Reformation itself was backward looking. Protestants were
> simply wrong to claim that the Middle Ages did not know the Bible;
> medieval people learned Bible stories (and messages) through plays,
> images, and clerical reading aloud.
>
> Ferrell does comment at various points that medieval literacy was
> "discouragingly low" (e.g., p. 38). But, we might well ask,
> discouraging to whom? It did not discourage the Middle Ages because
> salvation did not require scripture but a sacramental system--derived
> from scripture, to be sure, but much more as well. That, of course,
> was the reformers' point. The Reformation proposed instead a
> historical vision of salvation, founded on scriptural prophecy, that
> was altogether unprecedented and that confronted the atemporal
> symbols of the medieval period. The sacred drama, the unfolding of
> the apocalypse--the story of the rise of Antichrist--underwrote the
> Reformation and Protestant piety, working a far-reaching
> temporalization of European culture.[2] Ferrell mentions Antichrist
> and the apocalypse but neither concept informs her argument (pp. 82,
> 153). Her preoccupation with transcendent mystery, no less than her
> ambivalence about the Reformation, does not bespeak confessional
> choices, but instead suggests deep reservations about modernity. The
> book is very much a part of our increasingly sacralized post-1960s
> age.
>
> None of this can take away from the book's achievement. Whatever its
> assumptions or implications, _The Bible and the People_ succeeds in
> drawing together a vast range of material within a comfortable
> compass; in combining extraordinary learning with an almost folksy
> accessibility; and in introducing highly abstruse concepts with
> grace, wit, and often considerable charm. Such a book inherently
> required high levels of selectivity, and the selections have largely
> proven to be wise. To conclude in the style favored by the author:
> way to go Lori Anne!
>
> Notes
>
> [1]. Richard Popkin has provided the foundational discussion of the
> early modern debate about the authority and interpretation of
> scripture, in T_he History of Skepticism: From Savonarola to Bayle_
> (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).
>
> [2]. There now exists an enormous literature on this subject. For a
> recent survey, see A. H. Williamson, _Apocalypse Then: Prophecy and
> the Making of the Modern World_ (Westport: Greenwood, 2008).
>
> Citation: Arthur Williamson. Review of Ferrell, Lori Anne, _The Bible
> and the People_. H-Albion, H-Net Reviews. February, 2009.
> URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=23532
>
> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
> Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States
> License.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Fiscal and Social Conservatives

There was, and I believe within a small minority there still is, a distinction in the country between fiscal and social conservatives. We now use an umbrella term for both, because most politicians are both. The difference being that Fiscal conservatives may oppose this bailout but not civil unions for homosexuals. Why? Because a fiscal conservative's argument may be that he opposes government intruding into the lives of its citizens more than absolutely necessary. Obviously, one who says such a thing than proceeds to vote on some bill dictating what a person can or cannot do in the privacy of their own home is not just contradictory, it is hypocrisy. 

I can oppose a fiscal conservative and still speak to them with a general amount of respect. Social conservatives I have a much harder time having a coherent conversation with. Note that this discussion leaves out the abortion, and if I must, capital punishment debates. I'm discussing religious, political and sexual freedoms. Because I agree that the government should have it's limits and those limits should stop, at least, at the bedroom door. We should not be a nation of gossipers. We should be a puritanical national that obsesses over whether or not our citizens are using the missionary position, birth control, or even bothers to find a member of the opposite sex to engage in 'carnal relations' with. We should not be a nation that feels the need to take loyalty oaths everyday in school. The first one, when becoming a citizen, should be more than enough. 

We should not be a country that worries about the faith of each other's children instead of the faith of our own. Fiscal aid to the poor is generally decried as government paternalism while social controls are described by the same flock as reinforcing the moral fiber of our country. It is time that we look to the individual once again to instill morality on his off spring. Government is intended to ensure our safety while effecting our freedoms as little as possible. I recognize that my opponents believe I'm the hypocrite. That I cannot argue that, "That government is best which governs least." while at the same time advocating government spending, welfare, bills and amendments which specify certain rights and potentially attack others. That is the beauty of debate, we can both shout, we may both be wrong. I can uphold Paine and Smith at the same time, just as they can, hell, just as Reagan did. We both use a philosophical buffet. I accept laissez-faire while advocating government spending because I acknowledge the exceptions Smith made. I can quote Paine as I have, and will continue to do, because I recognize that he upheld government subsidies for the young and the poor.