Fear of Clowns

Recently I've read Sir Thomas More's Utopia, the Gospel of Matthew, and the news. Also recently, I took part in a stunt that involved eating at 22 restaurants in a single day.

From these and other experiences over the last several months, I've begun to believe I ought to be doing more in the service of others, particularly concerning those who have the least. How is it moral for me to have any luxuries at all when hundreds of millions of mothers across the world can't find for their babies a cup of water uncontaminated by mud or human feces?

I don't have the answer and I don't have the skills to directly help people who lack basic sanitation and medical care, all I can do is try to help from afar. I do have to "live on a budget", but can still frequently afford myself luxuries. A month or so ago, I thought perhaps I ought to keep a jar in which I would place a bit of money each time I buy some sort of thing I don't need: $2 each time I go out to a bar, $1 each time I eat in a restaurant, some coin change when I get food to go, something like that. Donate the money to an international relief fund occasionally. Last night, after taking the picture of my sandwich and chips from the convenience store, I started my piggy jar,

A few nights ago I brought up the "millions of children without clean water" observation during a conversation with a friend about religion. She thought a function of religion was to make people feel guilty so they could be controlled. Maybe so, maybe that is a function of a lot of organized religions. I know that a decade or so ago when I went in to talk to my parent's pastor about my decision to stop going to church, he kept on talking about sin. Why would I want to follow a religion that emphasizes that I should feel like a "sinner"?

Within the last year, I've revisited the canonical Gospels around which Christianity is allegedly based, and I don't see any evidence Jesus wanted his followers to feel guilty or sinful. Rather, he gave an example of a moral life, asked that everybody love one another as he loved his disciples, admonished attachment to worldly riches, and counseled to help the poor and sick out of compassion. Following that example ought not lead to feelings of guilt, but quite the opposite! This is a message useful to all, even apart from a god-belief. It's simply a fine humanitarian message.

Being charitable ought to be done of rational compassion: we all have a conscience and we all are rational. In our interconnected world, there are many whose very basic needs are simply not being met. If I put a small amount of money aside when I purchase a luxury good or service, it's not an atonement for guilt, but an acknowledgment that "I have plenty, many have want," and an action based upon that understanding.

If I didn't live on a budget, I could probably just write checks to charities, but by keeping this jar, I now won't just think "Ought I be spending money at a bar tonight?" but instead, "Do I have enough money to be spending some at a bar and contributing a little to those who have less?"

Anyway, maybe more later, but now I have to get ready to go out for sushi in celebration of a friend's birthday ... probably put tonight on my credit card as I don't really have enough to be spending $30 on a meal right now!

// posted by Erik @ 3/31/2005 05:00:00 PM
permalink | 1 comments | post comment | email post:

In addition to previous photos of Mary Porta praying to the cameras to make Terri Schiavo take up her bed and walk, we now see these,

// posted by Erik @ 3/31/2005 01:48:00 AM
permalink | 5 comments | post comment | email post:

A few days ago, the Supreme Court turned down a First Amendment case which asked whether a newspaper has the privilege to report defamatory comments made by a politician as long as the charge is reported in a neutral manner.

The lawsuit was originally filed by a mayor of a Pennsylvania town against a city council member who made false charges against the mayor and another council member, including the suggestion that they were child molesters. The paper reporting the charge was also named as a defendant in the case. The councilman was ordered to pay $17K to both the slandered mayor and councilman. The case against the paper was sent by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court back to a lower court, reasoning was that there is no intrinsic privilege to neutrally report a slander.

After thinking about this a few days, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court was right not to hear the case and let the PA Court's decision stand. Although a paper may accurately report slanderous charges leveled by a politician, it is possible to do so in a way that is libelous itself.

Imagine a senate race in which one candidate alleges the other is a slumlord. A paper could soberly report, Sen. Smith's opponent said to be slumlord. The article could go on to report that Sen. Smith said that tenants in an apartment his challenger owns were dying of diseases due to the extreme and willful neglect of the apartment by his political opponent. This charge could be "neutrally" reported and leave the reader with the impression that Sen. Smith's challenger actually was a slumlord - after all, it would be quite easy for a paper to check the plausibility of the charges. Absent an indication that the paper found no evidence backing up Sen. Smith's charges, the article could read as though there was substance to the charges. But Sen. Smith's opponent might not even own apartments. The very reporting of the charges "neutrally" could itself constitute actual malice on the paper's part if the paper knew the charges to be untrue.

Similar to freedom of speech not covering a right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie house, I believe this is an instance where freedom of the press ought not be absolute. It seems I'm at odds with some to the right and left - although Ogged does call attention to some comments left along the lines of my opinion. Similarly, a commenter in Captain's Quarter's comments makes the astute observation that the case before the SC had not yet been finally decided in a lower court.

Freedom of speech and of the press does not imply freedom to lie.

// posted by Erik @ 3/30/2005 09:00:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

So, this woman, Becki Snow, wanted to decide what it was like to be Terri Sciavo so she figured she'd stop eating and drinking. And blog her "hunger strike". After two hours, she found a disparate need of lip balm (tell that to the millions of mothers around the world who have a desperate need of a clean cup of water for their babies).

I admit, I have not read her whole account. It became too painful after she found the strength to notify the Internet of an earthquake in the Indian ocean,

Just so you know: news coming out of Singapore is an 8.5 earthquake centered just off Sumatra in Indonesia has racked the place ... Do NOT expect me to point to this and laugh as God condemning the world.

It's actually painful for me to even point to that site ... I would like to think the woman is mentally ill, but I don't really see her behavior as very much different than Mary Porta's or all the people that have tried to somehow compare Terri Schiavo to a mass murderer. They're all out of control of their reactionary emotions.

Maybe Becki would do well with a visit from these chaps.

Here is a voice of reason. Dr. Ronald Cranford allowed Joe Scarborough and his correspondent to bury themselves in lies about the Schiavo case. It's quite heartening to see that most of America is not buying the sensational cable news claims.

// posted by Erik @ 3/30/2005 08:42:00 PM
permalink | 4 comments | post comment | email post:

In my original post about faith-healer Dr. Nemeh, I was tempted to include a wisecrack to the extent that a visit to Terri Schiavo may be apropos. I thought it in bad taste. Now we have this, which makes the same case much more strongly than a taunt,

With options running out, the family turned to a local doctor who treats disease with prayer.

NewsChannel5's Ted Henry was the first to report that Terri Schiavo's parents -- Mary and Bob Schindler -- contacted Cleveland's faith healer, Dr. Issam Nemeh.

They offered to pay all of his expenses to come to Florida and perform his faith healing service for their daughter.

Dr. Nemeh's wife said he will not go to Florida because of previous commitments.

// posted by Erik @ 3/30/2005 06:54:00 PM
permalink | email post:

I just took a commonly confused words test devised by some yokum. I don't know, the test might score each individual answer properly, maybe not. Here are the results it gave me,

• You scored 92% Beginner,
• 100% Intermediate,
• 87% Advanced,
• and 82% Expert!

And my percentiles within my age and gender group,

• You scored higher than 32% on Beginner
• You scored higher than 68% on Intermediate
• You scored higher than 23% on Advanced
• You scored higher than 84% on Expert

I'd hate to witness average grammatical skills is I am ranked a "genius" even though almost 70% of people in my group did better in the "beginner" category. I suggest this test is biased towards experts.

(via Steve Verdon)

UPDATE: This test is a load of crap. I just noticed explanations of the answers are posted by the designer of the test. Look at the explanation for question #4. One point is given for someone who chooses "I wish you would study for you're test," but zero for someone who chooses "I hope you would study for your test" - because "wish is the better choice. 'To order or entreat' is the intended meaning here." How are we to know the test designer's "intended meaning"? Is this a psychic or a grammar test?

Question #25 is flawed as well. One can certainly think that speeding in a car is risque. There's plenty of rock songs about it.

Question #42 is just ridiculous. The author claims one cannot say, "That information is impertinent to this case," explaining that "impertinent" means "not pertinent". Whaa?

Question #40 is also similarly odd. The explanation for why one cannot say, "The water from the river flows through the canal into the ocean," is "Water does not flow from one body of water through a canal into another body of water." Has the designer never heard of the Suez Canal which connects the River Nile and the Red Sea? There are many such examples ... Venice?

If this test accurately ranked me an English Genius, I am an English Supergenius! Which is not the case. The test is severely flawed. I fear for anyone who can get all the answers "correct"!

// posted by Erik @ 3/30/2005 02:49:00 PM
permalink | 5 comments | post comment | email post:

Kurt Vonnegut,

For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that's Moses, not Jesus. I haven't heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.

"Blessed are the merciful" in a courtroom? "Blessed are the peacemakers" in the Pentagon? Give me a break!

Although a bit rambling, the whole essay is quite insightful and entertaining.

(Via Vision? Nary! via Adult Christianity).

// posted by Erik @ 3/30/2005 01:00:00 PM
permalink | email post:

Faith-healing is used by various religions as allegedly objective proof of the validity of their god-belief:

• We prayed over this child and sprinkled Holy Water blessed by the Priest and the Holy Spirit healed her. The proof of the Holy Spirit is in the Holy Water and the healing, or
• The medicine man chanted over her and burned sage which balanced the girl's spirit with the spirits in the natural world. The proof of the Spirit World is is the smoke of the sage, the prayer drum and the healing.

Neither of the example rituals and observations are rational proof of the existence of an external deity or spirit world, they are simply observations of a ritual followed by observations of a recovery of health (related post: Miracles and Dr. Issam Nemeh). That they are irrational, or perhaps more accurately non-rational superstitions may be illustrated by the following thought experiment,

A Christian mother and a Native American father have a gravely sick child. The mother brings in her priest who offers prayers and performs a ritual over the child with holy water. The father brings in a medicine man who beats a prayer drum and burns sage over the child. Soon after, the child recovers her health.

The mother attributes the healing to the grace of the holy spirit through the holy water and prayers and the father attributes the same healing to the restoration of balance between the girl's spirit and the natural spirit world through the burning of sage and beating of a prayer drum.

Each asserted mechanism for the healing negates the other. I posed this scenario to a friend in a response to her assertion that we have to allow whatever a culture believes to be true to be true for that culture.

To me and my philosophy background, the thought experiment shows that neither cultural/religious belief can possibly be objectively valid; to my friend and and her anthropology background, it shows that they were both valid. I really do not see how both can possibly be true, and I don't see this as my preference for looking at human phenomena through the lens of logic as opposed to my friend's preference for looking at phenomena through the prism of a variety of cultures. When pressed on the matter of which one was true, my friend further asserted that it depends on what culture one defines the child as belonging to, an assertion I view as begging the question. Even a multifaceted prism is subject to the rules of logic.

Comments are enabled for this post, please share any thoughts. Can seemingly miraculous recoveries of health be used to argue either an objective or relative validity of a particular religious world view? Do contradictory claims about a healing negate both claims or not?

// posted by Erik @ 3/29/2005 11:17:00 PM
permalink | 1 comments | post comment | email post:

Hinney moans,

According to the Associated Press, the mystery of Iraq's missing anthrax may have been solved. Prior to the Iraq war, it was widely believed that the regime retained some or all of this material ... I haven't had time to go back and check the ISG report, and from the AP account it isn't clear whether Saddam didn't know that the anthrax had been destroyed, or just didn't know that it had been dumped near one of his palaces. But it sounds like the former.

So, according to Hinney, the "mystery" is not how the U.S. could have claimed Iraq had anthrax when they didn't, but whether Hussein was aware his anthrax had been destroyed. In May 2003, there was not yet such a mystery in the Hinney rear-brain - Iraq certainly had lots of WMD,

Whether ... the weapons were destroyed at the outset of the war, or were moved to Syria, as Debka File says, or are still in Iraq and simply haven't been found yet, is unclear ... In short, there's a headline but there isn't any story. Which is typical of all of the "Where are the WMD?" stories. What, exactly, do these people think? Are they seriously trying to argue that Saddam didn't have any chemical or biological weapons? If that were true, Saddam would have pulled off one of the greatest hoaxes of all time, for no apparent purpose.

The most pressing mystery to me is whether Hinney read Blix's reports before the war and dismissed them, or simply didn't read them. That it had been confirmed that Iraq had secretly destroyed some anthrax in 1991 was no secret or mystery. From Hans Blix's March 7, 2003 update to the UNSC,

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

In fact, just how much Iraq had produced compared to how much it had destroyed was the core of the issue. Hans Blix to the UNSC March 7, 2003,

Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site. However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify the amount of anthrax, said to be dumped at the site, the results would still be open to interpretation. Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced.

// posted by Erik @ 3/29/2005 09:48:00 AM
permalink | email post:

PowerLine, Instapundit, and a smattering (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) of other blogs are hailing the "turning of a corner" in Iraq based in part on a Moonie Times report, Pentagon begins to see Iraq momentum shift.

From the WashTimes article,

An analysis by Reuters shows that U.S. combat deaths in March so far have averaged barely one per day, the lowest figure since February 2004.

Well, in itself that's great.

But to put it in perspective, although that February 2004 figure was the lowest monthly yet, two months later in April 2004, we had the most military fatalities in a single month: 135.

This month's grim statistics so far show a downward trend over the last three months, but again, three month downward trends also started in March 2003 (the first month of the war), July 2003, and April 2004. Such trends are certainly things to welcome, but not an indication that a "corner has been turned" - unless one is willing to add, "Just like the three corners we turned before! Hey, that might put us right back where we started!"

That's not the half of it though. The next paragraph of the article offers a possible explanation of this downward trend,

"They're clearly going after Iraqi security forces more," Army Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, said earlier this month. "That's kind of a steady thing. And the attacks against coalition actually have dropped off."

The corner being turned is that there's more attacks on Iraqi forces and less on American forces? If that's something to gladly welcome, the welcoming parties should be advocating for a complete pullout - that way none of our troops would be attacked! Neither they nor I think an immediate pullout is wise, yet this Moonie Times report is somehow good news to them. Looking at the deaths to non-coalition forces during the time the article was being prepared,

• In two separate attacks in Baghdad, insurgents gunned down a police chief and his bodyguard, detonated a roadside bomb killing one policeman and wounding five. Bodygards for an Iraqi government official appear to have launched an attack on unarmed protesters,

  Violence persisted Sunday, with bodyguards for Science and Technology Minister Rashad Mandan Omar firing on a crowd of protesters in front of the ministry's offices demanding their full wages, said Hamid Balasem, an engineer at the ministry. About 50 ministry guards were demonstrating, saying they had only been paid in part, Balasem said. It was unclear why the minister's bodyguards opened fire.

• Forty miles southwest of Baghdad in Babil, seven civilians were killed by a bomb hidden in a bicycle basket.
• In Musayyib, forty miles south of Baghdad, a suicide bomber on a motorcycle killed two policemen and three civilians.
• In Baquba, forty miles north of Baghdad, gunmen killed three members of the Badr Organization - a the formerly the Badr Bridage - armed faction of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The same article lists and Iraqi soldier killed in Baqouba, another in Dhuluiyah, another in Balad, and four policemen in Tal Afar. All today's victims of the insurgency.
• And all victims were killed as firefighters extinguished the flames of the pipeline transporting oil from Iraq into Turkey after it was again sabotaged just days after having been repaired from the last attack.

That's fifteen deaths to non-American security forces during the 24 hours preceding the article's time of publishing, plus ten or so civilian deaths. There haven't been a lot of days we've lost more than 15 troops of our own. What a corner indeed.

// posted by Erik @ 3/29/2005 12:34:00 AM
permalink | email post:

Daily Kos notes that a recent poll found that Ann Coulter has only an 11% favorable rating. Why people get upset about her implausible ranting has has always puzzled me. It's fun to poke fun at her, but if anything, she ought to be encouraged as an example of what right-wingers are like. It's the Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys - those who are taken seriously by arguably otherwise intelligent people - that need to be responded to seriously.

Along a similar line of thought, I believe those who are calling for Tom Delay's resignation from his posts within Congress or from Congress in general aren't thinking correctly - Delay needs to be around at least through election 2006 as an example of what you get when you vote for a Republican. On this, Ralph Nader and I agree.

I mean, how amazing is it that one of Congress' loudest voices that Terri Schiavo shouldn't be unplugged made the decision to unplug his father, even though his father, like Schiavo, had no advance directive? Delay is a gift that keeps on giving. The ultimate gift would be if he's defeated at the polls in his very own gerrymandered district.

// posted by Erik @ 3/28/2005 10:38:00 PM
permalink | email post:

Not that there is a shortage of people eager to pray to the Holy Media at any given time, but Mary K. Porta of St. Petersburg, Florida has many different outfits to wear while praying to the camera gods,

It's not always clear she's praying though ...

When Mary is away changing clothes, there are others to ham it up for the photographers ...

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

-Jesus, in Matthew 6

// posted by Erik @ 3/28/2005 07:33:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

The anger of the people wishing to "save Terri's life" at the moment seems not to be directed at the judiciary nor Democrats, but towards executives in power who are not "saving Terri".

I imagine many the extremists will forget what party they felt let them down, but others will not - for one, Michael Peroutka, 2004 Constitution Party presidential candidate,

There is no reason to believe Governor Bush or President Bush when they say that they tried to help Terri Schiavo. In fact, whether or not Terri is still breathing at this moment, they are accomplices to murder ... That's right. George Bush, against whom I ran for President, has murdered Terri Schiavo.

Short an executive yet sending in men with guns, third party candidates now have a tool to use against Republicans who tried but failed to "save Terri".

// posted by Erik @ 3/28/2005 05:14:00 AM
permalink | email post:

The photo accompanying yesterday's lead Schiavo story on CNN.com prominently features a protester carrying a sign with a quote attributed to Bob Avakian, chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, "We need morals, but not traditional morals." Whatever message she has, she seems to have gotten it on TV again today.

// posted by Erik @ 3/28/2005 05:00:00 AM
permalink | email post:

Seems I scooped the Hinney's rocket by a good 8 hours on the fact much of the language in the "Schiavo's a great political issue" memo is duplicated in the Traditional Family Values talking points from March 8. You can feel free to use up his bandwidth and download the memo. Oooh yeah, he's got it.

I'll provide for him the Reader's Digest version of my early morning post,

• There are obvious errors in the alleged GOP memo - and those errors are duplicated in the Family Values Coalition talking points posted March 8th:
  • Duplicated Error # 1 - incorrectly punctuates "Persons" in "The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act of 2005."
  • Duplicated Error # 2 - incorrectly changes "the court" to "a court" in "those parties authorized or directed by the court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment"
• The punctuation errors are also in Rep. Weldon and Sen. Martinez press release.
• The National Right to Life Coalition posted the text of the proposed legislation on March 4th - three days before Mel Martinez introduced it to the Senate. The text of their bill includes Error #1. Plus a whole lot of other differences between that actual introduced legislation.

Is it a coincidence that Rep. Weldon, Sen. Martinez, the NRLC and Family Values coalition all made the same errors? Did the NRLC write the legislation or did Marinez or Weldon give the NRLC a preview? Can Hinney explain to me what is going on here?

// posted by Erik @ 3/23/2005 01:47:00 PM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

The Hindrocket over at PowerLine is trying to grease up for another memogate concerning the alleged Republican memo dubbing the Terri Schiavo tragedy a "great political issue". He's got the memo. Took him a while to figure out the talking points were about the Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act (S. 539, not S.529 as the memo says) and not the more recently passed legislation allowing the case to be reopened. But he's thinking a "Democratic dirty trickster" might be behind it. Seems he doesn't know google or the use of apostrophes very well. Maybe both.

The last three points of the alleged memo coincide word for word with talking points released along side a March 8 Traditional Values Coalition Press Release concerning the Act which is the subject of the memo.

Now follow, paying attention to the red words and punctuation - looking at another talking point in the alleged memo:

The bill is very limited and defines custody as "those parties authorized or directed by a court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment."

Traditional Values press release:

Persons having custody are defined as "those parties authorized or directed by a court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment."

Text of the actual Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act of 2005, S.539, introduced to the Senate on March 7.

In a habeas corpus proceeding under this section the person having custody shall be deemed to encompass those parties authorized or directed by the court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment, and there shall be no requirement to produce at the hearing the body of the incapacitated person.

That's the pudding is that someone is in some kind of cahoots. Here's more proof of some flavor of pudding. The Traditional Values Coalition and alleged memo call the Act,

S. 539, The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act of 2005

The actual - and correctly punctuated - title of the bill,

S. 539, The Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act of 2005

Hope you're hungry for more pudding. Read the first sentence of a press release by Rep. Dave Weldon,

Washington, Mar 8 - On Tuesday, March 8, U.S. Representative Dave Weldon, M.D. (FL-15) introduced H.R. 1151, the "Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act."

The feast doesn't stop there. Let's look at Mel Marinez' press release,

March 8th, 2005 - Washington - U.S. Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) today announced he has introduced 'The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act of 2005' to ensure disabled individuals like Terri Schiavo would have the same legal due process as convicted felons given the death penalty.

The bill was introduced to the Senate on March 7th with the correct punctuation (or at least showed up on the Libray of Congress website punctuated correctly), and also exhibits the correct punctuation as introduced to the House on March 8th. So all this may mean is that the Traditional Values Coalition copied and pasted from Weldon or Martinez' press release. (dunno, is that Sen. Martinez' preferred way to punctuate the possessive form of his name? "Martinez'?" Martinez's is correct too. I just prefer the apostrophe after my last name instead of an extra "s".)

Maybe they all incorrectly punctuate in the same way and the "the" turned into an "a" in two different documents. But here's where is gets creepy.

The same punctuation error is on the The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation website in a March 3 press release announcing the legislation Dave Weldon would introduce. They link to the "proposed legislation", last updated on their website March 10th - with the punctuation error in the text of the legislation. The National Right to Life Committee also posts a copy of Weldon's proposed legislation - most recently last updated March 4th - again with the same incorrect punctuation - three days before it was introduced by Martinez in the Senate.

Comparing the text of the legislation posted by The NRLC before it was actually introduced to Congress,

So what's going on here? Was I in the dark? Was it an open secret the the NRLC or maybe the Schinler's lawyer wrote legislation to aid a case - and Congress tidied up their proposed law and introduced it? And this is in America? Maybe Sen. Martinez or Weldon gave their legislation to the NRLC for a look over and the NRLC posted the wrong version. Who knows. But then the case is lost and Congress makes yet another law so the case can be reopened? Who wrote that law? Did it get the stamp of approval from the NRLC fist?

Another explanation for all this could be that the typists for The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation, the Traditional Values Coalition, NRLC, Mel Martinez, and Dave Weldon all are confused on the rules of apostrophe usage. And the the NRLC people are really good but imprecise remote viewers. Whatever it is, whoever is hatching things, it seems they're all trying to spring the same mis-punctuated plan on everyone else at the same time.

// posted by Erik @ 3/23/2005 04:28:00 AM
permalink | 0 comments | post comment | email post:

The original painting, completed by Lenny V in 1498, (click it for a Sixteenth Century reproduction by an anonymous artist which has better weathered the passage of time),

Since, The Last Supper has been held by scuba divers, black people, Legos figures, a M*A*S*H unit, and on the next morning some have enjoyed a Last Breakfast.

// posted by Erik @ 3/21/2005 11:04:00 PM
permalink | email post:

Commercial art from Marthé + François Girbaud. You can click on the image to get a bigger version. I'll point out why it's much more that a bunch of skinny women posing as characters in Leonardo da Vinci's The Last Supper, but in a later post. It doesn't seem to be done surprising me yet.

One thing is for sure - none of the authors of the many articles and weblog entries I've seen about it have written about it as a work of art in itself - if they've even noticed anything beyond, "Wow, but look! One of them is a dude!". I'd whip their butts if they dared meet me in a game of Parker Brothers Masterpiece ®.

Here's why people are writing about the ad. The governments of the city of Milan and the entire nation of France have banned the ad. They figure they're the guardians of weak-kneed French and Milanese Roman Catholics and are bestowing upon them the right not to have delicate religious sensibilities offended. Roman Catholic Bishops brought the suit against the clothing designer and the Inquisitors found it appropriate to prevent parodying of the sacred work of a Fifteenth Century genius in such a manner is unacceptable. I wish this was a joke, but it's not.

It seems to me if a government is going to consider da Vinci's Fifteenth Century The Last Supper "sacred" and that it has the duty to protect it's sanctity, it seems to me the governments might also do well to order the litigious liturgy men to canonize The Revelations of Dante and John Milton. That way they'd at least be able to claim their beliefs in purgatory, the Trinity, and Satan as a fallen angel are in some direct manner biblical. Just in case a court has to rule on any of those matters.

This isn't the first time and won't be the last time I quote James Madison on the importance of keeping religious and governmental affairs separate. In 1785, Madison wrote that for government to lend aid to religion,

... is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

Of any two authorities, one must be higher. Here we have governments of men and whatever one believes to be the supreme ruling Force in the Universe. When someone runs to a government of men for aid and protection of what they claim to be the Ultimate Power, it gives an indication of the extent of "ultimate power" is actually wielded by the allegedly ultimate Force. It doesn't matter if you call it Yahweh, Reason, God, or Science - if it's the ultimate power and truth, it ought to stand fine without defense from old geezers pounding gavels in powdered wigs. Some people just don't get that.

A lawyer for the plaintiff pontiffs in the "save the sacred painting" crusade huffed,

When you trivialise the founding acts of a religion, when you touch on sacred things, you create an unbearable moral violence which is a danger to our children. Tomorrow Christ on the cross will be selling socks.

Good grief. Did I hear someone wonder aloud about Christ on the cross selling socks? Granted, this was misguided maneuvering by a couple of throwbacks, and we have our equivalent of the on this side of the Pond. But their sanctimonious screeching does seem to give at least a sliver of credence to an "Old Europe" label. Most of us in the Western world have progressed through an Enlightenment since Leonardo created his masterpiece. And a few additional ages afterwards.

// posted by Erik @ 3/21/2005 09:49:00 PM
permalink | email post:

From the Houston Chronicle, a story of a hospital removing a patient from life support against the patient's family's wishes,

St. Luke's notified Jannette Nikolouzos in a March 1 letter that it would withdraw life-sustaining care of her husband of 34 years in 10 days, which would be Friday. Mario Caba-llero, the attorney representing the family, said he is seeking a two-week extension, at minimum, to give the man more time to improve and to give his family more time to find an alternative facility.

A neurologist told her, she said, that he is not brain-dead and the part of the brain that controls breathing is still functioning. Although his eyes were open and fixed when he first was placed on the ventilator, he has started blinking, she said.

... State law allows doctors to remove patients from life support if the hospital's ethics committee agrees, but it requires that the hospital give families 10 days to find another facility.

The patient was yesterday moved to a facility which would take him, after over thirty other facilities rejected him.

A similar Texas case made possible by the same Texas law involved an infant, Sun Hudson, who was taken off a respirator against his mother's wishes,

The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.

Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

"I talked to him, I told him that I loved him. Inside of me, my son is still alive," Wanda Hudson told reporters afterward. "This hospital was considered a miracle hospital. When it came to my son, they gave up in six months .... They made a terrible mistake."

Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts.

These events in Texas are similar to the Terri Schiavo case in that there are parties disagreeing over whether life-prologing procedures should continue. They are different in that in the Schiavo case the disagreement is among the patient's family, and in the Texas cases, the disagreement is between the family and the hospital.

Early today, President Bush signed a law allowing the Schiavo case to be heard again in federal court, proclaiming upon its signing that "our courts should have a presumption in favor of life ... I will continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans."

If you haven't read or guessed yet, President Bush as Governor of Texas in 1999 also signed the law which allows Texas hospitals to withdraw life sustaining treatment from patients against the patient's family's wishes. Let's take a peek at the Texas statute, Chapter 166: Advance Directives, Subchapter A. General Provisions,

PROCEDURE WHEN DECLARANT IS INCOMPETENT OR INCAPABLE OF COMMUNICATION.

(a) This section applies when an adult qualified patient has executed or issued a directive and is incompetent or otherwise mentally or physically incapable of communication.
... (c) If the adult qualified patient has not designated a person to make a treatment decision, the attending physician shall comply with the directive unless the physician believes that the directive does not reflect the patient's present desire.

This means as Governor of Texas in 1999, Bush signed a law stating,

Physicians can overrule the advance directive of a patient incapable of communicating a health care decision if the physician "believes" the patient didn't mean what they said in their advance directive.

Why have an advance directive if a physician can overrule it by "believing" you meant otherwise? Anyway, here's Bush, the fake compassionate lover of all life and true lover of trying to wield Big Government power to his political advantage , today saying,

"Our courts should have a presumption in favor of life ... I will continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans."

The Texas las also defines what happens if a patient does not have an advance directive,

PROCEDURE WHEN PERSON HAS NOT EXECUTED OR ISSUED A DIRECTIVE AND IS INCOMPETENT OR INCAPABLE OF COMMUNICATION.

(a) If an adult qualified patient has not executed or issued a directive and is incompetent or otherwise mentally or physically incapable of communication, the attending physician and the patient's legal guardian or an agent under a medical power of attorney may make a treatment decision that may include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from the patient.
(b) If the patient does not have a legal guardian or an agent under a medical power of attorney, the attending physician and one person, if available, from one of the following categories, in the following priority, may make a treatment decision that may include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment:
(1) the patient's spouse;
(2) the patient's reasonably available adult children;
(3) the patient's parents; or
(4) the patient's nearest living relative.

The law Bush signed as Governor of Texas in 1999,

If a patient is incapable of communicating a health care decision, their spouse may make the decision to withhold life-sustaining treatment.

The law would allow the husband of a patient like Terri Schiavo make the decisions on her behalf - that is if the hospital doesn't overrule him. Anyway, here's Bush, the fake lover life and true lover of Big Brother Government, today saying,

"Our courts should have a presumption in favor of life ... I will continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans."

PROCEDURE IF NOT EFFECTUATING A DIRECTIVE OR TREATMENT DECISION.

(a) If an attending physician refuses to honor a patient's advance directive or a health care or treatment decision made by or on behalf of a patient, the physician's refusal shall be reviewed by an ethics or medical committee. The attending physician may not be a member of that committee. The patient shall be given life-sustaining treatment during the review.
(b) The patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the individual who has made the decision regarding the directive or treatment decision:
... (4) is entitled to:
(A) attend the meeting; and
(B) receive a written explanation of the decision reached during the review process. ... (d) If the attending physician, the patient, or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the individual does not agree with the decision reached during the review process under Subsection (b), the physician shall make a reasonable effort to transfer the patient to a physician who is willing to comply with the directive.

The law Bush signed as Governor of Texas in 1999 defines that,

If a physician doesn't want to adhere to a patient's advance directive or, absent an advance directive, the desires of the family, the matter must be reviewed by the hospital's ethics committee. The patient's family has the right to be informed of the ethic committee's decision and if they disagree, the hospital must make a "reasonable effort" to transfer the patient to a facility willing to honor the advance directive or desires of the family.

There you go - that's why the hospitals in Texas were able to overrule their patient's families wishes. Because of an approving signature of then Governor Bush, a Texas corporation can overrule a family on decisions whether to withhold or continue life-sustaining procedures. Bush, the fake compassionate lover of all life and true lover of purely political manoeuvering - today says,

"Our courts should have a presumption in favor of life ... I will continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans."

What do I think of all this? Clearly, shows Bush is not only trying to twist the Schiavo tragedy to his political advantage, but is also a liar and a hypocrite. I refuse to believe he didn't understand the Texas law he signed.

Per the parts of the Texas law I excerpted, I disagree with them: advance directives ought always be honored and in absence of one, health care decisions always ought to be made by the family if they chose to take the responsibility. I believe there may sometimes be reason to overrule a family's wishes, but only when the family is incompetent to make rational decisions - and that ought to be a ruling from a court of law, not a hospital ethics committee. And in most states - perhaps all, including Texas, there are already laws on the books which require health care decision proxies to be competent adults.

// posted by Erik @ 3/21/2005 04:02:00 AM
permalink | email post:

I got to thinking and searching Google news for "humanitarian crisis." Among what I found,

• Essential humanitarian aid is not reaching people in Nepal due to the escalating violence between Maoist rebels and the Royal Nepal Army.
• In Swaziland, children orphaned by AIDS make up 10% of the population; the country is in its fourth consecutive year of draught.
• Over six million people in Sudan are homeless due to the conflict, four out of every 1,000 dying each day. That's a 100% yearly death rate.
• In the Congo, there is torture and cannibalism and children combatants as young as 8. One-thousand people a day die in the war and from war-related related preventable diseases.
• Worldwide, 4,000 children die each day due to unsafe water, poor sanitation, and lack of hygiene.

Here is a sick Congolese child and mother. They among those lucky enough to be receiving UN help despite the war,

But what's today's #1 issue for the American "pro-life" posse? Well, it's saving the "life" of this one woman in Florida who has been in a vegetative state for 15 years, of course.

Congress called an emergency session to intervene in that crisis.

The president even had to cut his vacation short to return to Washington to sign the bill.

His political advisors carried his bags.

// posted by Erik @ 3/20/2005 05:10:00 PM
permalink | email post:

Oh my. Although I inaccurately guessed the precise twist in the plot congressional Republicans would next offer in regards to the Schiavo case, I was right in the more recent post to observe they were politicking. The Washington Post reports a memo has surfaced (front page story in print addition, on the second page of the web edition),

An unsigned one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators, said the debate over Schiavo would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters. The memo singled out Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who is up for reelection next year and is potentially vulnerable in a state President Bush won last year.

"This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, which was reported by ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."

No More Mister Nice Blog says memo was reported by ABC news as well.

Myself, I think the media circus (welcomed by both camps of the family and including blogs like mine if you must flatter me) over the affair may have a sterling silver lining: allowing more people to realize that when the end is at hand, a lethal injection is more humane than unplugging the machine. An overwhelming majority of Americans would not want to be kept alive in Mrs. Schiavo's condition,

In an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted March 10-13, an overwhelming majority of the 1,001 adults polled - 87 percent - said they would not want to be kept alive if they were in Schiavo's condition.

It does not seem a stretch to think most of that 87% would rather die quickly than by dehydration. By contrast it does seem a stretch for Republicans to think they will score political points against Bill Nelson by trying to mold it as a "great political issue".

// posted by Erik @ 3/20/2005 12:39:00 AM
permalink | email post:

I, being an individual with fairly good reading comprehension and visualization skills, and feeling helpful pity for those constitutional experts who are not quite there, have made a graphic illustrative of the Ninth Amendment's meaning,

Mark Levin provides for us an excerpt from his book, Men in Black: A Conspiracy Theory in which I Assert the Supreme Court is in League with Marxist al Qaeda Child Pornographers, which I will soon be addressing at length - including parts of what he excerpts in this article that I will save for later. Contained within the excerpt, though, is one of his more freakish droolings, and below I will wipe up only that. Writes Mark Levin, Man in the Dark,

If you look in the Constitution, however, you will find no general "right to privacy" any more than you will find a right to abortion - and for good reason: It's not there. The framers assumed no general right to privacy because, to state the obvious, criminal and evil acts can be committed in privacy. Criminal codes are full of such examples - from murder to incest to rape and other crimes.

Absurd. Equally as absurd as claiming, "The framers assumed no general right to movement in public because, to state the obvious, criminal and evil acts can be committed in public."

We do indeed have a right to privacy just as much as we have a right to be in public. We cannot, however, commit crimes in public nor in private.

There are many rights we have that aren't specifically protected by the Constitution, although some particularly important rights indeed are specifically protected.

In 1787 and 1788, an anonymous critic of the new Constitution wrote what are known as the Letters from the Federal Farmer. These letters discussed potential flaws in the new Constitution and otherwise criticized it - before we had our Bill of Rights. Among his objections was precisely Levin's thought that all possible individual rights meant to be granted or reserved should be specifically enumerated in the Constitution. He wrote in his sixteenth letter, dated January 20, 1788,

[A]s individual rights are numerous, and not easy to be enumerated in a bill of rights, and from articles, or stipulations, securing some of them, it may be inferred, that others not mentioned are surrendered.

... [T]he people, thus establishing some few rights, and remaining totally silent about others similarly circumstanced, the implication indubitably is, that they mean to relinquish the latter, or at least feel indifferent about them. Rights, therefore, inferred from general principles of reason, being precarious and hardly ascertainable in the common affairs of society, and the people, in forming a federal constitution, explicitly shewing they conceive these rights to be thus circumstanced, and accordingly proceed to enumerate and establish some of them, the conclusion will be, that they have established all which they esteem valuable and sacred. On every principle, then, the people especially having began, ought to go through enumerating, and establish particularly all the rights of individuals, which can by any possibility come in question in making and executing federal laws.

James Madison politely responded to such criticisms on June 8, 1789, over 215 years before our Man in the Dark claimed we have no right to privacy. Madison addressed the fledgling House of Representatives,

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

The clarification Madison offered in that fourth resolution is today our 9th Amendment,

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

// posted by Erik @ 3/19/2005 09:17:00 PM
permalink | email post:

I was wrong about what the next act in congressional Republican's farce regarding the Schiavo saga may be. They are showing blatant disrespect for Florida law as well as the U.S. Constitution.

From Florida statutes, CHAPTER 765 - HEALTH CARE ADVANCE DIRECTIVES, emphasis added.

765.101 Definitions. --
As used in this chapter:

5) "Health care decision" means:
(a) Informed consent, refusal of consent, or withdrawal of consent to any and all health care, including life-prolonging procedures.

(8) "Incapacity" or "incompetent" means the patient is physically or mentally unable to communicate a willful and knowing health care decision. For the purposes of making an anatomical gift, the term also includes a patient who is deceased.

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.

(15) "Proxy" means a competent adult who has not been expressly designated to make health care decisions for a particular incapacitated individual, but who, nevertheless, is authorized pursuant to s. 765.401 to make health care decisions for such individual.

765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. --

(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

(2) The withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures from a patient in accordance with any provision of this chapter does not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide.

765.401 The proxy. --

(1) If an incapacitated or developmentally disabled patient has not executed an advance directive, or designated a surrogate to execute an advance directive, or the designated or alternate surrogate is no longer available to make health care decisions, health care decisions may be made for the patient by any of the following individuals, in the following order of priority, if no individual in a prior class is reasonably available, willing, or competent to act:
(a) The judicially appointed guardian of the patient or the guardian advocate of the person having a developmental disability as defined in s. 393.063, who has been authorized to consent to medical treatment, if such guardian has previously been appointed; however, this paragraph shall not be construed to require such appointment before a treatment decision can be made under this subsection;
(b) The patient's spouse;
(c) An adult child of the patient, or if the patient has more than one adult child, a majority of the adult children who are reasonably available for consultation;
(d) A parent of the patient;

Condensed to apply to the Terri Schiavo case -

If a patient without an advance directive is physically or mentally unable to communicate a willful and knowing health care decision, including one to withhold artificially provided sustenance and hydration, the decision goes to the patient's spouse before the patient's parent. This is not to be considered euthanasia or mercy killing.

Congressional republicans are sending up a hail mary bill designed to contravene Florida law. From today's joint statement by Senate Majority leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert,

We're pleased to announce that we have reached an agreement on legislation which provides an opportunity to save Mrs. Schiavo's life. This legislation will allow a federal district judge to consider a claim by or on behalf of Mrs. Schiavo for alleged violations of Constitutional rights or federal laws relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

Each year, thousands upon thousands of decisions are made by spouses - perhaps in Florida alone - whether to continue life-prolonging procedures. Singling out a single case is wrong on several counts,

1. It would be an Ex post facto law, literally a "a thing done afterward". In this case, it would be designed to overturn the result of a court case that has already been appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Article I § 9 of the Constitution forbids Congress from making ex post facto laws,

   "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

2. It may also be a bill of attainder, meaning a bill passed to single out a specific case, also forbidden by the same constitutional text.
3. Even if one believes constitutional considerations ought to be set aside in this instance, passing the law would set a precedent for every family member that disagrees with the decision made by the person designated by state law to run to Congress crying for them to make a special law.

(Edit on 3/21: apparently this is not an ex post facto statute, although I don't understand why it wouldn't be: its intent is clearly to open the possibility that the result of a finalized court case be overturned. Everybody agrees that a law such as this is unprecedented.)

In addition to the above, there is another important concept to mention: The same government that claims a right to intervene in such a situation to "save a life" claims for themselves the authority over all life-prolonging procedures. Two hypothetical examples,

"Your husband has been in a deep coma for a year. There have been extremely rare cases when patients have woken from comas this deep and long. Your husband's cerebral cortex is severely damaged, and if by rare chance he does awake, he would be nothing like the husband you knew. He would not be able to communicate with you or understand what was going on around him and his swallowing reflex will never return - he will be a body hooked up to a feeding tube."

"Your husband has been in a coma for a year. At times it is deep, but there are also times when it is lighter - his eyes sometimes respond to light and he also sometimes has a moderately strong pain reflex. Although it's not something you can count on, and it is indeed unusual, we have seen patients in similar states wake up and resume normal and fulfilling lives without much difficulty."

Throw any advance directive out the window. Don't trust your family to make the right decision. Certainly don't rely on your state laws. Don't listen to your doctor, just trust in Big Brother government. They know best.

Getting back to the Schiavo case, she is way beyond a year-long coma - she's been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. Nobody in such a state for so long has ever woken up - far less resumed any quality of life.

Personally, I find her parent's attachment to their daughter's body disturbing. But if the law designated medical decisions to her parents and not her husband, I would be arguing that their wishes must be respected.

There are many, many such cases - the reason we don't know about them is the family don't create legal, media, and political frenzies over it. They respect the law and each other. All I can do as an observer is voice respect for the law, support for the law if I agree with the law, and offer my personal opinion on the scope of what I believe the law ought to be. And in this case, that is,

I respect the law. In this case, I think Florida law is fine, as far as it goes. Further, I think for cases similar to this one, it ought to go beyond what it does and allow the administration of a lethal dose of a drug to comfortably end a patient's life, whether the patient requests it in person or via an advance directive, or absent an advance directive when the party designated by law requests it - brutally unplugging a machine or removing a tube to slowly bring on death through suffocation or dehydration ought to be illegal. Death ought to be as quick and painless as possible when it's chosen. Government ought to facilitate, not dictate.

// posted by Erik @ 3/19/2005 06:34:00 PM
permalink | email post:

Republicans acting comical. Who would have thought. They are seeking testimony from a woman who hasn't said a thing for 15 years. What may the next act of their comedy look like?

Sen. Frist: OK, I'm a doctor, everybody be real quiet. Ms. Schiavo, can you give the Committee your opinion on whether medical decisions, including end-of-life decisions, should be deferred to the spouse in cases where the patient is unable to respond?

(pause)

Sen. Hatch: Oooooh, I think she said something while Harkin coughed! Anybody catch it?

Sen. Roberts: I think she said, "tax relief then," but I couldn't pick out the rest.

Sen. Sessions: I think it was "barrier reef when", then something about "testifying".

Sen. Kennedy: Aren't we supposed to be being quiet? I move that we be silent for five minutes so we can get this farce over with.

Sen. Gregg: Follow your own advice and shut up, Ted.

Sen. Sessions: We must error on the side of caution when we are dealing with respect for life. Ms. Schiavo may have been trying to indicate that she will testify after we pass more tax relief and take down the Great Barrier Reef.

Sen. Hatch: I move that we recommend these actions to the appropriate committees for consideration and reconvene with the witness after the legislation Ms. Schiavo suggested has been realized.

Sen. Frist: Second.

Sen. Gregg: All in favor?

// posted by Erik @ 3/18/2005 03:05:00 PM
permalink | email post:

The Apostropher points to an MP3 of a particularly hilarious voice mail message.

Billmon alerts us to frighteningly similar animosities towards academia between the contemporary American right-wing rhetoric and communist China's Cultural Revolution propaganda.

// posted by Erik @ 3/18/2005 03:05:00 AM
permalink | email post:

In English, the word "miracle" can be used in at least a few distinct ways. It can refer to a violation of understood physical laws through an alleged divine intervention, such as the parting of the Red Sea or the literal bodily resurrection of the crucified Christ. Let's call those events "divine miracles".

In a different way, we can refer to fortunate but unlikely events which we cannot completely understand but do not violate physical laws as "miracles" - such as when a terminal cancer patient given two months to live recovers their health. Let's call those events "fortunate miracles."

We can also refer to common, but particularly fortunate events as "miracles", as when we speak of vaccines as "miracle drugs" or the passage of pro-environment legislation through a Republican controlled legislative body. In this case, we do understand the nature of the phenomenon and we call it a "miracle" simply to refer to the fortune it brings. We can call these "colloquial miracles". The use of the word miracle in a purely colloquial sense brings about no controversy - we readily accept that the use of the word merely ascribes tremendous fortune to an occurrence.

Issam Nemeh, a medical doctor in the Cleveland area has recently been holding "faith healing" services and many attending them claim to have been healed of physical afflictions through a divine miracle. The alleged "miracles" have included the disappearance of a chronic pain of the shoulder, a ruptured spinal disc, and a eye tumor.

Ascribing such phenomenon to a particular deity is nonsense - all religions have always credited the power of unexplained healing to their preferred deity or deities - Hindu, Muslim, and American Indian as well as Christian.

By having many massage sessions with my aunt who is talented in many alternative healing techniques, I can personally attest to the fact of having observed many phenomena unexplainable by Western medical science. I felt her hands become not warm but hot while "working" on me, a bizarre and pleasant tremor oscillating down my body coinciding with the placement of her hands above my body, and marked improvement in a curvature of my spine which many years of traditional Western medicine didn't put a dent in. She ascribed the phenomena to no deity. When speaking of what was happening, she explained that she imagined "energy" coming in through her head and being focused by her hands. She didn't claim to further understand it itself, but only to understand that what she could do works.

The power of positive thinking itself through prayer or another vehicle is a common observance. And the gift of healing "by hands" through an innate and sometimes developed skill is also common across religions and cultures. These aspects to sickness and healing are ones which have been unusually ignored in Western medicine. That we are beginning to recognize them is a correction in course not a new direction.

The people believing that Issam Nemeh is a conduit for a Christian Holy Spirit do no harm by believing so - in fact that belief in itself may be the largest actual influence to any actual benefit. But nonetheless it is superstition: it is an irrational preference to believe fortunate miracles as being divine miracles.

// posted by Erik @ 3/18/2005 12:45:00 AM
permalink | 41 comments | post comment | email post:

I had decided to give Mark Levin's book Men in Black a "fair reading" before commenting on it and as an aspect of that fair reading, reading the whole thing before commenting on any of of it. But I have to cry out in pain now being that what I've read of it so far is utterlty jam packed with logical fallacies, misleading statements, selective reporting, and dismissal if not outright contempt for the positive aspects of our nation. It would take several times the amount of space as he uses to come close to addressing even most of the problems.

As an example of the denseness of error (and as an admitted ruse to comment upon some of the book before reading all of it) I'd like to address a short excerpt from the first chapter "Radicals in Robes,"

In Plessy, an activist Supreme Court upheld a state law that mandated segregation, and forced a private industry (in this case the railroads) to separate individuals on account of race. By failing to invoke the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court inserted its own segregationist version of what was just. Like Dred Scott, the Court's decision would have terrible consequences. The doctrine of "separate but equal" was the law of the land for the next fifty-eight years, until the Court reversed course in the 1954 decision Brown v. Board of Education.

In 1944, in Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld executive orders (issued by President Franklin Roosevelt) establishing military authority for the forced internment of Americans during World War II.

The Court's opinion, only some 20 pages long, was devoid of any legitimate constitutional basis for upholding Roosevelt's orders.

Last thing first. Korematsu v. United States drew upon the precedent of Hirabayashi v. United States in which the Supreme Court had upheld the conviction of an American citizen who violated a curfew placed on persons of Japanese ancestry, also a decision of about 20 pages. So we can use Levin's much loved argument from number fallacy against him and say the legal reasoning was a whole was at least 40 pages long - so it must be right!

Now that we have Levin teetering from his own poison, we can throw him completely off balance by pointing out that although we both may not agree with it, the Supreme Court did indeed cite an alleged "constitutional basis" for its decision - the Constitution gives power to Congress to declare war and the Constitution gives the president the power to wage war as commander-in-chief, and that the authority to make decisions over war-related matters rests solely with Congress and the president. From Hirabayashi,

Executive Order No. 9066, promulgated in time of war for the declared purpose of prosecuting the war by protecting national defense resources from sabotage and espionage, and the Act of March 21, 1942, ratifying and confirming the Executive Order, were each an exercise of the power to wage war conferred on the Congress and on the President, as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, by Articles I and II of the Constitution.

From Korematsu,

The 1942 Act was attacked in the Hirabayashi case as an unconstitutional delegation of power; it was contended that the curfew order and other orders on which it rested were beyond the war powers of the Congress, the military authorities and of the President, as Commander in Chief of the Army; and finally that to apply the curfew order against none but citizens of Japanese ancestry amounted to a constitutionally prohibited discrimination solely on account of race. To these questions, we gave the serious consideration which their importance justified. We upheld the curfew order as an exercise of the power of the government to take steps necessary to prevent espionage and sabotage in an area threatened by Japanese attack.

In the light of the principles we announced in the Hirabayashi case, we are unable to conclude that it was beyond the war power of Congress and the Executive to exclude [323 U.S. 214, 218] those of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast war area at the time they did.

For the take-down, we'll borrow a technique from the Japanese martial art of Jujutsu and turn our attacker's aggressive momentum against him. Later in Levin's book, we find a chapter, Al Qaeda Gets a Lawyer in which he argues that in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court was wrong to claim for themselves a power to review the circumstances of an Arab-American citizen's detention. Levin argues that the Constitution gives power to Congress to declare war and the Constitution gives the president the power to wage war as commander-in-chief and that,

There is nothing in the Constitution gives parity, much less primacy, to the courts over war-related matters.

Touché. When this reasoning is applied to the detainment of an citizen American during WW II, Levin calls it judicial activism. But when the same reasoning is applied to the detainment of an citizen American in the War on Terror, its solemnly upholding the Constitution.

(Risking the blemishment of a clean and undisputed victory, I will further point out that if Levin believes there is a demarkation between the executive branch claiming, "Our responsibility to protect the nation requires us to detain this person because he has a particular ancestry" and "Our responsibility to protect the nation requires us detain this person because we're calling him an 'enemy combatant'," it is still not a distinction made by the constitution.)

Now that our opponent is surely down for the count, we can beat him to a pulp. And good. In the first sentence of the excerpt, note the placement of a comma between "mandated segregation" and "and forced a private industry (in this case the railroads) to separate individuals on account of race,"

[A]n activist Supreme Court upheld a state law that mandated segregation, and forced a private industry (in this case the railroads) to separate individuals on account of race.

Does that give you the impression that the Supreme Court both upheld a law that mandated segregation and the Supreme Court forced a private industry to racially separate individuals? It should. There are better ways of constructing the sentence, but as it is the the comma makes what comes after it an independent clause referring back to the subject of the sentence - in this case, "an activist Supreme Court".

However, it was the Louisiana law that mandated segregation and forced a private industry to racially separate individuals. That comma should not be there. Levin asserts himself as someone who can impeccably ascertain the clear meaning of the words of the Constitution; One would think he'd be a judicious user of commas!

If Levin's misuse is still unclear, consider the same in a simpler sentence,

Joan works at a company that makes trucks and employs 80,000 people.
vs.
Joan works at a company that makes trucks, and employs 80,000 people.

Granted, today we obviously see wrongness of the Supreme Court when it uphold that particular segregationist law. But its decision didn't force a private company to racially segregate people any more than Joan has 80,000 employees. The way Levin writes it gives the impression that the Supreme Court did two separate things.

I probably use too many commas myself, but I don't have the luxury of an editor as Levin does. I do, nonetheless, proofread my writing to try to be sure my meaning is clearly conveyed. I suggest the comma was not only spotted by Levin, but intentionally placed there to mislead.

Just as Levin doesn't expect his readers to go and read the Korematsu v. United States and Hirabayashi v. United States decisions and discover they used the exact rationalization he himself uses to disagree with more recent court decisions, he doesn't expect readers to be familiar with Plessy vs. Ferguson beyond what he writes about the decision.

Levin continues on to claim that the Plessy decision made "separate but equal" the law of the land. It didn't. What it did was set a precedent for lower courts to uphold segregationist laws written by legislatures. Those laws were not written by the Supreme Court nor were segregationist practices ordered by the Supreme Court - the Supreme Court just upheld them. Generally, all levels of government were racist - from state legislatures to school boards - and yes, also the Supreme Court.

Which brings me to my final point about this very short excerpt: If the index to the book is accurate, the only sentence in the entire book that casts anything like a positive light on Brown v. Board of Education - the landmark Supreme Court decision which was the beginning of the end to all the horrid segregationist laws and practices in many parts of our land of liberty and justice for all - is this,

The doctrine of "separate but equal" was the law of the land for the next fifty-eight years, until the Court reversed course in the 1954 decision Brown v. Board of Education.

// posted by Erik @ 3/17/2005 06:15:00 AM
permalink | email post:

A convenience store near me has automatic change dispensers attached to their cash registers. Sometimes there will be a few pennies left in the dish before my change rolls into it - I've always taken those pennies along with the new change issued to me - "free money," I've thought. A few hours ago, however, I bought a quart of orange juice for $2.29 and encountered a new twist.

I looked at the cup as the cash drawer opened noticed there was a silver coin among several pennies already in the cup! In a state of moral panic, I attempted to count the amount already in the cup while my change rattled down. I got no further than, "The silver coin is not a dime." I tried to not think about the fact that I was taking all the change, and as I find it very difficult to make myself not think about things, the cashier called me back as I was walking out the door, "You have two dollars of change here, sir."

Now that really got my conscience working on me: because I was trying to be nonchalant about picking up a number of cents, I became so chalant about change I forgot about the paper component of it. "He that hasteth to be rich hath an evil eye, and considereth not that poverty shall come upon him." - Proverbs 28:22 (KJV).

I thought of that proverb while I went to get my Bartlett's Quotations to find a pithy quote about justice, but can't imagine a more applicable saying. But I had to pick up Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals to get at the Bartlett's - the only book atop it. As I already had intended to write about Kant's Categorical Imperative he introduced in that work, I took the book's placement as a meaningful coincidence and a validation of Jung's idea of synchronicity. The Categorical Imperative is Kant's famous rational formulation of the Golden Rule,

Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

In other words, "Only take the 'extra' change in the change cup if you could desire that everybody take extra change from change cups."

It's impossible to apply the Categorical Imperative to the situation without knowing the intentions of the customer who left their change behind. If the cashier reminded the customer and the person simply didn't want it, the next customer could take the change and the world would keep spinning around. The Categorical Imperative is upheld.

However, if the customer was unaware they had left the change and the cashier intentionally left it up to the next customer what to do, and this became a universal law, the store would be arbitrarily giving customers change, in which case the act of giving change would become meaningless. It would not pass the Categorical Imperative.

A third possibility is that the customer intended to leave the change, thinking of the cup as a leave a penny, take a penny cup. In this case, intermingling the concepts of a need a penny take a penny cup with a change dispenser would render meaningless the act exchanging agreed upon amounts of money for goods.

So trying to determine morality of taking change left in a change dispenser by applying the Categorical Imperative doesn't work - it leaves the morality of the action indeterminate. Kant strikes out.

Jesus' formulation of the Rule is not helpful either, Luke 6:31 -

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

There are several "others" in this situation. The customer who left the change: I would have another track me down and return my change to me. But asking the cashier which way the customer had gone, what they looked like, and if they were driving, what kind of car it was would be more eccentric than querying the cashier about the intentions attached to the event which led to change already being in the cup. And I would not have others interact with me in an irritatingly eccentric fashion, so I would be creating a paradox: breaking the Golden Rule to adhere to it.

Another actor would be the cashier who already had the opportunity to move the change somewhere else if that had been their intention. We can safely assume that the cashier has decided - for whatever reason - to leave the change in the cup when a customer does not take it. Obviously, they have left the decision regarding the change up to me. I would not have somebody complaining about my store policies on the matter, so I can't rebuke the cashier for leaving the change in the cup and the decision to me.

The last actor would be the next customer after me, and laying such a moral quandary at their feet would be cruel. This is a burden I must shoulder myself.

So I then turn to John Stuart Mill's formulation of the Golden Rule to see if he can offer me any guidance,

Seek the greatest good for the greatest number.

Bingo: we need not know the cashier or the customer's intentions, nor must we go on a manhunt or pass the pickle off to the next person. We can simply take the change and place it in a jar and at some point in the future donate the accumulated change to a worthy charity.

// posted by Erik @ 3/16/2005 09:29:00 PM
permalink | email post:

I'm not categorically opposed to thinking about drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but the fact is there is now absolutely no need to. Listening to excerpts of debate on the Senate Floor, one would think we're rationing gas - John Thune (R-SD) referred to an alleged "energy crisis".

"Energy crisis?" Is this crisis along the lines of, "Well, honey, if we drilled for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, another SUV for our third vehicle might be a good idea, but those damn environmental wackos won't let us"?

Let's save those reserves for a real crisis along the lines of, "It's simply a fact: we can't replace our diesel freight trains with ones that run on renewable energy quick enough. We need more oil in the meantime and we have the option of importing more at $200 a barrel or drilling for our own which happens to be under a wildlife refuge."

There is a present day fact that we need to be aware of now: There is a limited amount of oil on Earth and only a miniscule portion of it exists under the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. With this in mind, the only rational reasons to begin drilling for oil in a wildlife refuge at this time are predicated on at least one of the following assumptions,

1. The U.S. oil industry's right to make to make as large a profit as possible trumps all else - including preserving the ability of that same industry to operate in ANWR at a point when that oil may be direly needed.
2. Repent! The End is Near - the future doesn't matter because there is no future!

Congratulations to my Republican Senator Norm Coleman for being among the seven Republicans to resist such lunacy,

• Lincoln Chafee
• Norm Coleman
• Susan Collins
• Mike DeWine
• John McCain
• Gordon Smith
• Olympia Snowe

// posted by Erik @ 3/16/2005 01:30:00 PM
permalink | email post:

I went out for drinks with some friends tonight. Near the end of the evening, the conversation turned to what extent early Christian writings canonized into the Bible are historically accurate. A friend was unwilling to have the conversation without insisting that the Bible says and means what modern fundamentalists say it says and means. It seems to me that anger at Christian right-wingers has at least partially been translated into a hostility towards all things remotely Christian. This is precisely what James Madison wrote of when explaining that any mixture of government and religion is

... moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

During the heated debate in the bar, I pointed out that the idea that the "Bible" as we know it is inerrant is a relatively recent phenomenon - an idea which began to become popular in the late 1800's. What we today in America know as "The Bible" is actually the result of - at a minimum,

• decisions made over many centuries of what early writings should be included
• decisions over what versions of those early writings should be considered as accurate
• decisions over how the Greek text should be translated into English

You don't even have to get to the point of suggesting that the manuscripts older that 500 years have more serious problems - you can just point to problems with how and what text has been canonized in relatively recent centuries.

As an example, I pointed out that contemporary Catholics include entire books in their Bible that contemporary Protestants don't. I also pointed out that in relation to the doctrine of the "Virgin Birth", there is no way of knowing for certain that the Greek and Hebrew words commonly translated into the English "virgin" actually meant "virgin"; they could also arguably also be translated into English as "young women". But my friend would hear none of it. He was generally only interested in arguing from the standpoint of how contemporary American fundamentalists interpret "the Bible" in such and such a way and that this is the only way to interpret the Bible.

I pointed out to my friend that he believes Rasputin had the gift of healing despite the fact he had never seen Rasputin heal anyone: he had just read written accounts of others; why does he accept this based on other's second-hand accounts and at the same time insist that we can't know anything about the life and acts of Jesus from reading other's written accounts? His response was that the KGB documented Rasputin's acts. At the time, I only had the presence of mind to point out that in that case, he was was still only going from the accounts of others. Had I been a quicker thinker than I am, I would have additionally noted that the KGB didn't even exist at the time of Rasputin, and that further, if it had, the Soviet Union was notorious for presenting lies as truth.

Another point I did get in was that the types of things he was saying gives validation to the Christian right-wing's claims that the left is hostile to Christianity. Actually, the literal text of the Bible presents a view opposite to the right-wing's economic ideology: that you should work hard, but because that enables you to help the impoverished - from Proverbs,

He who works his land will have abundant food, but the one who chases fantasies will have his fill of poverty.
... A stingy man is eager to get rich and is unaware that poverty awaits him.
... He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses.

Yes, today, I reject the majority of what is in the English "Bible" - as well as other's understandings of what I accept from it means. At the same time, I myself recognize parts of it, the majority of Jesus' teachings in particular, to be spot on.

It seems to me that both the contemporary American far left and far right need to view what is contained in the Bible in a Venn diagram and not an all-or-nothing proposition. After all, the Bible itself says,

A simple man believes anything,
but a prudent man gives thought to his steps.
- Proverbs 14:15

and,

Test everything. Hold on to the good.
- 1 Thessalonians 5:21

// posted by Erik @ 3/16/2005 12:52:00 AM
permalink | email post:

Today, an elderly maintenance man was in my apartment for a couple hours, m