December 29, 2006
Some of the time, I find that reading the news can be unbearable. A lot of the time, actually. That's partially one of the reasons I've found it difficult to keep this blog up-to-date. I'll pick a topic, write a few hundred words and after proof-reading realize my original point had devolved into a tangent-ridden mess that's simply not suitable for publication - especially here and under these circumstances.But that seems to be the nature of the industry, I suppose. The world is sometimes a nasty place afterall, so we shouldn't be surprised to hear about the details. And sure, there are puff pieces and occasional [heart-warming loveliness][1] to sooth the soul, but no matter what your politics, if you visit enough sources and read enough stories, sooner or later you're going to be quite frustrated and very pissed off. (which is of course why so many people just opt to tune-out completely)It didn't take long for me to hit that point today. Since I wanted to write about all of these, but don't have the time I'll just share these links and a quick thought on each and let you chime in however you'd like. And feel free to share whatever it is that's got your blood boiling these days. [First up:][2] "According to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) in a report released this week [PDF], Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees."Furthermore, a book approved by the Service claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood ,rather than by geologic forces, is on sale in the park for more than three years, even though a review was promised to Congress and the press. A Freedom of Information request [PDF] reveals that no review has ever been requested, nor taken place."Wow. The Grand Canyon was caused by Noah's flood. Incredible. It's not that I'm that upset this book is available for sale - I mean, that certainly does suck since the book's presence in the National Park gift shop implies gov't approval - but what gets me fired up is the fact that Park Rangers/Guides aren't allowed to comment on the Age of the Grand Canyon and little kids are going to leave the park with at best, unanswered questions and at worst, a horribly false understanding of the world. [More here.][3]Next: "Ancient ice shelf breaks free from Canadian Arctic". [41 square miles?][4] And still I have friends and family that still like to argue about the danger of global warming and at times if it's even real. "But there's a blizzard in Denver!" As Colbert would say, sometimes reality does have a liberal bias. And finally: the [Saddam Execution][5]. Like everyone else that writes about it, I'll throw out the obvious disclaimer:He's a bad guy. He deserves to die. Etc. Etc. It's important to keep in mind that there are many more crimes for which Saddam should stand trial. And for the historical record, I think it's worthwhile to keep him alive long enough for those crimes to be investigated. (Though I'm sure there are plenty in DC that would prefer as little investigation as possible into our part in those crimes, specifically during the 1980's). And if Bush thinks this execution is going to be a grand [photo- (or video-) op][6], he's got another thing coming. It's gonna shake things up and the scene will get nasty. There may be a slight bump in his approval rating though even that is uncertain - but there will most-likely also be an increase in violence, perhaps enough to require a 'surge' of US Troops to control. [Here's][7] a longer piece on this topic. And here's a very interesting, long-range analysis of how this could shake out. And for a final disclaimer on the Saddam business...facts change, and this is obviously going to be a big story, so I'm sure that even as I post this the Reuters story above is now old news, or soon will be. Grain of salt and all that. I'm well aware of the theory of different strokes for different folks, so if these don't fire you up, what does?UPDATE: The Associated Press is [reporting][8] Saddam will hang before 10 pm EST tonight.And I've already heard from some friends and family about Saddam's death and like I expected this is already being talked about as making this disasterous war worthwhile afterall. Intellectually honest individuals need to keep in mind that Saddam's killing of 148 people in 1982 was not part of the UN resolution that was used as justification for this war.UPDATE 2: BoingBoing also wrote about the Grand Canyon issue and has posted [this update][9] with links to other sites questioning the PEER press-release. I apologize for not being more skeptical regarding PEER's claims. [1]: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/29/yir.2006/index.html [2]: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/46043/ [3]: http://www.attytood.com/2006/12/weird_science.html [4]: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/12/29/canada.arctic.ap/index.html [5]: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-12-29T175424Z_01_IBO034602_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml&src=122906_1301_TOPSTORY_saddam_may_hang_within_hours%3A_iraqi_source [6]: http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=115874 [7]: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011729.php [8]: http://apnews.myway.com//article/20061229/D8MAPK000.html [9]: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/19/grand_canyon_employe.html
Comments
lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
clayhill70 (anonymous) says...
Arggggh!
Newsbreak: The ruins of the Tower of Babel have been discovered
at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
December 29, 2006 at 6:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...
Saddam is dead, at least until the theories arise that we killed one of his alleged doubles. And I'll sure miss this:
http://toccionline.kizash.com/movies/...
And I know I shouldn't touch the Noah thing (Bad El B! Bad!), but is it not the case that there are plenty of other books for sale there that promote the "accepted" opinion that the little tiny river at the bottom created the canyon over million and million of years? In fact, the official Park Service website says, "Geologic formations such as gneiss and schist found at the bottom of the Canyon date back 1,800 million years.
"http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/naturalfeaturesandecosystems.htm
And "ancient faults and displacements created by the earth's movement over millions of years form conduits and pockets that collect, and barriers that impede, the movement of water."
http://www.nps.gov/archive/grca/water/
How can this give government sanction to the view that it is but 6000 years old?
I'll be honest, while I have no idea how the Grand Canyon formed, I sure find the outrage of the modern heresy hunters more than a little bit amusing...
December 29, 2006 at 11:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) says...
Perhaps the guides aren't allowed to state as fact the age of the canyon because not even the hardcore atheist scientists have come to an agreement on said "age" at this time? But that would imply that the Bush administration had appointed someone reasonable and not rabidly evangelical to a post, and we all know that's never happened.
December 31, 2006 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emawkc (anonymous) says...
Agreed. I'd be careful about quoting from PEER again. A two minute glance at The Grand Canyon website (http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old) yielded the following nugget:
"How old is the Canyon?
That's a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old. The Canyon itself - an erosional feature - has formed only in the past five or six million years. Geologically speaking, Grand Canyon is very young."
January 4, 2007 at 8:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says...
El_B and emawkc,
point taken on the web site, and for the record i had seen that info as well. however, i don't think it's right to have to go online to find answers that i'd typically expect to learn at the park. When i've been to national parks in the past, i've gone to enjoy the scene, but also to learn. I'd much rather hear about the debate over the ages than be told "well, we can't discuss it, but you can find info online."
the parks are tax-payer supported (correct?) and i feel should therefore have nothing God- or Noah-related for sale. and should certainly not be bending to pressure from creationists that argue those 2000 million year old rocks are actually only 6000 years old. There's intellectual debate to be had on some of these issues, for sure. But most of this creationist foolishness is simply hard to fathom. Dinosaurs didn't walk with humans and a world-wide flood didn't cause that erosion.
however, i'll concede that PEER may certainly be over-stating the dilemma, as i've yet to discuss the matter with a park guide for myself.
January 4, 2007 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says...
a bit more info for what it's worth: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/was...
it does appear the rangers are still able to comment on the possible age (40 million years) but the book remains. more info in the article for those interested...
January 5, 2007 at 8:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...
So of the whole kerfuffle, what remains once everythig is exposed to light is that there is a book for sale.
Hardly seems worth the trouble, does it?
January 5, 2007 at 9:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says...
El_B,
i don't think it's quite that small of a deal...there's still no excuse for the lying about the FOIA request. And even without that, if it was just the book, that still is "worth the trouble" since it becomes a separation of state debate, which are always good to have to clarify where that line lays (lies? lay?)
January 8, 2007 at 8:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )