Not with a whimper but with a meteorite
Watch as the planet gets hit by a really, really big metorite.Is it just me, or does the narrator sound overly cheery?
A Tale of Two Cities
[Baghdad][1]:THE Iraqi Government will announce a sweeping peace plan as early as Sunday in a last-ditch effort to end the Sunni insurgency that has taken the country to the brink of civil war.The 28-point package for national reconciliation will offer Iraqi resistance groups inclusion in the political process and an amnesty for their prisoners if they renounce violence and lay down their arms, The Times can reveal.The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces.[Washington][2]:The Senate on Thursday roundly rejected two Democratic proposals to begin pulling troops out of Iraq, as Republicans and Democrats staked out starkly different positions heading into Congressional elections this fall.The Democrats' first amendment, sponsored by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, would have required all combat troops be pulled out by July 2007. The senators argued that only a firm timetable would prod the Iraqis to take control of their own country."Future generations of Americans will look back upon this very moment to determine how two branches of our government, the legislative and the executive, today stand side by side, honoring those who've given their lives," said Mr. Warner, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.Republicans portrayed Iraq as the center of the war on terrorism, and said pulling out any troops would leave a void that would be filled by insurgents and terrorists. The Republican leader, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, called any troop withdrawal "dangerous, reckless and shameless." "Withdrawal is not an option," Mr. Frist said. "Surrender is not a solution." [Baghdad][1]:_Mr Khalilzad recently told The Times that reconciliation required "a comprehensive strategy that has political elements, that has security elements, and that has reintegration elements in it: decommissioning, demobilisation, and reintegration of these forces."__The draft marks the first time the Iraqi Government has endorsed a fixed timeline for the withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq, a key demand of the Sunni insurgency. _ [1]: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2239088,00.html [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23cong.html
On Stewart, and the News
An interesting development relating to [Joel's discussion][1] of how serious news comedy relates to mainstream journalism:As far as I can determine, Jon Stewart now has the newsy honor of being responsible for bringing to an actual news audience's attention the fact that President Bush used precisely the same words in his announcement of his nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden on Monday to be director of the CIA as he did 19 months ago for his nomination of Porter Goss.Here's the [video of the segment][2].I've yet to see the evidence, but I'm told by a friend that NBC news earlier this evening reported the president's repetition-giving credit to the Daily Show.The serious question for me: is the president's saying exactly the same thing about both nominees important enough to warrant viewer's attention? And if it is important enough, does it mean anything that a fake news show, not a real one, pointed it out first? [1]: http://www.lawrence.com/blogs/mathis/2006/apr/30/news/ [2]: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Hayden-Goss-.mov
Clio, you surprising muse
Ah, history.You'll recall the recent reactions like this one, quoted in [USA Today][1], criticizing the translation of the national anthem into Spanish: "Would the French accept people singing the La Marseillaise in English as a sign of French patriotism? Of course not," said Mark Krikorian, head of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that supports tighter immigration controls.![][2]Well, in true "if you think you know something for sure, chances are you don't" form, it turns out that in 1919 an agency of the U.S. government itself commissioned a version of the Star Spangled Banner in-wait for it-Spanish.[Check it out][3].Did I mention I love history? There's no greater source of humility.Via [ThinkProgress][4]. [1]: http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2006-04-27-spanish-spangled-banner_x.htm [2]: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/natlib/ihas/service/ssbanner/100000007/0001t.jpg [3]: http://memory.loc.gov/cocoon/ihas/loc.natlib.ihas.100000007/full.html [4]: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/02/spanish-anthem/
The Gospel of Judas?
The Times [reports][1]:_An early Christian manuscript, including the only known text of what is known as the Gospel of Judas, has surfaced after 1,700 years. The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today. In this version, Jesus asked Judas, as a close friend, to sell him out..."The most revealing passages in the Judas manuscript begins, "The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week, three days before he celebrated Passover."The account goes on to relate that Jesus refers to the other disciples, telling Judas "you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." By that, scholars familiar with Gnostic thinking said, Jesus meant that by helping him get rid of his physical flesh, Judas will act to liberate the true spiritual self or divine being within Jesus._Fascinating. You can [see the text][2] at nationalgeographic.com.Back in the day, to kill off an idea, you killed the people who espoused it and or you literally destroyed the text that contained the ideas. Nowhere to read it, or no one to hear it from, and the idea died.Apparently, there's been a reprieve with regard to the death sentence against the ideas contained in the Gospel of Judas. [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06cnd-judas.html?ei=5094&en=d58e9f87384d906d&hp=&ex=1144382400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all [2]: http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/document.html
Cartoons that aren’t funny
Apparently the Pentagon has sent a "rare" letter to the Washington Post over an editorial cartoon it deems "reprehensible" ([Read the Editor & Publisher article][1]).Some detached thoughts: 1. To what extent did the Pentagon's action amplify the distribution -- increase the bandwith, in Patrick Quinn's popological formulation -- of the "reprehensible" cartoon? Arguably, more people will now see the cartoon than would have had the Pentagon not written its letter to the Post. If the cartoon is "reprehensible" (a non-self-evident claim), is it ethical or moral to engage in an action predictably resulting in an allegedly "reprehensible" communication being even more widely distributed?2. To what extent are the references in the cartoon accurate?3. Editorial cartoons partake of those qualities essential to a Kantian-style aesthetic object. Apprehending their meaning makes you think.4. Are some interpretations more valid than others? And if so, how is that validity determined? Can interpretations be, simply, wrong?A quotation of the cartoon at issue:
[1]: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001955937
Thanks, Fishies, for the Ears
Interesting:Your ability to hear relies on a structure that got its start as a gill opening in fish, a new study reveals.Humans and other land animals have special bones in their ears that are crucial to hearing. Ancient fish used similar structures to breathe underwater.Scientists had thought the evolutionary change occurred after animals had established themselves on land, but a new look at an old fossil suggests ear development was set into motion before any creatures crawled out of the water.[Full article from Yahoo! News.][1]Of course, scientists also "believe" 2 plus 2 equals 4, so, you know, whatever. [1]: http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060119/sc_space/humanearsevolvedfromancientfishgills;_ylt=AobBFNo6uaPxbA1Mqj7Enn6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-
Abe Lincoln on the War Power
From the Bush administration's [legal brief][1] "The President's Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them":The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001."The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations."The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. "_Abraham Lincoln on the topic, in a [letter to William H. Herndon][2], February 15, 1848:_Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose and you allow him to make war at pleasure:. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."__The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. [1]: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm [2]: http://www.bartleby.com/73/1495.html
Happy Bill of Rights Day
Did you know December 15 was a national holiday? I sure didn't. Turns out December 15 is "Bill of Rights Day." We can thank President Roosevelt for that; he started it in 1941, the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the amendments that would come to be known as the [Bill of Rights][1]. In the holiday spirit, here's a bit of archeology of the religion clauses in the first of those initial amendments, that Bill of Rights, from the [Annals of Congress][2], House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session, covering Saturday, August 15, 1789, as the House debated the language of the amendments to send to the states for ratification:_ The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the proposed amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Boudinot in the chair.The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows: Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert 'no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.' Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a construction different from what had been made by the committee. he feared it might be thought to abolish religion altogether.MR. VINING suggested the propriety to transposing the two members of the sentence.MR. GERRY said it would read better if it was no religious doctrine shall be established by law. MR. SHERMAN thought the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as Congress had 'no authority whatever delegated to them by the Constitution to make religious establishments; he would, therefore, move to have it struck out.'MR. CARROLL As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, a peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion that they are not well secured under the present constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of the people to the government than almost any other opinion he heard proposed. He would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community.MR. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforced the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.MR. HUNTINGTON said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction on it. The ministers of their congregations to the eastward were maintained by contributions of those who belong to their society; the expense of building meeting houses was contributed in the same manner. These things were regulated by bylaws. If an action was brought before a federal court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers or buildings of places of worship might be construed into a religious establishment.By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law; he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, therefore, the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and the free exercise of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.MR. MADISON thought, if the word 'National' was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if the word 'National' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.MR. LIVERMORE was not satisfied with the amendment; but he did not wish them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it were altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.MR. GERRY did not like the term National, proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, and he hoped it would not be adopted by the House. It brought to his mind some observations that had taken place in the Conventions at the time they were considering the present constitution. It had been insisted upon by those who were called anti-federalists, that this form of government consolidated the union; the honorable gentleman's motion shows that he considers it in the same light. Those who were called anti-federalists at that time, complained that they were in favor of a federal government, and the others were in favor of a National one; the federalists were for ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others did not until amendments were made. Their names then ought not to have been distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and anti-rats.__MR. MADISON withdrew his motion but observed that the words 'no National religion shall be established by law', did not imply that the government was a national one; the question was then taken on MR. LIVERMORE's motion, and passed in the affirmative 31 for it, and 20 against it. (Annals of Congress 1:729-731)_Ah, those were the days.See the pages from [Gales & Seaton's History][3] (thanks, Library of Congress). ([Transcription][4].) [1]: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/bill_of_rights.html [2]: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwac.html [3]: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=380 [4]: http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/basic4a.htm
With a Bobolink for a Chorister
From the [Times][1]:_Some of the nation's most prominent megachurches have decided not to hold worship services on the Sunday that coincides with Christmas Day, a move that is generating controversy among evangelical Christians at a time when many conservative groups are battling to "put the Christ back in Christmas...."Megachurches have long been criticized for offering "theology lite," but some critics say that this time the churches have gone too far in the quest to make Christianity accessible to spiritual seekers."I see this in many ways as a capitulation to narcissism, the self-centered, me-first, I'm going to put me and my immediate family first agenda of the larger culture," said Ben Witherington III, professor of New Testament interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky. "If Christianity is an evangelistic religion, then what kind of message is this sending to the larger culture - that worship is an optional extra?" _Which reminds me of a poem by Emily Dickinson on the subject of worship, which in turn reminds us that this current controversy, contrived or not, has been around for a long, long time in America:Some keep the Sabbath going to Church I keep it, staying at Home - With a [Bobolink][2] for a [Chorister][3] - And an Orchard, for a Dome - Some keep the Sabbath in [Surplice][4] - I just wear my Wings - And instead of tolling the Bell, for Church, Our little [Sexton][5] sings. God preaches, a noted Clergyman - And the sermon is never long, So instead of getting to Heaven, at last - I'm going, all along. [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/national/09church.html?hp&ex=1134190800&en=509baeb5c8085b80&ei=5094&partner=homepage [2]: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/id/framlst/i4940id.html [3]: http://www.bartleby.com/61/78/C0327800.html [4]: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14343d.htm [5]: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13748a.htm
Prev Next
