I've missed a couple of days of blogging because my brother, his wife, and my new nephew have come to visit. Also, a Forum I help administer has required more attention than usual. But I'll be back to excessively prolific blogging very soon!
Here are the "issues" I've been hearing the Right Wing froth about on blogs and radio this past ten days or so:
1) The MoveOn ad that called General Petraeus, "General Betray Us".
2) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's desire to visit Ground Zero.
3) Hillary's sweep of the Sunday talk shows.
4) Dan Rather's law suit against CBS.
Yup. That's what the Right has most focused on, near as I can see. Which seems to raise the question: Has the Right gone bonkers? What kind of issues are those?
Does anyone know why the Right considers those issues so important?
"A political ideology is a very handy thing to have. It's a real time-saver, because it tells you what you think about things you know nothing about."
- Hendrik Hertzberg
Until last Thursday, Steve Bitterman was an instructor in Western Civilization at the Red Oak campus of Southwestern Community College in Iowa. It was on Thursday, according to Bitterman, that Linda Wild, the College's vice president of instruction, called him on the phone to fire him.
His offense?
He told his students the story of Adam and Eve was not to be taken literally.
From Inside Higher Education:
This fall, [Bitterman was] teaching Western civilization at Southwestern’s Red Oak campus, and his lectures [were] broadcast to students at the Osceola campus, with a live hook-up so he [could] see students. Much of early Western civilization focuses on the myths and beliefs of ancient peoples. Gilgamesh was no problem for students, Bitterman said. But when he got to the Bible on Tuesday, a student walked out of the Osceola section when, Bitterman said, when he wouldn’t agree with her that the story of the Garden of Eden was historically true. Several other students appeared disturbed by the incident, he said. From their questions and statements, he believes that they are evangelical Christians.Furthermore, according to the DesMoines Register, in a conversation with a student after Tuesday's class, Bitterman called the myth of Adam and Eve a "fairy tale". He was then told some of "the students had threatened to see an attorney."
Sarah Smith, director of the school’s Red Oak campus, declined to comment Friday on Bitterman’s employment status. The school’s president, Barbara Crittenden, said Bitterman taught one course at Southwest. She would not comment, however, on his claim that he was fired over the Bible reference, saying it was a personnel issue.And Linda Wild is responding neither to emails nor phone calls.
“I can assure you that college understands our employees’ free speech rights,” she said. “There was no action taken that violated the First Amendment.”
“A few of the students thought I was knocking their religion by not promoting it,” he said. “They were upset that I didn’t say that the Bible was literally true.” Bitterman said that he treats the Bible as a historically significant, important work, but that he does not accord it status beyond that. “That really seemed to come as a shock to some of them,” he said.And:
“I’m just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master’s degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job,” Bitterman said.So who to believe? At this point, it's just a "he said, she said" situation, but the College seems somewhat cagey in how it's responding, which gives a bit more creditability to Bitterman's side of the story.
The commander of U.S. military forces in the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon, was recently interviewed by Al-Jazeera television, which released a partial transcript of the interview Sunday.
According to Al-Jazeera's transcript, the Admiral made several statements about Iran, including the following:
This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful.His remarks put him at odds with Vice President Cheney's camp, which is reportedly pushing hard for bombing Iran.
I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for.
We should find ways through which we can bring countries to work together for the benefit of all.
It is not a good idea to be in a state of war. We ought to try and to do our utmost to create different conditions.
Newsweek Magazine reported Sunday that Vice President Richard Cheney may have considered a plan for Israeli missile strikes against an Iranian nuclear site in an effort to draw a military response from Iran, which could in turn spark a U.S. offensive against targets in the Islamic Republic.Steve Clemons, the Washington blogger who first broke the story of Cheney's deviousness, has argued for some time that, "[A war with Iran] would most likely be triggered by one or both of the two people who would see their political fortunes rise through a new conflict -- Cheney and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."
Citing two unnamed sources the magazine called knowledgeable, the magazine quoted David Wurmser, until last month Cheney's Middle East advisor, as having told a small group of people that "Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz - and perhaps other sites - in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out."
According to the report, "The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran."
The United States Air Force has set up a highly confidential strategic planning group tasked with “fighting the next war” as tensions rise with Iran.What makes Project Checkmate especially interesting is that it bypasses Admiral Fallon's command:
Project Checkmate, a successor to the group that planned the 1991 Gulf War’s air campaign, was quietly reestablished at the Pentagon in June.
It reports directly to General Michael Moseley, the US Air Force chief, and consists of 20-30 top air force officers and defence and cyberspace experts with ready access to the White House, the CIA and other intelligence agencies.
Detailed contingency planning for a possible attack on Iran has been carried out for more than two years by Centcom (US central command), according to defence sources.Yet, by by-passing his command (which is Centcom), Project Checkmate can hope to do an end run around the military opposition to war with Iran. Not surprisingly, according to some sources, Dick Cheney is the man in the Administration most responsible for setting up Project Checkmate.
A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch".I don't know how likely the story is to be true, but it is at least consistent with Admiral Fallon's recent remarks on Al-Jazeera television.
Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional." Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."
Since 1992, 636 journalists have been killed worldwide.
73% (or 462) were murdered.
Reference:
Committee to Protect Journalists
In a time of war, the very last thing you want young soldiers doing is looking at photos of naked women in the pages of Playboy and Penthouse. That, at least, seems to be the trenchant conclusion of the moral experts at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF).
The upright band of bimbos at the ADF recently began lobbying the Department of Defense to ban Playboy and Penthouse from being sold on military bases.
According to Wikipedia, the ADF,
is a conservative Christian non-profit organization with the stated goal of "defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation." ADF defines "Truth" according to a socially conservative Christian perspective. In practice ADF is opposed to all forms of abortion, same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, allowing LGBT persons to serve in the military, and sex education in schools that includes comprehensive education on contraception. ADF also works to establish public prayer in schools and government events, and to protect religious displays in government settings, like crosses and other religious monuments built on public lands.In short, the ADF thinks Jesus Christ arrived on the scene 2000 years ago in order to limit human freedom -- except the freedom to be a socially conservative Christian. So, it is little wonder the moral experts at the ADF are passionately demanding that soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines give up their right to buy magazines containing photos of naked women.
So, the ADF is all in favor of further limiting the First Amendment rights of military people, even to the point of banning the mild nudity found in the pages of Playboy and Penthouse.Patrick A. Trueman, attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, said the members of the review board need to use “a little common sense” in determining which materials cannot be sold on Defense Department property.
“The law is not complicated in its definition of ‘sexually explicit,’ ” Trueman said. “The porn magazines that are allowed such as ‘Nude Playmates,’ ‘Playboy,’ ‘Penthouse,’ etc. are sexually explicit.”
Trueman also noted that Congress has the ability to limit troops’ First Amendment rights: “Military men and woman are not permitted to wear anti-war symbols and may be required to shave and wear their hair at a certain length, for example.” He said the intent of the Military Honor and Decency Act is clear.
“Congress was concerned about sexual harassment in the military and making military duty more accommodating to servicewomen,” he said. “It was also attempting to protect military families, particularly children, who frequent the exchanges and should not be exposed to porn.”
Over on Religious Forums yesterday, I stated, "Anthropologists have identified rituals in every religion they've studied", and then asked, "Why are rituals so wide-spread in religions? What function(s) do they serve?"
Laurie, who blogs at "Just Another Day", answered:
Rituals raise the ordinary to the extraordinary by imbuing them with greater significance. Repetition of actions and words fix the rituals deeply into our brains so we access the meaning of the ritual without really even thinking about it. It also creates a shared experience which bonds a community together and taps into the history of the people and gives them a unified context from which to talk about their religious experience.It occurs to me that's the best explanation of how rituals function in religion that I've yet to hear.
Two years ago, the Republican mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, was elected on a platform that included opposition to gay marriage. Yet, on Wednesday, he suddenly dropped his opposition and signed a City Council resolution supporting a challenge to California's gay marriage ban. He had previously promised to veto it.
Why the change of heart? It seems the most important reason is Lisa Sanders, the mayor's daughter, who it turns out is a lesbian:
The move most likely carries some political risk for Mayor Sanders since, "in 2000, 62% of San Diego voters endorsed a statewide measure to restrict marriage to a union between a man and woman."The Republican mayor said he could no longer back the position he took during his election campaign two years ago, when he said he favored civil unions but not full marriage rights for homosexual couples.
He fought back tears as he said he wanted his adult daughter, Lisa, and other gay people he knows to have their relationships protected equally under state laws.
"In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships — their very lives — were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana," Sanders said.
Mystic Eye has included a post from Cafe Philos in their carnival this week. Thank you, Mystic Eye! The post was "How the Existence of God is No Match for the Experience of God".
What's been going on around the net this past week? Here are my picks for some interesting posts:
Farideh at "Informed Comment" has a post up on the Iranian reaction to Washington's recent threats. His post is more comprehensive and detailed than anything I've seen in the mega-media.
Time and again, Glenn Greenwald has written knowledgeably about how out of touch the mega-media and the right wing noise machine are with the American people these days. Here, he posts a scathing article on the clear divide between what the buffoons and the people are thinking about the recent testimony of General Petraeus.
Mahendra argues "Poverty is not the root cause of terrorism" here. The commentary on his post is hugely insightful and informed -- not to mention lively.
Bora briefly reports some recent news on the FOXP2 gene here. The FOXP2 gene is sometimes called the "language gene" for the role it plays in human speech. For instance, a mutation to the gene prevents people from forming grammatically correct sentences.
Popular Mechanics recently published an article, "25 Things Every Man Should Know". Decrepit Old Fool insightfully critiques their list here and offers some wise suggestions of his own.
Susan at "Hug the Monkey" discusses a recent study that found breaking up is not as hard as one might expect. She points out some glaring weaknesses in the study here. Susan, by the way, has written a book to be published next Spring on the neurochemistry of oxytocin and it's role in relationships, trust and love. I'm looking forward to it.
Ordinary Girl thoughtfully reviews Gore Vidal's Julian here, a novel about the last Pagan emperor of the Byzantine Empire. Her review focuses on the religious issues raised in the novel, which are perennial.
Anyone interested in a good laugh at the expense of the lunatic Religious Right should read Ed's post here. The subject is the separation of church and state.
Chanson discusses the new atheist movement here. Her discussion raises the issue of the best way for today's atheists to make themselves known and respected. Should they adopt the allegedly aggressive tactics of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others -- or should they take a more conciliatory approach?
Webs points out that "war has always been a part of our culture" and calls for a Department of Peace to balance the Department of Defense here. Whether such a department is feasible or not, his point is well made that more must be done to avoid wars.
Trinifar looks at the sources of US population growth here, and calls for publicly discussing the impact of immigration on a sustainable future.
Amuirin writes in three parts about her relationship with the extremely abusive father of her daughter beginning here. In trying to come to grips with the abuse, she combines excellent, often poetic, prose with extraordinary self-insight.
Eric discusses the evolution of menopause here, and provides compelling evidence that grandmothers, in traditional societies, have a decisive effect on the chances their grandchildren will survive to adulthood.
I am often amazed at how many people on the net possess superior photography talents and skills. Robin is one such person. On her blog she often combines an excellent photograph with a thought-provoking quote, as she does here.
Oemar has put up a very good selection of cartoons from Ajit Ninan here.
Enreal posts a very well crafted, thought-provoking and inspirational poem here.
Nita expertly analyzes the causes of malnutrition in India here.
Ass of Steel has put up a very thoughtful post on where morality comes from here.
"Judge me on the content of my character, not the underwear on my head."
- Bill in Portland, Maine.
"Every publicly-held company is dependent on the stock market for obtaining more capital. Its stock price reflects the present discounted value that investors place on its future profits and dividends. No matter how far-sighted a company claims it is being, it must watch its stock price; if that price falls too low, investors will either leave the company, causing the price to fall further, or some investors will take over the company. It's very important for progressives to understand that there is no moral company. Companies are not and cannot be socially responsible if that means sacrificing profits. To assume otherwise is to buy into corporate public relations, and to deflect attention away from the far more important job of pushing for new laws and regulations that force companies to act in the public interest and not solely in the interests of shareholders and consumers."
- Robert Reich
Steven Clemons at Salon does not believe President Bush will bomb Iran despite that Vice President Cheney is lobbying for war.
According to Clemons, Bush is siding with his military advisers, who oppose bombing Iran, and against the neocons led by Cheney, who are in favor of it. Clemons apparently has some impressive channels into the Administration, for he seems to know what's going on. The trouble is, he leaves me unconvinced the US will avoid war:
Despite holding out a military option, ratcheting up tensions with Iran about meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan, and deploying carrier strike-force groups in the Persian Gulf, the president is not planning to bomb Iran. But there are several not-unrelated scenarios under which it might happen, if the neocon wing of the party, led by Vice President Cheney, succeeds in reasserting itself, or if there is some kind of "accidental," perhaps contrived, confrontation.I'm inclined to believe one of those "several not-unrelated scenarios under which it might happen" is likely to happen. Among other scenarios, Clemons raises the possibility that Israel might strike Iran with cruise missiles, which he believes would lead to the US and Iran going to war. It's sad -- but realistic -- to think the actions of Israel could control whether the US bombs Iran. But in a way that's no worse than if Cheney and the neocons "reassert themselves", for neither Israel nor the neocons have the interests of the American people at heart.
During a recent high-powered Washington dinner party attended by 18 people, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft squared off across the table over whether President Bush will bomb Iran.Folks inside the Beltway are notorious for their ignorance of American public opinion, but they are certainly tuned into what each other thinks. And it seems that most people inside the Beltway think war is coming.
Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Carter, said he believed Bush's team had laid a track leading to a single course of action: a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Scowcroft, who was NSA to Presidents Ford and the first Bush, held out hope that the current President Bush would hold fire and not make an already disastrous situation for the U.S. in the Middle East even worse.
The 18 people at the party, including former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, then voted with a show of hands for either Brzezinski's or Scowcroft's position. Scowcroft got only two votes, including his own. Everyone else at the table shared Brzezinski's fear that a U.S. strike against Iran is around the corner.
"In a certain sense, Zen is feeling life instead of feeling something about life."
- Alan Watts
When you put two arches side by side each other, you create a triangular space between them called a "spandrel" (see photo).
Now, a spandrel is not something intended, but is rather the side-effect of placing arches adjacent to each other. Whenever you place arches side by side each other, you get a spandrel -- whether you want one or not. That fact inspired the biologist Stephen J. Gould to borrow the term from architecture in order to describe any feature of an organism that did not itself evolve for an evolutionary reason, but was instead a side-effect of some other feature's evolution.
Suppose, for instance, that natural selection results in a wolf's snout getting longer and longer. Further suppose that, as a side-effect of the snout getting longer, the wolf's face just happens to get narrower (Maybe by accident the wolves with genes for long snouts also had genes for narrow faces). So, unlike the snout, the narrow face is not caused by natural selection. If that were to happen, the narrow face would be a spandrel.
Recently, Scott Atran and others have been arguing that human religiosity is at least to some extent a spandrel. Specifically, Atran has argued that belief in supernatural agents -- gods, demons, spirits, and so forth -- is a spandrel. (Belief in supernatural agents is not the sum of human religiosity, but it's a very large chunk of the sum.) So, if Atran is right, the fact every known culture and society has contained one belief or another in supernatural agents is merely an accident of human evolution. There was no natural selection for such beliefs. It merely happened as the by-product of selection for other things.
By product of natural selection or not, the belief in supernatural agents is now part of our genetic make-up. Thus, it is very unlikely we will eliminate religion so long as humans are human. And that is a radically different view than the notion religion will die out as science progresses. If anything, only the forms are likely to change. People might give up their belief in the Christian God, for instance, only to adopt a belief in other supernatural agents, such as seems to be happening in parts of Europe.
Yet, how does Atran explain the various expressions of religiosity that do not seem to involve any belief in supernatural agency? Atheistic Buddhism, for instance. From what I can gather, he doesn't have an explanation for those forms of human religiosity. That is, Atran does not argue that such things as the notion of enlightenment are spandrels in the way that such things as the notion of gods are spandrels.
I tend to think Atran is largely correct in saying the human tendency to ascribe supernatural agency to things is a by-product of the evolution of other human traits. On the other hand, I think some religious notions, such as the notion of enlightenment, have come about, not because we are genetically predisposed to create them, but as a result of experience. So, while I accept that Atran has gone far to explain the origins of some aspects of human religiosity, I don't think he has explained the origins of all aspects of human religiosity.
Reference:
Darwin's God
At the Emmy's last night, Sally Field won best actress in a drama series for her work as matriarch Nora Walker on "Brothers & Sisters." She remarked in her acceptance speech:
Surely this [award] belongs to all the mothers of the world. May they be seen, may their work be valued and raised. Especially to the mothers who stand with an open heart and wait. Wait for their children to come home from danger, from harm’s way, and from war. I am proud to be one of those women.At that point, she began her next sentence, "If mothers ruled the world, there would be no...”. But Fox cut off her sound and pointed the camera away from her, censoring the rest of her sentence, which ended, "...god-damned wars in the first place."
"Like everybody who is not in love, he thought one chose the person to be loved after endless deliberations and on the basis of particular qualities or advantages."
- Marcel Proust
A poll released today by O.R.B. -- a British polling company that has tracked Iraqi public opinion since 2005 -- places the number of Iraqis murdered since the 2003 invasion at over a million.
A representative sample of 1,461 adults, aged 18 years or older, answered the following question:
How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (i.e. as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof.Seventy-eight percent of the respondents answered "none". Sixteen percent answered "one". Five percent answered "two". One percent answered "three". And a fraction of one percent answered more than three.
I read about 100 blogs a week nowadays. I don't expect everyone to share my passion for blogs, but I figure I'll point out some of the posts that impressed me within the last week or so, and then let you decide which to click on.
Amuirin has put up a moving, passionate piece of writing about a young woman deciding to keep her baby. You can read it here.
Mystic Wing wraps up an interesting discussion of the Four Noble Truths here, and invites anyone and everyone to debate his interpretation with him.
Last year on 9/11, Decrepit Old Fool offered some eminently level-headed advice here. Since nothing has really changed from last year to make his advice any less relevant or urgent, it's still worth careful consideration.
Nita has completely changed the look of her blog, and also put up a post on what Asians think of each other and America here. What they think of America, at least, is surprisingly favorable.
Mahendra has started a lively discussion of objectivity in journalism here. I think everyone should drop by his blog and claim with a straight face that the most objective source of news today is India's Communist Party.
Hume's Ghost writes on the Culture Wars here. His article is exceptionally long by blog standards but very much worth reading in whole or part.
A Whore in the Temple of Reason asks, "Will there be free will in Heaven?", and then shows how problematic that question can be. The article is very brief and to the point. Find it here.
Chanson writes about the psychology of oppressed peoples here, and includes some shrewd insights into human nature as it impacts on international conflict.
Jonathan writes passionately about the pernicious influence of some religious beliefs and doctrines on human sexuality here.
Daylight Atheism discusses the lack of consilience in Biblical stories here.
Ass of Steel has put up a funny FAQ and Surprise Announcement here.
Rambodoc has a witty and irreverent take on President Bush's recent speech here.
Loren, who I think has some of the best nature photography on the net, put up three magnificent photos from his trip to the Denver Zoo here.
If you are not reading Glenn Greenwald on a regular basis, you are missing out on some of the best, most honest, and hard hitting political commentary I've been able to find on the net. You can read his blog here.
Gary has put up a beautiful, almost haunting post on children's literature here.
Marxsny has a poignant post on the fortunes of life here.
Last, Zeno has a post about what has to be one of the most insufferable asses to ever hold a tenured position in academia. You can read it here.
That's about as much as I can remember at the moment. It occurs to me the blogosphere is a huge place and there's no way anyone can keep up with it, but I hope these brief blurbs about what's up on other blogs will help you find something you'll enjoy.
Stumble It!
