The Accipiter

A Break

2005-08-08T19:58:00.000-06:00

Hi.

I have a lot to say but neither the time nor the patience to say it right now.

Therefore, I'm taking a break for awhile.

Please check back periodically. I might get inspired.

Thanks a lot, guys.

Live Strong

2005-07-24T11:00:00.000-06:00

Hard work, discipline, the will to survive. The will to win.

I don't care how cliche it is. It's true. Lance Armstrong is a hero. And I'm happy to count him as one of mine.

It was thrilling to watch the Tour again this year. Congratulations to Lance on victory number 7.

Lance Armstrong embodies the best of professional athletics, there is no doubt. But his example as a human being--whether chasing yellow or not--is what counts.

Live Strong.

And while you're at it, give some money to Lance's foundation, livestrong.org.

Five Shots to the Head as Reminder

2005-07-24T10:47:00.000-06:00

By now everyone knows that the Brits chased down and killed a 27-year-old Brazilian man--Jean Charles de Menezes--who emerged from the same apartment building a suspect in the second, July 21, bombings, lives. They followed him to a tube stop where they killed him, according to major media outlets, by forcing him to the floor and shooting him 5 times in head.

Yesterday, London police remorsefully admitted this man had nothing to do with the bombings.

Let this be a reminder that innocents are part of the War on Terror. While mistakes are inevitable--even horrible ones with extraordinary American Fourth Amendment implications--I hope that all who support the efforts of those opposing global terrorism support them carefully. With the courage to be thoughtfully critical, outspoken, and smart about this war and its effects, now and in the future.

Go to Alaska

2005-07-20T15:29:00.000-06:00

I'm back from Alaska.

Go there if you haven't yet.

Thoughts for today:

1. They call Alaska America's Last Frontier. It's appropriate. In Anchorage, moose and black bear regularly walk through backyards and parks. In Homer and Seward on the Kenai Peninsula, the rough-and-ramshackle of small-town, chipped-house-paint, dirty-kids, edge-of-the-world life mixes with ultra-modern seaports and commerical fisheries, high-end coffee, art, and gift shops, tourists agogged by the scenery, and cash flowing in the millions for chances to see mile-wide, 900-foot-high glaciers calve, Northern Pacific humpback whales breach, or grizzlies ravage red salmon. Not to mention the fishing, hunting, and generally enthusiastic fish-and-ice-cream consumption. It was a great trip.

The Kenai is like the best of Colorado and Montana (towering mountains, extraordinarily steep slopes, glaciers) plus the ocean, plus a rain forest. Hard to beat. At least in the summer.

I shot 630 hi-res digital photos with my new Nikon D70 (which I've been craving and patiently eyeing for 3 years). My wife and daughter and our extended family folk enjoyed ourselves greatly. I have no regrets, although hooking but not catching 5 gigantic end-run sockeye salmon in the Kenai River was excruciating. One took 100 yards of line, all the way to the knot on the spool. I was hopelessly out-gunned as it used the current and at least 5 super-acrobatic flips to finally break free. What a blast. Alaska. It's like another country.

2. Rove. We all know he's a political genius. That's why I don't think he was dumb enough to explicitly leak Ploom's name. However, I have a sneaking suspicion he may have pushed his gamesmanship too far this time. Time will tell. I hope, for the sake of Rove and the White House, but mostly for the sake of this country, that neither Rove nor anyone else in the Administration threatened the life of a deep-cover CIA agent or her cohorts. That--if it were proven, and above all else Rove has done--would seal his fate.

3. Roberts. A conservative president picked a conservative. OK. He's hardly the worst candidate and might be the best the Left could have hoped for in these circumstances. The idea that Bush would replace O'Connor with an O'Connor-alike was silly from the get-go. In fact, I'm fine with the choice.

Roberts is clearly all the things Dems and Repubs have been saying about him: brilliant, sincere, honest, etc. He's a great legal mind. He did file an opinion in which he suggested the Endangered Species Act may in part be unconstitutional. While I hope that this isn't true, and believe the Act has played a pivotal role in what I consider this nation's responsibility for real conservation of species threatened by human activity, he might in the end be right. The Commerce Clause and its edict that Congress can only act under it if "a link to interstate commerce" exists simply might not be broad enough to embrace protection of endangered species on private land in some instances. But single decisions and single fact patterns should not matter during the confirmation process. Does Roberts respect the law, the Constitution? Yes. Is he imminently capable? Yes. The question, perhaps, is whether he views the Constitution as "a living Constitution," or a "1920s Constitution," or a "Framers' Constituion". Perhaps a blend of the three. Perhaps not. We'll find out. No matter what, the fact that he comes from the law firm for which I will begin working in the fall is pretty cool.

4. The federal law clerkship I just completed after three years was the highlight of my work life so far. My experience there, especially the inspiration I received from The Judge and my fellow clerks--all good friends, will guide my career. Fairness, earnestness, loyalty, intellectual honesty, integrity, smarts. Applying the facts to the law. Writing well. Living and working articulately. Knowing the value of the work and living up to it every day.

Above all, I'll miss the people. We laughed so much. We had such fantastic conversations. Thanks to you guys. You know who you are.

North and West

2005-07-08T18:58:00.000-06:00

I'm heading to Alaska in a few hours to spend some much-anticipated time with my close extended family, including my brother-in-law who lives in Afghanistan and is making a rare U.S. visit.

I'll be gone 10 days. I hope my faithful readers will keep checking. I'll fill you in when I return.

Britain, Stand Fast

2005-07-07T14:59:00.000-06:00

My thoughts are with Londoners today as they suffer another cowardly blow at the hands of terrorists. I've been on the top of a double-decker bus in London and am horrified by the twisted seats and red sardine-can metal I see on the news today. My thoughts are also with Tony Blair, who has been wading through massive public disapproval of his efforts to support the War on Terror and the United States.

A few other thoughts:

1. I completely disapprove of the manner in which the Bush Administration got us into Iraq. Unlike many of my friends, however, I believe withdrawal from the cause, despite losses of American and friendly Iraqi life, is premature. Much has been accomplished in Iraq. It's a country that was flattened, prone to the desert floor, under Saddam. Now, it is on its knees, attempting to find its feet. We cannot leave until the Iraqis can stand on their own. Whether we like it or not.

2. As evidenced by the recent loss of Navy Seals on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the war there is not over. We cannot forget this. Well-organized terrorists remain active. And Afghanistan struggles while warlords and scheming power-brokers play for control. We're still needed there. Military, NGOs, others.

3. I have a little dream: for all of the United States' shifting allegiances in the region during the Cold War, and the profilgation of political capital and weapons caches, perhaps the United States is responsible for putting things straight. This is tempered by another dream: that those citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan start realizing that while freedom takes a lot of work, it is worth every bead of sweat and every drop of blood. The U.S. and its allies--Britain foremost--can't give them freedom. They have to take it and own it for themselves.

4. I hope Britain stays on course despite the attacks. This War on Terror is a horrible thing: the enemy is elusive, living in shadows, evidenced only through street carnage, victims and victims' families, convoluted webs of cryptic intelligence, and internet postings. But to give up fighting is to give in. I'm convinced of it. As much as I am troubled by some of what George W. Bush has said and done since taking office, I respect his tenacity and hope that his boldness, courage, and vision bear fruit.

5. Can the War on Terror be won? I used to plague myself with this question. My answer was always, "No. As long as there are those willing to die for their beliefs and kill innocents to further them." Now, my answer is this: As long as those committed to freedom and democracy in this world are vigilant against Terror and are unified in their opposition to it on all fronts, the costs of doing business as a terrorist will begin to outweigh the benefits. Can it be won? Yes. If "winning" is measured by fewer and fewer attacks, and fewer and fewer young people joining the cause.

6. That brings me to my major concern. As much as we protect ourselves, terrorists will always find a seam in our armor. Once we plug one hole in the dike, another will form. Therefore, the only way to defeat Terror is to dry up its source. That means making terrorism--whether its foundation is radical Islam sold to the impoverished and dispossessed or something else--unattractive. And making peaceful and (financially and spiritually) lucrative options more available. That is the key. I'm concerned that not enough is being done on that front.

My hopes and prayers to all those working to combat the insanity of terrorism in this world.

35 New Frogs

2005-07-01T16:03:00.000-06:00

I read a story the other day about a team of scientists who discovered and identified 35 species of Sri Lankan frog that were, before then, foreign to science. Now I don't know whether you like frogs or have been to Sri Lanka (I do and I haven't), but you should care about this. Why?

Because discovery continues.

We tend, here at our computer terminals (and they are terminals as well as they are rabbit holes and portals to dimensions not our own: sometimes they blind us), to think about this life. This work. This chair. Those co-workers, that sidewalk and lampost down below. That baseball stadium over there. Those clouds meandering. And we're in these thoughts, this zone of reality.

But there's so much more. Even so much more than we can envision for ourselves on future vacations. So much more than we see, hear, and feel when watching BBC news on cable, the only mainstream broadcast that dares spend significant time in Darfur and other lonely, hostile places where Americans won't tread. So much more, even, than we might be exposed to in National Geographic or on the Discovery Channel.

I care about the stuff beyond what I know and what I think I know because it literally gives me pause. As colorful, boundless, thriving, and joyous life is, we only have a small piece of it to ourselves. I hope I am humbled by my small piece of life, its value. My life. My family's. My friends'. But I know I'm humbled by the pieces that aren't mine, that I have nothing to do with, that exist without my knowing or doing anything.

It's one thing to discover and identify a new virus or bacterium or even a forest antelope species in Southeast Asia that the locals talk about but no Westerner has seen. But to discover 35 species of terrestrial vertebrate reptiles living in the jungles of a small island nation in 2005? Hard to comprehend. While we play politics with space probes and hope they get funded or don't crash. We scan the furthest horizons of our galaxy and thousands of others for planets belied by wobbles and for intelligent sounds. We sink to ocean trenches in metal bubbles designed to withstand intolerable atmospheric pressures looking for that which feeds near thermal vents.

Yet, here, in a jungle limited by oceans on all sides, clearcutting for rubber and tea plantations within, and thousands of people living hand-to-mouth off the land, we find new frogs. In 2005.

We have come so far only to find that we have so far to go.

Life begets life. Yet, for rubber or tea or simple lack of either conscience or consciousness, humans hands could divest Sri Lanka of all 35 of its new frog species. That is humbling.

Capture the Flag

2005-06-23T09:21:00.000-06:00

By way of the Republican Right's own supposed poster boy Justice Scalia and his learned friends at the United States Supreme Court, a friendly reminder to the 286 members of the United States House of Representatives who--wearing their hearts on their sleeves and their heads in a hole--yesterday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag:

If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering.

U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310, 319 (1990).

The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.
And, precisely because it is our flag that is involved, one's response to the flag burner may exploit the uniquely persuasive power of the flag itself. We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by--as one witness here did--according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 419 (1989).

It never ceases to amaze me how easily the loftiest and most important constitutional principles in this country are sacrificied by the very people we elect to uphold them for the greater good.

Sadly, as George Will once said, "American politics as you know . . . is very often a matter of capture the flag."

But I'm So Hungry for Whale!

2005-06-21T15:57:00.000-06:00

The vast majority of whales and other cetaceans on this planet are either threatened or endangered.

So I don't know about you, but the idea of hunting whales for food in 2005 strikes me as . . . a little old-fashioned. And the idea of hunting whales for food with explosives and the "electric lance" strikes me as . . . a little barbaric. But the idea of hunting 935 minke whales for food while calling it an annual "research cull" strikes me as . . . just plain idiotic.

But that's what the Japanese want to do. This year they plan to slaughter 440 minke whales so they can "conduct research" on whaling. Why? So a bunch of Japanese people can eat whale meat properly, as a delicacy, thinly sliced, in expensive restaurants without chairs.

Somehow, Japan managed again this year to convince the International Whaling Commission that in order to know more about minke whales it must exterminate them. Unlike the Norwegians, who are the only folks in open defiance of the world-wide whaling ban upheld today by IWC members, the Japanese say they're not defying the ban; they're conducting specialized scientific experiments.

I went over to the International Cetacean Research website, run by--guess who--the Japanese. Not surprisingly, I learned:

"It is important to remember that capture and testing is only conducted in a strictly limited way on the numerically abundant, non-endangered whale species. Sampling in the Antarctic has included a take of up to 440 Minke whales in one year. The [International Whaling Commission] estimates that 2,000 Minke whales per year could be taken for 100 years without posing a threat to the stock. Under the IWC's 'no waste' rules the by-products of the research program, including whale meat, are required 'so far as practicable to be processed'. It is this aspect of the program which is often inaccurately sensationalised as 'illegal commercial whaling'."

O.K. Let's assume that the Japanese want to study whales. Cool. Bully for them. Let's also assume that they could do this (as every other Western country interested in research on wild animals, including whales, does) with minimal--if any at all--killing of the animals they study. Why don't they? Because the Japanese market value of minke whale meat is so high.

But, c'mon, you say. You're being too hard on our friends perched precariously on the Pacific Rim. If it weren't for IWC's helpful "no-waste" exception that now drives commercial hunting on boats occupied by hungry scientists, we wouldn't know so much about minke whales. Maybe so.

But if the Japanese didn't know how good Minke whales tasted, they probably wouldn't want to know so much about our 30-foot-long finned friends.

Now I'm no vegetarian and I don't play one on TV (although I did play one in real life for about 6 years, then I got really hungry). But I'm thinking: Yo. Japan. Give it up. Traditions are one thing. Being arrogant dolts who flaunt environmental policies even the Bush Administration backs is another all together.

A Great Editorial On "The Best Evidence Available"

2005-06-21T14:29:00.000-06:00

Here's an editorial on why creationism should not be taught in high-school biology class, and why evolution by natural selection is worth your attention. I like it so much I'm posting the entire thing:

"Intelligent Design," the religious alternative to Darwinism, ought to be taught in schools - Sunday schools and high school social studies or history classes. But in biology classes? No way.
In about 20 states - most notably, right now, before the Kansas Board of Education - conservative Christians are trying to demand "equal time" for ID and evolution as the explanation for how life developed on earth.

But ID isn't science. Its concepts can't be independently verified. In essence, ID holds that living organisms are so complex that they couldn't be the product of blind natural forces, but had to be the work of a Designer - or, at least, a designer.

The scientific problem is this: There is no way to locate actual evidence of a designer, be it small-d or big-D. Proponents of ID, including some sophisticated scientists, point to holes in Darwinian explanations for the development of life and say that only "intelligent design" can fill the gap. But that's not proof of design.

Kansas' conservative-dominated Board of Education seems to be on the verge of changing its state standards for science education by removing evolution as the preferred concept for students to learn in biology and creating a toss-up with ID.

In 2001, when Congress considered President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) tried to mandate that challenges to Darwinism be included in school curricula. He got a favorable vote in the Senate, but the provision didn't make it into the final law.
Charles Darwin transformed science in 1859 and set off a political and philosophical storm that hasn't stopped by arguing in "The Origin of Species" that life forms have evolved by a process of random genetic mutations and the added (and cruel) process of "natural selection" whereby only the fittest mutants survived and reproduced.

It's essentially a God-less theory, and religious conservatives have been at war with it ever since, most famously in the 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial in Tennessee that pitted lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan against each other.

Technically, the conservative side won the court battle - biology teacher John Scopes was fined $100 for teaching evolution - but Darwin triumphed almost everywhere else. The U.S. Supreme Court has twice struck down laws requiring the teaching of biblical creationism as breaching the barrier between church and state.

It's remarkable that, despite the preference for evolution in school curricula and overwhelming scientific evidence, polls consistently show that at least a plurality of adults - sometimes a majority - still hold the creationist belief that God created humans within the past 10,000 years.

In a 2004 CBS poll, only 27 percent supported the belief - one that has been endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church - that humans evolved from lesser species, but that God guided the process. And only 13 percent believe in pure Darwinism - that humans evolved without divine intervention.

Sixty-five percent of those polled said that both creationism and evolution should be taught in schools. Fully 37 percent favored teaching creationism instead of evolution.
Scientific critics of ID gibe that it's "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" or "creationism with God remaining anonymous," but that's not true.

Leading ID theorists - they are organized through the Seattle-based Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute - have long since abandoned "young earth" biblical literalism, accepting scientific evidence that the earth is billions of years old.

In fact, even though it receives much of its funding from religious conservatives, ID doesn't totally dismiss evolution or claim that the "intelligence" behind the universe is divine.

This constitutes such a retreat from old-line creationism and some commentators have said that the American scientific community should pocket the victory and, instead of turning their backs on ID as beneath debate, engage its advocates and prove them wrong.

In fact, that's happened to some extent -among other places, in a printed 2002 debate in "Natural History" magazine in which establishment scientists pretty well refuted the contentions of leading ID scientists Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemist, and William Dembski, a mathematician and theologian at Baylor University, that the complexity of cells and organisms implied "design" and a "designer."

As Brown University biology professor Kenneth Miller wrote, "if Behe wishes to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with a divine intelligence, his point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical view, incidentally, that I share. However, to support that view, one should not find it necessary to pretend that we know less than we really do about the evolution of living systems."

A valuable primer on the proofs of Darwinism was published by National Geographic magazine in November 2004 ("Was Darwin Wrong? No."), arguing that evolutionary theory is sustained by numerous lines of inquiry from fossil studies through the microbiology of infectious diseases.
The ability of various microbes - bacteria like staphylococcus and viruses like HIV -to quickly develop immunity to the medicines invented to combat them is evolution in real-time, according to writer David Quammen.

Personally, I think that high school students ought to be taught about disputes between religion and science, but in a history class that covers the suppression of Galileo and the battles over Darwin.

They also ought to be taught that no one knows for sure what caused life to originate on earth or what caused the creation of the universe. I favor the religious view of this, but there's a secular view that students should know about, too.

But as to the "how" of biology - the science - schools should teach the best evidence available, which is evolutionary theory. That's especially true when a majority of Americans still think the world is only 10,000 years old.
--Mort Kondracke

I wish I would have written this.

Note of interest: Mort Kondracke is a political conservative who writes for RealClearPolitics and is Executive Editor of Roll Call on Fox.

And he's reasonable.

My Stance on Abortion

2005-06-20T15:31:00.000-06:00

Abortion.

There are few topics that generate so much controversy. And for good reason. While abortion doesn’t always "stop a beating heart" as the conservative billboards in West Michigan will tell you, it certainly–uncontroversially–discontinues life: either the life of a human embryo or a fetal human being. So it must be dealt with carefully.

However, as is my nature, I begin boldly. I believe that abortion is wrong and should be prohibited with the following three exceptions: 1) when the mother is raped; 2) when the mother is the victim of incest; and 3) when the life of the mother will be lost for saving the child.

My approach is a simple one. In order to disarm those who would argue against outlawing abortion by adopting the contention that religion or faith in God as a basis for preserving human life is somehow less relevant than science or social justice of some other kind in preserving the right to have an abortion, I will argue against abortion from the perspective of an atheist. While I’m not one, I’m willing to bet this contraption will make my arguments more appealing to those who would otherwise disagree with me.

I start by defining the issue. It is whether the state should allow a doctor to enter a woman’s (or, in the saddest cases, a girl’s) uterus, and deprive a human life form of life separate from that of its mother’s. So many people fail to call a spade a spade, making abortion something else entirely. But it’s not.

(Now, if you’re one of the readers who is going to take me to task, you had probably begun formulating your argument before now. If you hadn’t yet, now you will.)

So if that’s what abortion is, what is it not?

Abortion is not about a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body.

Why? Because anyone who has studied human embryology at an elementary level knows that the tiny mass of cells generated by fertilization is a living organism separate from its mother. While this organism is indeed dependant on its mother’s physiology, it is entirely human, and entirely not its mother.

As soon as pronuclei of a 23-chromosome sperm and 23-chromosome oocyte (egg) fuse, a zygote with 46 chromosomes exists. This organism is genetically unique from its mother and father. About 30 hours after fertilization, the zygote divides by mitosis, and each new cell (called a blastomere; first 2, then 4, then 8, etc.) also has 46 chromosomes. While dividing, this mass of cells moves down the fallopian tube towards the uterus where it will implant, having become a blastocyst. Implantation occurs approximately 5-6 days after fertilization. And so it goes.

But, you say, the woman sheltering, feeding, and otherwise maintaining the life of this mass of cells (or in later stages, a fetus with head, hands, and heart) affects and is affected by this little creature. Surely, she should have control over whether those cells exist. It should be her prerogative to either continue or terminate the pregnancy. It’s up to her, based on her comfort level.

I used to believe this. Then I realized the illogic of the argument. After 40 weeks of incubation in her mother, a baby is born. At that moment, the mother–or another adult willing to adopt or otherwise care for the child–is absolutely responsible for this child’s existence. The child is utterly unable to care for itself. The care giver–usually the mother–is no less affected by this child. She or he shelters, feeds, and maintains its life until it the child is able to care for itself.

Umbilical cord aside, the relationship remains the same. While the child is not physically connected to the mother or the care giver, she might as well be. Having watched my wife with our baby, I can attest to this beautiful encumbrance of motherhood with all its trappings, good and bad. Is it convenient? No. But many worthwhile things in life are not convenient.

As soon as baby and mom are physically disconnected no one would argue that a mother should have control over whether the child exists or not. But when the child and mother share a blood supply and a uterine lining, the mother is allowed such powers?

If it is about a woman controlling her own body, taking back her uterus, her blood, her ability to be pregnancy-free, then why shouldn’t society allow a woman to dump her newborn in a trash can? By doing so, she can control her own daily existence without the burden of a child. Take back her life at the expense of the child’s life. Take back her body, whose existence has been committed to a helpless human being for 9, 10, 11, 23, 46, 50, 100 months. I don’t see the difference.

Of course, a number of you do see the difference. No one wants to be responsible for giving birth to an unwanted child. There are so many unwanted children already. And the emotional toll this would take on the mother is potentially crushing. And the morning sickness. And, will I be a good parent?

So why not terminate the pregnancy when this . . . thing . . . is just a few cells? What are a few cells anyway? Each of us loses thousands upon thousands of skin cells per week. Cells are regularly grown in science class or in a lab and thrown out. We throw away bread with mold on it. We kill insects and vermin and beef cattle, millions upon millions of living cells laid to waste. And most of us think nothing of it.

But none of those combinations of cells–as we kill them–is in the process of becoming a human being. That’s the difference. And if we’re willing to destroy humans when they’re just a few cells, why shouldn’t we be just as willing to kill unwanted children who overcrowd orphanages, smelly, unshaven, irrational adults who inhabit mental hospitals, or our once-beloved elders who can no longer feed themselves or go to the bathroom?

The difference is that we are emotionally disconnected from the cells and emotionally committed to those humans who better resemble us. There’s a simple reason the partial-birth abortion ban passed with little outrage: a dead baby that looks like a child is harder to kill than a mass of undifferentiated cells.

But is that the line we’re willing to draw? The humans who look and behave like we do and can take care of themselves get a chance to live, but "the others" are at the mercy of those who might or might not want to care for them? I don’t think so. If we have any respect as a culture for the innate value of human life–and I propose that we do and that it is hard-wired into us–then whether a human owns eyeballs, connective tissue, or a cerebellum, or remembers his wife or how to use a pen, or thinks the sky is purple and he is being chased by rabbits should not matter.

But these people are so inconvenient and so hard on all of us. So much burden, and pain, and suffering exist in this world. Yes. But wouldn’t you rather have been born than killed to ease someone else’s emotional suffering? I would have. (An aside: for those of you who are starting to hate me for using the word "killed" to describe eradicating a life form composed of only a few cells or hovering in amniotic fluid: look it up. I’m not a Conservative Republican, but English is English.)

This brings up a sensitive point. As I mentioned above, I support abortion in very limited circumstances. When a woman is raped, if the abortion happens soon enough, I support it. Why? Because this woman never chose to have a baby or otherwise engaged in risky behavior that she knew could lead to pregnancy. But that’s arbitrary, you say. Yes. It is.

However, as many of us–whether we know it or not–are OK with the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women, and children in order to win a war that must be won (think of Germany 1940-1945), I am OK with the death of an innocent human composed of relatively few cells (there’s the emotionally deceptive part of it again) to save the emotional life of another innocent: the raped mother. I must say as a caveat that I would be much less supportive of abortion in this case in the second trimester, and would oppose it in the third. A rape victim has a lot of time during the first trimester to make up her mind. If I were raped (and I am not a woman, so I tread on hallowed ground here at risk of castration), I would hope to be able to carry the baby to term and deliver it. But I would never tell another woman–an innocent victim herself–to do so.

The same applies to the victim of incest. However, that is a worse case: the chances of the child being physiologically normal are close to zero. Perhaps I would tolerate abortion at a later stage. Again: innocent for innocent.

Finally, as long as I’m covering exceptions: I would choose to save my wife’s life at the expense of the baby not yet born. I hate it. I hate conceiving it, contemplating it, and keying these sentences. But it’s true. Why? Because I am emotional. My love for my wife is greater than my love for a baby who hasn’t seen the light of day. That said, once the baby’s out in the light, I’d be faced with a dreadful decision that I don’t care to contemplate. Arbitrary? Perhaps. Human? Absolutely. Innocent for innocent.

Back to what abortion is not. It is not whether the state controls a woman’s body. I believe the state has a responsibility to protect the innocent all of us, regardless of our shape, size, color, or constituency. Unless, that is, the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives enact a law, signed by the President, that legalizes abortion in the United States.

But, you say, the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. You’re right. It did. And that decision will be overturned in your lifetime. Why? Because there is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that supports the right to end the life of another human being, whether 4 cells or 400 pounds.

Roe v. Wade, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, created a right to "privacy" based on first-trimester "inviability" supported by the socioeconomic notion that a working woman should not be burdened by raising an unwanted child. Read them. You’ll be amazed. Just like all of my liberal law-school friends and I were. Without judicial feat–and I’m the first to say both liberal and conservative appeals-court judges can be "activist"–there would be no right to an abortion in this country without a statute guaranteeing as much.

But many people–perhaps you–argue that whether a woman has an abortion should not be the business of the state at all. We all agree that the state should prevent a person from murdering humans outside the womb, including you, me, our families and friends. There’s no debate. But the state shouldn’t protect the life of a human inside the womb because . . . it’s inside someone else’s body? I don’t get it. That non-human-looking human is human, unique, separate, self. Not an appendage of the body in which it lives and from which it takes its oxygen and nutrients. I see nothing but an arbitrary bright line that should be erased.

While some say the abortion decision should be between a woman and her God, I say this: if there is someone out there who would attempt to kill me or my family or friends, I am more comforted by his knowing that the state would prohibit and punish his actions than by his notions of what God might want. That said–and I remain in atheist mode–I can only guess that God didn’t give us the ability to reproduce simply to destroy the thing created.

Finally, with that in mind, I say this. We have the incredible ability to reproduce. (Although one of my more cynical friends calls it the ability to make "500,000 miracles a day.") Whatever you call it, it’s at the heart of my opposition to abortion-for-convenience. We have this privilege of reproduction. With every privilege comes responsibility. With every responsibility comes hard discipline. If you freely and willingly have sexual intercourse, you take the risk that the woman involved will become pregnant. You have shouldered a responsibility. You must have the discipline, therefore, to live up to that responsibility.

That means two things.

First: if you have sex and you’re not trying to make a baby, use contraception. There’s absolutely no excuse for not using contraception. None. (Remaining in atheist mode: if you happen to be Roman Catholic and follow the Vatican’s abhorrence for contraception, you’re out of luck. Get married early to the right person and hope the husband has a well-paying job and the wife has strong arches in her feet.)

Second: if you’re the mother or father of another human being, put yourself in that person’s place, whether that person is 30 hours old and 8 cells wide or kicking you in the intestines waiting to be born. Because–even though life sucks sometimes, and sometimes sucks a whole lot–it’s great being alive.

80 Million Barrels a Day

2005-06-15T14:44:00.000-06:00

I'm happy to announce good new for all those either foolish or self-serving enough to deny that human activity since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution has affected climate change.

Philip Cooney, the White House's Council on Environmental Quality chief of staff and former oil-industry lobbyist, will join Exxon Mobil. When Cooney read government reports on climate change and decided to oversee final edits that would downplay human activity as a cause while casting doubt on good science, I'm sure Exxon Mobil was in the back of his mind. In part because Exxon Mobil Chairman Lee Raymond hates the Kyoto climate accord and constantly questions climate scientists and their work.

I can understand being skeptical about science. About the conclusions scientists reach. About the conclusions scientists reach that are acclaimed, upheld, and otherwise bolstered by the world's top scientists over many years then published in the world's top peer-reviewed journals. I can certainly understand being skeptical about work that you're not trained to do or understand. I worked in a lab a few doors down from guys studying glacial ice-core samples 10 hours a day with a view toward ancient atmospheres. Woah.

But when you work for Exxon, it's not really skepticism at play. It's your cause. Your livelihood. Your raison d'etre. If this global warming thing is true, and if enough people believe it, then Exxon has to find some new product lines. That's why the "skepticism" of Cooney and Raymond is nothing more than propaganda thinly disquised as righteousness.

All that said, I drive a car. I like driving my car because it makes travel much easier in a city beset by ancient socio-economic postulates that undermine public transportation. And it takes me one-third of the time to get to work. So I'm not against oil companies, as a general measure. Even if I didn't drive, I'm surrounded by enough plastic on a daily basis to stock the tables of a block-long stretch of Manhattan schtick-vendors. In fact, I'm becoming convinced that many of the oil companies are embracing forward thinking. Some even shy away from the prospect of drilling in ANWR.

But as long as profits are solely linked to our tired emotional and physical bond with petroleum as fuel, the prospect of global warming--despite the evidence--will remain anathema to those controlling the pump.

Without a Net

2005-06-15T10:13:00.000-06:00

This weekend over dinner with relatives visiting from the great Midwest, the question "Are we really more secure since 9/11?" came up. If a dinner lasts beyond dessert and into lingering drinks, the topic is inevitable. Borders, ports, chemical plants: the usual culprits were acknowledged, pondered, and--with a shudder of anxiety--discarded for lighter fare.

Today, I read commercial pilot Patrick Smith's essay on a loophole I didn't know existed. While all of us who fly are allowed to admire the smart uniforms and cocky personae of the pilots and flight attendants standing in the snaking, shuffling security lines with us, it turns out we are not allowed to see something else.

Hector, who works for an aircraft-cleaning contractor, is shuttled from the parking lot to the terminal, where he slides his ID badge through a magnetic reader on a security door and walks, backpack full of day's gear, to a waiting Air France 777 whose seat backs he must empty and toilets he must scrub. Without walking through a metal detector, having his bag searched, or talking to security personnel. And the Hectors of United States airports number almost one million. If he's been through a background check at all, it might be overlooked or otherwise ignored. Background aside, nothing prevents him from doing what he will, unsupervised, inside a plane awaiting takeoff.

Read it. It's astonishing. More importantly, Smith lends his usual level-headedness to a possible solution.

Question of the hour: While a zero-tolerance security environment is cost-prohibitive, why can't the TSA focus more on security itself than the perception of security?

Stupid Little Gum

2005-06-14T15:25:00.000-06:00

I chew a lot of gum. The mint is refreshing. The cinnamon is lively, a little prodding. The bubble gum flavor harkens back to the days when I wore knickers. . . .

I'm sorry; did I actually say that out loud? It's not like I wore ladies' underwear or anything. Maybe the stretchy work-out kind once in a while. To prevent chaffing.

Anyway.

I'm tired of the gum. It's all small pieces, flavor that lasts about 12 minutes, and so much packaging that I have to use a staple remover to get to the tiny space-food-lookin' pieces. I end up chewing about 8 pieces at a time to maintain any remotely fullfilling mouth-feel. I end up wrestling with this huge mass of jaw-cringing nastiness that after about 4 minutes retains only a piddling lukewarm trickle of the Arctic Chill I'm promised.

The sad thing is that the packaging and the advertisements promise so much more:

ICE: "There's nothing colder than ice." You're right. But this is gum. And it blows.

Orbit: Look at me, I'm doing 5 G's in my frickin' mouth with this space-age gum, ma! Screw you, Wrigley's.

Juicy Fruit: I'm so juicy! I'm so juicy! Yeah, you're full of sugar, big guy. And, while I admit you're somewhat mystically fruity flavor is appealing, I'm still left with a tan-grey asteroid of rubber in my mouth 10 minutes later.

I'd settle for a bag of Big League Chew--despite the sugar and the 30-second flavor burst that burns out to nothing--just for something interesting. But, alas, I can't find it anywhere. And can you see me in my knickers jamming a palm full of shredded bubble gum in my cheek? Pink shreds falling everywhere.

Even the excruciatingly artificial grape of a massive cargo-container chunk of Bubbalicious would beat the crap out of one of these weak, "flavor charged!" "just-brushed-clean-feeling," "look how pretty and smooth and hard-shelled I am" niblets of glory.

Screw you, gum makers.

Bastards.

My Kind of Crazy Republican

2005-06-09T14:02:00.000-06:00

[He] was variously reported to have marched twenty miles through heavy rain (in Norfolk jacket, corduroy knickers, yellow leggings, and russet shoes), swum nude across the freezing river, and climbed with fingers and toes up the blast holes of a disused quarry. His habit of forcing luncheon guests to accompany him on afternoon treks did not endear him to those who would have preferred to remain behind with the wine and walnuts.

. . .

On May 28, he was seen hanging from a cable over the Potomac, presumably in some effort to toughen his wrists. Owen Wister caught him walking behind John Hay on tiptoe, bowing like an obsequious Oriental. This might or might not have been connected with the fact that [he] was currently studying jujitsu. White House groundsmen, unaware that he was a published ornithologist, were puzzled by his habit of standing under trees, motionless, for long periods of time. Hikers in Rock Creek State Park learned to take cover when he galloped by, revolver in hand; he had a habit of "popping" shortsightedly at twigs and stumps with live ammunition.

. . .

On another occasion he appeared in George Cortelyou's antechamber and jumped clean over a chair. He encouraged his big horse, Bleistein, to similar arts of levitation at the Chevy Chase Club. Photographs of them airborne together soon appeared in the Washington Times. [He] was delighted--"Best pictures I've ever had taken!"--and passed out autographed copies to his Cabinet.

On Teddy Roosevelt as President. Edmund Morris, Theodore Rex, pp. 81, 108-109.

T.R. found such free time while returning the Cuba he helped liberate and modernize to its people, waging a war for the Philipines, decrying continued lynchings in the South, taking White House dinner with Booker T. Washington (for which he was called "a rank negrophilist" and "a coon-flavored president" by his more vocal detractors; to which he responded, "I shall have him to dine just as often as I please"), and winning votes for construction of the Panama Canal. Not to mention taking on the largest trust in American history.

Now that's Presidential.

Eleven Thoughts for Today

2005-06-09T09:22:00.000-06:00

1. Every one of us has our most comfortable place, our zone. And I'm sure there are factors--some divergent--that influence what that zone is. For instance, like many people, I'm most comfortable when sleeping right before I get up. Which can be annoying, but the memory of that perfect snooze-place can keep me mellow in the mornings. When I'm eating a banana that's in my banana zone it's a little brown. No green anywhere. But not "past". Everyone has their banana zone. These are minor, everyday zones.

The more profound ones are the ones where you feel like you can relax and fill-out, occupy, the whole, real you. Really be you. Like when I'm running, after the first few minutes when my muscles and joints are elbowing each other, when I get into that state in which I feel like the top of my body is hovering over well-oiled, precision-engineered gears as my arms and legs rhythm me through the miles.

Speaking of rhythm, I'm in the zone at my drum set. I have been since I was 10 years old. When I'm in, I'm in, always pushing myself with more challenging parts, 3-D in the athleticism of it, the soaring of the music, the muscle of it, but also the polyrhythms, the details, the off-beat fills, the accents, the melodic undertones of the musical drummer. Wildly hoping that someday I'll approximate the talents and skills of Max Roach, Carter Beauford, Dave Weckl, Art Blakey, Stewart Copeland.

I'm in the zone when I'm reading. Maybe a Daniel Silva novel or maybe one of my birding books or an account of the Arab-Israeli air wars of the past 60 years.

I'm in the zone when I'm waist-deep in a trout stream simultaneously watching my Adams dry fly and an American Dipper perched on a low rock looking for lunch and my mind is not wandering to work or extended-family issues.

I'm in the zone when I'm talking and laughing with my wife, and we both admire each other so much. Or when I'm reading to my smiling and pointing daughter. Or when I'm deep into throwing the glow-ball with my dog.

But the wandering mind, the daily anxieties-- they can break the zone. I need to work on maintaining the relaxation, the focus. Where are your zones?

2. David Bowie, in an interview for Rolling Stone back in 2003 (I believe) said that he was "not quite an atheist" and "that bothers me." I was taken by this because: 1) I've been there; and 2) it signifies to me both a) what I believe is the inherent, subconscious ability of all humans to realize their place in a universe occupied by a living presence more powerful than theirs, and b) our intrinsic human-centeredness, the natural top-predator, most-advanced-species inclination to doubt, fear, ridicule, or otherwise resist anything that tends to evade our knowledge and influence. With all that in mind, I also think--in classic Bowie style--he's saying something profound that is also zippy and edgy and rock-n-roll enough for a guy like me to quote on his pipsqueak blog site. Which is just cool.

3. I wonder how "most Arabs" (and I put that in quotes to let you know how ridiculous such a generalization is, but that's all I can do for now) discern the American military's treatment of their Arab brothers and sisters. Perhaps I should ask how "most Muslims" feel, but that begs the question how many of "most Muslims" out there would consider any of the (alleged) fundamentalist jihadists in American prison camps brethren.

In an interview with NPR this morning, a mass-media professor at an American university in Lebanon said that "most" of the people he's talked to or seen interviewed on Middle Eastern TV news shows believe Americans mistreat Muslim prisoners in violation of international law. Since the Abu Ghraib photos appeared, this is the baseline assumption, he said.

As we all know, Newsweek published its Koran-flushing tidbit, a riot killing over a dozen people ensued in Afghanistan, then Newsweek retracted the story. Now the Pentagon admits American soldiers have kicked, stepped on, and possibly splashed urine on the Koran. The professor said that none of this was surprising to "most" Muslims in the Middle East, and that no one believed the retraction. When asked whether Koran-bashing U.S. interrogators and prison staffers in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Gitmo represented a "secular" Western powerhouse with no respect for religion or a "Christian" nation bent on undermining or even destroying Islam, the professor said almost all of those Muslims questioned chose the second answer.

Now, I know that one professor at one university in Lebanon is one--and only one--uncorroborated (and in this case, second-hand) source. If I were a journalist, I'd be conducting my own surveys of folks in the bazaars and markets and cafes in Beirut, Kabul, Damascus, and Amman. I'd be interviewing other "experts," and government ministers, opposition spokespeople, and clerics. But I'm not a journalist. I'm just a blogger. For the sake of argument, however, let's assume "most" Muslims in the Middle East do believe there is a new form of Crusade taking place, perpetrated by a few Americans whose stereotyped mistreatment of prisoners, now confirmed by the Pentagon, goes a long way. Is this cause for worry? I think so.

4. Sen. Biden said that the U.S. should close down Gitmo because of the bad publicity it generates. To those "most Muslims" out there, isn't this an insult? If one of the 101 facially most important people in U.S. government suggests we shut down an internationally criticized prison camp, shouldn't he suggest that we do it because of human-rights problems or because it's no longer serving its purpose, not to improve America's image? While his proferred reason might be a nice circumstantial effect, by playing his hand so poorly he makes the United States look like it cares more about what people think is happening at Gitmo than what is actually going down. Of course that may be exactly what is happening.

5. Prisoner abuse. Anyone who has ever watched Counterterrorism Unit Agent Jack Bauer, the Keifer Sutherland character on the hit TV show "24", circumvent the Constitutional rights of individual prisoners to save the lives of millions of Americans has seen prisoner abuse portrayed in exquisite detail in their living room. And, like all of you who have seen it, I've experienced that thrill that comes from that feeling that "ultimate justice" has been done.

And so many people out there agree: what's one person's rights in the face of terror? Even I, an attorney well versed in the Constitution, let my heart go there. Especially when I consider the unsavory idea that to protect my wife or daughter I'd gladly beat the living daylights out of someone with information that could save them, as long as nothing else worked. And yet I recall this: if the least and ugliest of us are denied their rights, those rights cannot be guaranteed for the best and most beautiful. Much less the rest of us.

6. One of my brothers-in-law lives and works in Afghanistan. He's been in Kabul for some time. Soon he will be moving north. Here are some observations he sent me. I hope he doesn't mind my sharing. But the world should know:

a) Location of Badakhshan province in Afghanistan: northeast, bordering China,
Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan;

b) Number of hours spent on horse from April 27-May 6 in Badakhshan province surveying potential hydropower sites: ~50;

c) Number of hoped-for hydropower installations for Badakhshan province, 2005: 20;

d) Average winter diet of Badakhshan's people: bread, tea, rice, oil;

e) Number of meals eaten with meat or beans during April 27-May 6 survey trip: 1;

f) Number of meals with vegetables or fruit: 0;

g) Rank, worldwide, of Badakhshan for maternal mortality rate: 1;

h) Amount allegedly paid by one of the new district governors to provincial government, for a one-year post: $100,000;

i) Number of district governors we drank tea
with who are aiding opium smugglers in their district: 3;

j) Number of foreign NGO offices burned to the ground in the town of Bahrak, two
hours (by car) east of Faizabad, on May 14, 2005: 3;

k) Number of Afghan women hanged in Baghlan province (just west of Badakhshan) on May 16, 2005: 3

7. Renewal of the Patriot Act. If only those affected by it were able to bring suit to challenge its constitutionality. The irony. No doubt some provisions are fine, but c'mon. Perhaps some of the firey Dems on their lukewarm side of the aisle will blast it with more than idle rhetoric as the vote nears.

8. I really like how Howard Dean says whatever he's feeling. I respect that in a person. I like the passion, the honesty. Too bad so many people see him as the voice of all Democrats. He is, of course, Democratic Party Chairman, so what should I expect? Would someone please harness his energy and put it to good use without further undermining the political prowess of the Democratic party? Thanks.

9. I like nothing better than dancing with my 15-month-old daughter. She's all spirit and life and happy movement and love. And--dang!--is she funny!

10. I dig fine weather photography. Check out this incredible shot of a sun-lit tornado destroying a house. Yikes. Eric Nguyen's photos of tornadoes and supercells and wall clouds are some of my favorites.

11. Get outside today.

A Question to Begin

2005-06-03T11:30:00.000-06:00

I've long contemplated writing about my views on abortion. To the chagrin of some of my readers who would rather have me delving into lighter matters (which--don't get me wrong--I enjoy very much), I feel the time is ripe. However, I begin not with my opinions, but with this question:

How is the abortion of a 3-day-old fetus growing in the womb of a 9-year-old raped by her father any more or less "murder" than the killing of hundreds if not thousands of innocent people (men, women, and children of all ages) as collateral damage under Just War Theory, espoused by many Christians, from St. Thomas Aquinas to President Bush?

For now, I let that settle in.

The Battle Ensues

2005-06-02T08:11:00.000-06:00

Here is my reply to AJMac's response over at Pithy Banter. Why, oh, why have we gotten into this topic? For any of you who might just now be tuning in, please know that AJMac and I have a great deal of respect for one another and do not take any of this personally. Others on opposing sides of the fence on this issue out in the blogosphere are not so fortunate. Here it is:

Yes! We've unleashed the hounds! Over one-hundred years of peer-reviewed science has revealed a methodology to us. But we're still stuck. Amazing.

First of all, let me correct two things. AJMac obviously read my post too quickly. I wrote: "Since I have no problem with God somehow making this happen (and I fall into 88% of the American population based on 20 years of Gallup polls), I'm not troubled." AJMac interpreted this to mean just the opposite, that "88% of the population is purportedly Darwinist." Perhaps he might take a break while schooling me in the fineries of debate tactics and read what I wrote. Or maybe I'm being too harsh and wasn't clear. 88% of Americans believe God either created (*snap!*) life on earth or otherwise created (by evolution or whatever process) life on earth. (By the way, I have no doubt AJMac is a better debater than I am. And I couldn't recite half the Latin he knows by heart.) Second, AJM writes: "'He employs the dismissive argument that Darwinism is science and anyone who doesn't buy it is "uneducated about natural selection' and only studying 'natural selection... for fun and in an effort to synthesize Biblical references to scientific observation.'" Evolution by natural selection is a scientific principle. I never said anyone who doesn't "buy it" is uneducated about natural selection. Being uneducated about natural selection, however, seems to be a common occurrence among those berating Darwinism. I do not believe AJMac is uneducated about it. I do believe, however, that his particular stake in making sure it's not true undermines objectivity he--like scientists attempting to falsify their data--might otherwise exhibit. But I don't want to get him started on the "ideal of objectivity" that he believes is such a crock. Third, as long as we're off-topic, AJMac speaks of "publicly-sponsored indoctrination in schools and universities for the past two generations" of Darwinism. Does he have a better idea of what one might teach about origins of life in a science classroom? Does he have any other methodology that is accepted by the vast majority of life scientists to show us? Everything in nature has come about as the result of some biological method. But not new species? Spontaneous generation was explicitly disproven long ago, and no one today would argue that mold, or for that matter, butterflies or bluegills, just appear. Has science given us anything more compelling, or are we to ask children to ignore the scientific method for a chapter and pick up Genesis instead? Maybe just as an alternative, right? Maybe as an alternative to math we should read the poetry of the Psalms or the wisdom of Ecclesiastes. Maybe as an alternative to contemporary American history, we should substitute the history of the Jewish Diaspora as driven by the Exodus. I'm all for kids being open minded and learning the Truth. But in science class, they should be learning ONLY what science--based on peer-reviewed, well-accepted theory, can teach us. If science doesn't get us to God (and I think it does; but not as directly as AJMac and others want), then parents, role models, and churches need to do it.

Now I'll pause for AJMac to rip that apart because I was so juvenile. . . . OK. Back to Darwinism. As a threshold matter, I wonder why AJMac chose to ignore so many of my specific examples. That aside, AJMac writes: "This logical fallacy -- post hoc ergo proctor hoc; it followed after therefore was caused by -- is the foundational flaw in Darwinian logic. That humans resemble apes does not tell us whether humans evolved from apes or whether God created humans and apes distinctly while endowing them with similar genomes. Even if it could be established that humans appear after apes in the fossil record, chronology does not establish causation." Ah, I do respect and have a high opinion of AJMac's arguments. But he's missing the point. Darwinism is not about one species following another. Many species follow many others and have nothing in common with them. It is, however, about the ability of organisms to change themselves (or be changed by God, if you like) for the better of their species in response to their environment. I like AJMac's idea that perhaps God created human and apes distinctly while endowing them with similar genomes. OK. I can accept that. But the scientific process has yielded no evidence of this. That doesn't mean that someday science will not reveal it as true. What it does mean is that we have limited sight through science. (And, by the way, homo sapiens and the Great Apes are said to have evolved from a shared ancestor, not humans from apes, as the usual scare-tactic fallacy goes.) If that means we need to add to science for an honest understanding of the Truth--as I know AJMac agrees--then, fine. Just not in a science classroom.

AJMac also writes: "In other words, belief in speciation is the product not of scientific observation but rather, as the Accipiter puts it, of inference. Just like belief in creation by an Intelligent Designer is the product of inference. However, not all inferences are equally reasonable and the sheer mathematical improbability of speciation makes it rather fanciful, indeed." AJMac chooses to ignore my arguments and revert back to his own, which--check--is hisprerogativee. Scientific observation includes that which is both direct and indirect (or inferential). Belief in God is the product of inference, true. Belief in speciation is also the product of inference. For me, I have absolutely no problem melding both beliefs. Others cannot. As to the "sheer mathematical improbability," AJMac, without the slightest bit of his usual logical analysis, throws out the notion that "billions and billions" of years are required for evolution, and the Earth is not old enough. Darwinists and thousands of scientists whose livelihoods depend on their applying the fundamentals of natural selection don't seem to have a problem with this proferred time constraint. So why should I or anyone else believe an Orthodox Christian trial lawyer who claims to know better? For my part, I would say the sheer mathematical improbability of the anything in the universe existing apart from God is overwhelming. So, God it is. But He gave us science, and a hell of a lot of clues turned evidence that lead--if one is willing to follow the path--right to Him. Just not in the way AJMac and others who won't accept evolution by natural selection believe. Whether Biblical literalists like it or not. (And I'm not saying AJMac is a Biblical literalist, just for the record.)

Next, AJMac slides back over to the mousetrap/watchmaker/eyeball irreducible complexity argument he's read so much about. He writes: "organs and systems cannot evolve piecemeal." Says who? I'd like to poll the research M.D.'s over at the University of Colorado Hospital and see if they agree. What really surprises me is that while the irreducible complexity argument argues for God, so does the argument that organs and systems could evolve piece by piece. Whether AJMac wants to admit it or not, the vast majority of scientists out there are not the raving, illogical, senseless, evil-prone atheists he imagines. Most of them--I dare say--would admit to an awesome intelligence far beyond our understanding that could imagine forth such a puzzle as life on Earth. This next part just pisses me off: "The Accipiter might mean that an Intelligent Designer 'tuned,' 'detailed,' and expressed His 'preferences' through His own mysterious, creative processes that defy scientific explanation. Of course, that cannot be his meaning; he has not otherwise demonstrated a willingness so to surrender to the compelling logic of intelligent design." Let's see. I wrote this: "I believe--evolution by natural selection shows us how incredibly elegant, complex, and beautiful God is." And this: "As the environment forced the best traits to be exploited through reproduction and the worst ones to be eliminated, the best traits prevailed. (For me, this amounts to God making music with genes as notes.)" And this: "The eyeball--or for that matter the human brain--is so complex as to be otherworldly, or, as some would say, only within the province of God as Creator. I certainly empathize with such awe." Now, I don't know about you, but does it seem that I might just think God had something to do with making all this happen? Whether I fall into the camp of "Intelligent Design" gurus that AJMac has evidently joined with, I have no idea. But to say that I've not "surrendered to compelling logic" of their Creator version is only to say that the "logic" expounded by AJMac has not been compelling enough.

Finally, AJMac writes: "The Accipiter differs from me in his willingness to give God credit for the special design of various species, particularly humans. Instead, the Accipiter insists that "'we have incredible genes that have best adapted us to this thing we call humanity.'" Maybe I missed something. AJMac surely did. What I am saying here is that God have us our humanity. Is it special? Of course. Are we like no other creature on the planet? Of course. Do we have souls? I sure think so. I have no doubt why AJMac puts so much energy into his defense of humans. But it's not an argument with which I disagree. Just for the record, chimps and gorillas paint and sing and are on record doing so. While they might not "aspire to careers," they live lives of emotional purpose and have been recorded for the last 40 years learning and interacting with humans with great intelligence. I'm sure they create dance steps, and I'm just as sure they don't care about Valentine's day. And they certainly do long (for lost family members; it's well documented), tell stories, and (one of the only animals to do so) contemplate their existence (they're the only other species to recognize themselves in a mirror). But I don't find any of that threatening like I think AJMac seems to. Because humans resemble the Creator so much more.

How Deep?

2005-06-01T16:47:00.000-06:00

A quick thought on this Deep Throat revelation.

The historical and contemporary significance is becoming obvious, I think.

First, the Mainstream Media can revel in its past, enjoying the fruits of W&B's labor, newly revealed as produced without additives or coloring.

Second, MSM can use W&B's work as a touchstone for doing better, and more, investigative journalism regardless of how bloggers on the Right would paint them. While the Fourth Estate has taken enough self-inflicted blows to put big George Foreman in a body bag next to his tiny, little, no-fat grill, it somehow keeps chugging along. I don't forget that all of us depend on those throngs of reporters to give us something to chew on every day and to, well, prompt us to . . . evoke. But I hope Deep Throat in the flesh will summon the higher ethics that were left behind in loud newsrooms draped with cigarette smoke and ringing with the clang of IBM Selectric typewriters.

Three: MSM needs to give itself a lesson in sources and trust, so as, well, not to cause rioting in Arab countries that leaves dead Muslims and others crumpled in the streets. Mistakes are mistakes. But give me a break. I predicted the fall of Newsweek in the aftermath. We'll see.

Four: Whistleblowers are incredibly valuable to this country.

Five: Even 91-year-olds need a little sumpm-sumpm.

Evolution by Natural Selection

2005-06-01T13:40:00.000-06:00

I posted this at Pithy Banter as a response to AJMac's criticism of evolution.

I hate this topic. I'm not sure if it's ignorance, or fear, or a failure to be intellectually honest, or too much faith in editorialists and website creators. But this ultimate origins debate is just another wedge plunged deep into the fabric of this divided country. How silly. It all comes, in the end, down to faith. Like I've said before, I can't tell you what happened before the Big Bang, or whether the Big Bang even happened, so the idea that God started it all and made some very cool things happen (whether one believes He's "personal" or not) makes the most sense to me. Because I cannot prove it, however, I must take it on faith.

Evolution by natural selection, in contrast, doesn't require much in the way of faith. It only requires attentiveness and real intellectual honesty. I do not feel compelled to stretch and pull and push what I have observed and what my human coinhabitants of this planet have carefully researched to comport with every word in the Bible. I believe God has it all worked out, but He wants us to work hard to understand it. To use that big brain.

Full disclosure: I do my best here, based on my best understanding. But the guys who do this work for a living are the best ones to consult. So if you don't believe me, ask them. Do a web search: the fight is alive and kicking out there.

Here goes.

Darwinism is not a religion. While I accept the notion that all beliefs are in some way grounded in faith, Darwinism has nothing to do with belief in or reverence for a supernatural power, or an organized system founded on such belief. It might be a cause pursued with zeal or conscience, but–at least to the extent by "Darwinism" AJM means "evolution by natural selection"–Darwinism is a scientific theory. It is an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. Scientists work by falsification: if they are intellectually honest, they take the theory as their best view of reality until some severely conflicting data or better explanations come along. Einstein's relativity: theory. Earth orbiting the sun: theory. Existence and characteristics of atoms: theory. Molecular interaction: theory. Electricity: theory. Movement of light: theory. Scientific theory–including evolution by natural selection–is not some pipe-dream, or unreliable, speculative wish. Neither is evolution by natural selection "illogical." In fact, like all good science, it is purely logical, having none of the trappings of human emotion: hope, adherence to authority for fear of offending such authority, or fancy. Instead, it is based on falsification: posing a hypothesis and assaulting it with potentially undermining facts. By doing this–I believe–evolution by natural selection shows us how incredibly elegant, complex, and beautiful God is. But that is not the purpose of science.

AJM says that inter-species mutation is common. He’s right. It’s called anagenesis, and it is a crucial element of the process of evolution by natural selection. It’s the reason humans spend billions of dollars a year trying to combat viruses like HIV that–by prioritizing and replicating only the its genes that best allow it to exist in and exploit its present environment–mutate faster than we can kill them. What AJM fails to accept is that genetic changes also can accumulate within an isolated portion of the species but not the whole species, as that smaller population adapts to its local environment, such as a Pacific island. At a certain point intra-species mutations make it so distinct from the main part of the population that it cannot breed with the majority. It becomes a new species. This–in contrast to what AJM contends–enjoys abundant evidence in the fossil record. What Darwin described as "closely allied" species, such as flightless rhea species in South America rather than ostrich species in Africa or moa species in New Zealand, are clear examples of speciation. Anatomical evidence also abounds, such as the existence of a detached pelvis and useless tiny legs in the skeleton of an early whale, which links this animal to ancient antelope species. DNA analysis, of course, has directly confirmed the shared similarities between divergent species, even concluding that, through a comparison of the efforts of the Human Genome Project and the Mouse Genome Project, of 30,000 total genes in each species, 99% of them had counterparts in the other species. This on top of the well-established fact that humans share 98% of the same genes with pygmy chimpanzees.

AJM says that no one has directly observed such speciation occur, however. Science relies on both direct observation and inference, like so many other disciplines. The absence of direct observation–as any faithful Christian knows–does not eliminate the existence of that being observed. That said, it is true that no one has directly observed speciation, because it occurs much less frequently than anagenesis, and occurs over time periods longer than a research scientist’s life. However, one set of scientists specializing in observation of 35 generations of fruit fly, and another looking at 20,000 generations of E. coli bacteria are very close to confirming this relatively rare event. Which highlights AJM’s observation that there is not enough time for speciation to happen. I’m not sure where he got his numbers (perhaps he needs to consult those who study evolution by natural selection for a living not just cosmologists who do it for fun and in an effort to synthesize Biblical references to scientific observation), but the numbers I’ve seen convince me–and legions of scientists–that the earth is old enough.

The irreducible complexity argument is compelling, but–at least for me–not particularly worrisome. The eyeball–or for that matter the human brain–is so complex as to be otherworldly, or, as some would say, only within the province of God as Creator. I certainly empathize with such awe. However, over time, as organisms evolved to require eyes, the eyes were formed. Each piece had its own origin, driven to purpose and to interaction with other pieces by external circumstances. Cells evolved–through genes that produced such characteristics because they were the most well adapted–sensitivity to external forces, touch, then light, then, as parts of a whole, to vision. Molecules become organelles become cells become organs become systems. It’s not as mystical as the mouse-trap analogy suggests. Geneticists today have a very good understanding of how genes control such phenotypes, and this research plays a critical role in medical research. Since I have no problem with God somehow making this happen (and I fall into 88% of the American population based on 20 years of Gallup polls), I’m not troubled.

The problem, of course, for so many who are uneducated about natural selection, is that it could not happen because it is thought to be "random." For anyone who understands natural selection, however, it is clear that the genetic preferences exhibited by changing organisms and their parts are hardly ever the product of chance or chaos. Instead, they are the product of precise, finely tuned, incredibly detailed adaptations to specific environmental conditions. As the environment forced the best traits to be exploited through reproduction and the worst ones to be eliminated, the best traits prevailed. (For me, this amounts to God making music with genes as notes.) Finally, as to human phenomena, all I can say is this: we have incredible genes that have best adapted us to this thing we call humanity. And both AJM and I can thank God for them.

Hubris

2005-05-31T15:27:00.000-06:00

"History is an antidote to the hubris of the present. We think we're so terrific. We think we know so much. We think we have such genius. Well, think again." -- David McCullough, Pulitzer prize-winning author of Truman, John Adams, and 1776.

"Be open-minded. But not so open-minded that your brain falls out." -- Stan Spencer, Advanced Placement high school history teacher, 1989.

"Do I fear for this country? No. But I'd like it better my way." -- Me, earlier today.

This is Now

2005-05-31T13:49:00.000-06:00

You all are so patient with me. I'm off gallivanting around northwest Ontario acting like a backwoods fisherman and you're still checking in to this feeble little talkbox. I appreciate it. Since I rarely transmit the bono vox I hope for, I'm virtually agog, swimming in the good graces of my readers.

So let me tell you a little bit about the big fishing trip. Eight guys, two cabins, fish, beer, boats, motors, beer, and fish. And a 30-pound fried turkey along with the 10-gallon stainless steel turkey fryer and its accessories, 10 gallons of oil and a propane tank. Did I mention eight guys?

The fishing was mediocre. We arrived at South Bay Lodge approximately 4 weeks after ice out, meaning the northern pike had already spawned, released all their aggressions, and headed for deeper water. Hence, the fast, barracuda-like topwater action in the shallows was not happening. What was happening was--at least for me--two days of 6 in which 8 or 10 hours in a 12-foot V-hull Lund with a 15-horse Yamaha and a delightful-smelling fellow man was worth it for the fish. The other 4 days were tolerable, of course, because I wasn't sitting here. By sitting here I mean sitting in this chair in this climate-controlled box or any other chair in any other climate-controlled box staring at a CRT, mind wandering to cool waters and white pines.

So the fishing was mediocre, but the guys were cool. Until the 8th day, when I had had enough of 7 other guys. It's inevitable.

A few highlights.

Two days in a row we watched an adult bald eagle focus on our shore-lunch spot from the top of a pine about 200 meters away on a tiny island (one of hundreds or even thousands dotting this 14,000-acre lake complex). After we packed up--full of northerns and lake trout, fried onions and potatoes, and pork and beans--and puttered away, he swept down, corn-yellow talons extended, and--whap!--took the largest northern pike carcass. Not five minutes later (both days), we came upon a female moose swimming--head high and chest above water--between an island and shore, maybe 600 meters distant. The second day a tiny calf accompanied her, no more than a few weeks old. She was encouraging it, swimming ahead a few meters, turning around and proding it with her nose. Incredible.

Revving the motor too much in reverse almost sent my uncle and me down a shallow waterfall at a portage lake. It was a smooth move on my part. Luckily, my brother, my cousin and I, submerged up to our necks in 53-degree water, were able to pull the boat upstream onto some rocks. There's always an adventure.

Catching northerns and walleye, one after another under the big waterfall at Premier, the portage lake, was enlivening in only a way a fisherman might understand. Rapalas and jigs.

Fishing with my cousin--with whom I was nothing but impressed on so many levels, having now gotten to know him as an adult--for lakers in the rain while the sun was setting, casting an ethereal mist-rainbow of soft light, was fantastic.

Being with my uncle when he laughed so hard he could hardly stand it was great.

My brother's jokes and stories--as always--elevated me.

I had some good conversations in the boats, and some less-serious but more rambunctious ones back at camp in the evenings. What I found most interesting is that--and I'm always surprised about this even though I've experienced it so many times--men love talking about penises. The penis is very, very funny, I know. But there's something about the fishing and the beer and the Italian beef that brings out the penis drama, the penis mythology, in all men. Sure, we talked about women, and cars, and cooking meat. And work and kids. And outlandish stories that my brother and my cousin and I delve out to push the humor boundaries. But no religion, and no politics. It was nice, actually, although somewhat empty in the deep end. (But so what. So much of what bloggers like me write about is so inconsequential in the day-to-day and, I think, in the great expanse.)

There were lots of family stories; I'm always taken with those.

Speaking of family, I was running today at lunch and realized I was 32 years old. Not that I didn't know that already. But realizing that was something else. Making it real. Incorporating that fact into the reality I experience with my senses. Fabricating it out of me parts that are usually in storage in my internal back shed.

So, that got me thinking (and what doesn't, as my boisterous friend AJM said this morning over at Do Justly, where he's putting the radical back in radical right): where do I stand in the family? And I don't mean my family, my wife, our daughter, our dog, me. I mean the family, the crucible which forged so much of my metal: my people, my line.

Let me give you some perspective. I was the first son, the first grandson, the first nephew, the first of my generation. As such, I was privileged to carry weight and break ice, grow up early, make my bones, make my way pushing against authority and absorbing all the good stuff the adults let me see, hear, taste, and know. All the big stories, the drama, the disclosures, the human stuff.

Nowadays, there are others who are or were married. There are other children other than mine. I'm no longer the first.

But having been the first leaves me out there in the expanses. You need binoculars to see me now. Because I've always gone my own way. And, as much as I have heart-tugging, warm-washed waves of memories of home, of my wonderful childhood, of my family, I still live 1000 miles away.

That doesn't mean I don't care or that I don't feel like I have a part to play. Our family is close. Sometimes anxiously close. Oft-times complex in our linkages and shared feelings. And I feel a responsibility, still. With one of three of my brothers living near me, I am often at ease. And my wife and her family are here. So I am at home. But there are times I long for the old home nonetheless. And there are responsibilities I must deal with now, as an adult.

And that brings me to my main point: In so many ways that old Home I sometimes pine for does not exist.

Most of the people do, though. And I love them. And the streets are still there. Although now they're connected to busier streets. And there are so many people I don't know. It's hard leaving a small farm town when you're 17 and coming back to it year after year as it grows into a suburb.

But my visions of yesterday are so full of color and depth and--this is key--so full of wonder because I was a child. I'm no longer a child, as much as that little rascal thrives in me. So now, and over the years of my adulthood, I have c0me to realize that my dreams are mine only because I choose to keep them alive.

Realization--this same making real of what I spoke--has completely set in. The fallibility of the adults. The idiosyncrasies that were once charming or willfully ignored or symbols of the greatness of adulthood are now profound and pronounced. The full goods and the full bads and the full-on gray areas of personality are so clear. The child in me turns away looking for warm sunset lakes and popsicles, but the adult in me sees it all for what it is.

Now, this is all pretty depressing stuff. I know that. What I cannot fail to mention, though, is that with the darkness comes a new light. A brighter, clearer, more powerful one. That is, knowing my family for who they really are--not just what I hoped or wanted them to be--is so much better. Maybe a lot of the charm has worn off, but what has replaced it is a rich understanding of the world and a rich appreciation for the power of family to uplift even me, a 32-year old son, grandson, and nephew.

I only hope my daughter will know the charm I knew for so many years, and, like I do now, keep it in her heart.

I Fish, Therefore I Am . . . A Dreamer

2005-05-17T10:46:00.000-06:00

Screw it. Writing is better than not writing.

So here's something.

I'm a fisherman. Have been since my uncle enticed me with a 6-inch perch trying to pull my Zebco spincasting reel and light-action rod from my excitable five-year-old paws. I've been at it a while.

It's one of the few things I do that makes me feel completely at ease. Wholly me. At peace. And piqued. I like the challenge. I like the hunt. I like the science of it, thinking about habitat, temperature, and season. About proper lure or fly presentation.

Most of it has nothing to do with luck.

The part that does have to do with luck is the part that makes wives and girlfriends of fisherman say "That's why they don't call it 'catching'." Speaking of luck, it's a fortunate thing that my wife, despite her able and usually fully appreciated sarcasm, doesn't say such things when I get skunked.

Because getting skunked is a piss-poor way to spend a day fishing. All the beauty of the river and the pine-scented air and the limestone-and-granite jeweled hillsides aside, not even the hand of God loosing a flock of mountain bluebirds from the junipers can make up for it. Comes close, but just doesn't cut it.

Because when you spend a day strategizing, calculating, anticipating, casting, changing flies or lures, casting again and again, walking miles along a bank, or paddling or motoring miles up the shoreline, but never eliciting even a curious strike, you are spent. Utterly spent. And empty. Then we moan and cuss and start making crass jokes about each other.

The crazy thing is that we fisherman then get up and do it again the next day. Perhaps with a more measured enthusiasm. But that little boy pulling the Eagle Claw hook with a bit of mashed redworm on it from a miniature perch jaw is still inside, simply radiating joy. So we mount up and start casting again. It's an illness.

A friend of mine just fished the Au Sable River in Michigan, a section called "The Holy Waters." Got skunked. In the presence of some of the most glorious (and glorified; this stream inspired a number of early fly-reel makers and fly tiers to create classic instruments of the sport that are revered today) brook and brown trout habitat in the world, my friend--cast after cast with his streamers, hitting all the sweet structure, submered logs, weed beds, undercut banks, dropoffs--walked away empty.

When I was on the john the other day, I was reading my High Country Angler. It makes my eyes sore for the never-ending photos of weiner-men in wide-brimmed hats with expensive fly-fishing vests adorned with the usual hemostats and line cutters holding big trout. And I mean big. Eight-pound browns from the Arkansas River. An 11-pounder from the Dream Stream section of the South Platte. Sons of bitches, I think. They're fishing waters I've canvassed with my usual full-bore dedication, they're catching the fish that have driven my dreams for years, and I'm sitting on the throne with my pants at my ankles like a guy with a cane pole asleep at a carp hole, drooling over pictures of gaggly, unshaven men holding meaty, bug-eyed piscivores.

And I'm so excited. That's what's so nuts about it.

I spend more time thinking about fishing; talking with my brother and my friends about fishing; reading about fishing; and buying gear for fishing . . . than fishing.

But all it takes is a great fish once in a while. A great hour or morning or day of fishing. A great trip here and there. And, like an addict, I'll keep throwing myself down an infinite hole, looking for more big fish. Yearning for the lunkers.

Fortunately, I have a life outside of fishing that I enjoy very much. Otherwise, I might actually become a really, really good fisherman and have to get my own show on TNN or something to satisfy my cravings. And take on a Tennessee accent and wear mesh trucker baseball caps with 2-cycle engine oil logos on them. And--gasp--catch fish every day.

In the Hole

2005-05-16T15:22:00.000-06:00

It's been a few days. 11, actually. I haven't written because, well, I really don't have much to say.

That's right. Me. Not much to say.

Sure, I have something to say about just about anything. I could debate the merits of corn v. wheat tortillas. I could wax on about the anatomy of bird feathers or the beauty of football-helmet face masks. I could talk about my friend's emerging from dyslexia or my sometime yearning for big, boxy 70s cars whose summer interiors smell like humid vinyl. I could talk about my uncles and aunts and their shaping me. Or my enthusiasm for military aircraft, preparing salsa, trim dress shirts that don't blouse above the belt, my young daughter's pointing to my wife's and my noses and ears on command. I could tell you about my Grandma's porch in Michigan, about the books there, the screened windows, the sun filtering light green through the maple out front, dancing through dusty air on the 1940s paneling behind the sofa. I could tell you about how my dad grills hamburgers so they end up taller than wide, or how he sits on the porch every time it rains. I could go on and on about the Vietnam war, give you insights on the abortion debate, share all of my very sensible views on matters of importance. God and life and purpose and. . . .

But I just don't have the jam right now. Here's why. Everyone out there has something to say, and 90% of it I've either heard before or thought before. A lot of it comes from either standing on someone else's shoulders or dully commenting on commentary. That's all good and fine. There's all kinds of chatter.

But there are so few voices. So little vision.

I don't wanna be part of the chatter.

I want to be compelled to read. By the brilliance of the piece, the lucidity, the compelling, refreshing take on the subject. Really, I want to be charmed.

I have a voice. But I need to focus it and find its heart. When I figure out how to do that in a way that makes me want to read all the huckus I post here--when I feel charming--I'll come out of my hole.

Until then, thanks for your patience. Let me know your thoughts.

SCRRRRRRUMPTIOUS!

2005-05-05T16:38:00.000-06:00

Now that I got that last post off my chest, I give you this.

Consider it proprietary knowledge for a kick-ass summer of sugar highs, afternoons asleep at your desk, and uncontrollable nervousness!

Try a peanut-butter and brown-sugar sandwich.

A friend and I used to eat these (along with PB and honey) regularly at his parents' house when we were in fourth grade. The granularness of the thing. The bing-bing-bingy-ness of the sweet zinger and the fatty-nut smoothness of the thing. Whambo! I love it. I'm salivating right now, even though I had a pumpkin-bread muffin earlier.

The PB and BS (hah! a new name for the blogosphere, PB and BS, "pundit's blather and . . . you know the rest) is best enjoyed before a game of capture-the-flag in a midwestern hardwood forest or after a swim in the above-ground, 4-foot pool with the light-blue plastic bottom adorned with white-silhouetted ocean-fish prints splashed in a loose pattern.

Don't forget the generic root beer.

And the Superfriends cups, and the Batman underwear.

And the crack whores.

To Form a More Perfect Union

2005-05-05T16:06:00.000-06:00

I'm afraid the Culture Wars have gotten the best of me. All the fighting--raging for many, many months now--over God and Secularism and Right and Left and motives, presuppositions, worldviews, political philosophies, moral imperatives, and every day's scandalous cover story--has left me flat.

And because every thing is made into Something, I'm becoming tired and numb. And not comfortably so.

But I'm never tongue-tied. So I say this, and only this for now (despite the 3 posts I've been working on that are in edit mode and might never see the light of day): I fear that in these battles over "American culture," these heady and soul-bending times, too many of us have lost sight of the glorious and visionary America the Founders created.

I'm stepping back. I'm not asking What Would Bush Do? Or What Would Kerry or Dean or Clinton or Kennedy Have Done? Or What Would the Editors of the New York Times or the National Review Do? Or even What Would Jesus Do?

Instead, today, in America: What would the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, or the 39 delegates whose names grace the United States Constitution, or the Senators and Representatives who passed the Bill of Rights do? What would they say? How would they make sure we're on track? How does this fight for the heart of America jive with their original dreams for America?

I'm beginning to think this is an obligation we owe them.

Francis Gary Powers

2005-05-01T20:06:00.000-06:00

Today, I was in attendance at a talk given by Francis Gary Powers, Jr. at the Wings Over the Rockies air museum. Gary is the son of Francis Gary Powers, who was shot down over Russia by one of 14 SA-2 surface-to-air missiles the Soviets threw at him. At the time, he was gathering photo intelligence from about 70,000 feet in a U2 for the CIA on May 1, 1960, 45 years ago today.

It was a good talk; Gary spent much of it honoring his dad by describing in great detail what happened that day and until his death in 1977 when the L.A. NBC news affiliate helicopter he was piloting ran out of gas and plummeted to the ground.

I was struck by some of those details. For instance, when the shock wave from the missile exploding near the U2's tail dissabled the plane, the wings broke off and Powers, in a very compact cockpit, fell 55,000 feet pitched nose first in a screwdriver spiral. He contemplated destroying the plane's camera and film with a self-destruct unit under the cockpit. Doing so would likely have killed Powers if he didn't attempt to eject before firing the switch. However, Powers could not orient his legs in order to eject without severing them when the ejector rockets under his seat fired. So he manually released the canopy, which flew away, then inched his way out of the seat until he was halfway out. As he was going to push the camera-destruct button, he was sucked from the cockpit without ejecting. His chute opened automatically at 15,000 feet; as he floated down he watched a black sedan following his descent along farmer's gravel roads. He landed in a field and was quickly attended by children who helped him remove his helmet and pressure suit. The farmers with the threatening pitchforks came next, followed by two men who said little, then took him away in the car.

He was interrogated for weeks by the KGB, then tried in a Soviet publicity-show trial and sentenced to 10 years. He spent 18 months in a Soviet jail attached to KGB headquarters before he was exchanged for convicted Soviet spy Rudolph Abel. You can read about the political intrique associated with this elsewhere. It's a quintessential Cold War story worth knowing.

While I was watching the talk, I sat behind a retired Air Force Colonel and a retired Air Force General, both of whom had been introduced before the talk. Each was a former U2 pilot, and one flew the SR-71 Blackbird as well. Fortunately, my eyesight is pretty good and so are my ears, so my seat afforded me an eavesdropping station.

At one point, Gary mentioned that his dad had been threatened by his Soviet interrogator with a copy of the New York Times that appeared days after it was revealed publically by the Soviets that they had captured an American U2 pilot. The article said Powers had trained in Nevada. Powers had told his captors he had trained in Arizona. Gary said his father told him that at that moment he realized he might as well tell the truth "because the American media will do it for you whether you like it or not." I overheard the general say to the colonel, "That's the truth." I'm not sure how to read into that, but it's definitely worth reading into. Feel free.

While he was watching the presentation, the colonel was looking through a three-ring binder containing multi-page lists of all the men who had flown (and from what I could tell still fly) U2's. Names, ranks, locations, beginning flying dates. I could clearly see all the information and was struck by how valuable such a compilation would have been to the Soviets, or today, to a terrorist group or the North Koreans. And all I had to do is pay $6 and sit in the right spot.

So the talk, and walking around the museum looking at Cold War fighters and the B-1A on display, got me thinking. I'll talk about that in my next post. For now, my memories are cast on the Cold Warriors like F.G. Powers the First.

Glad you're still with us

2005-04-28T16:40:00.000-06:00

By now you've heard the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, heretofor considered extinct, never left us. Being an enthusiastic birder and environmentalist, I'm psyched. The best story associated with this fantastic news is that of expert birder Mary Scott, who saw an Ivory-billed in 2003, but kept it to herself for fear of mass intrusions into the bird's habitat. Now she tells her tale.

This is going to be one of the biggest environmental and science stories of the year.

Not a Joke

2005-04-27T09:05:00.000-06:00

Drudge reports today that Air America's Randi Rhodes show is being investigated by the Secret Service for airing a sarcastic piece about Social Security in which a character seems to shoot at the President.

I'm all for comedy, but this is ridiculous. All told, I think Air America's done very well and provides a worthwhile service and quality entertainment; I often listen to Franken during the day.

But this goes too far for two reasons: 1) because it's distasteful to all but the most radical and possibly illegal; and 2) because this kind of pushing the envelope invites negative publicity fueled by those who would use the incident to debase the whole network. Air America thereby shoots itself in the foot, then hands the gun to the Right, who shoots it in the stomach. (Pardon the gun analogy, but I'm stuck with it after reading Drudge's piece.) I'm bracing for the commentary that will follow in the next few days.

(And all this for a social security skit?)

Rhodes and Air America need to remain civil despite their contempt for the President and his policies.

Pithy Banter

2005-04-26T21:19:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure if AJM's and my debates are pithy, but they're all banter. I've been active there today.

Also, check AJM's post on the UN's Sudan report.

Also, check out Senator Harry Reid's statement from the Senate floor, posted at the new site, Judging the Future.

More later.

U2's April 21, 2005 Denver Show

2005-04-22T14:12:00.000-06:00

Incomparable.

That is the only word that fits. U2, after over twenty years solidly planted in the landscape of rock music, and for many of those years overlooking the landscape from a well-earned highest perch, still gives up the Big Show to its audience. I saw them first in 1992. In 2005, it’s still straight from their hearts to ours.

A few highlights worth mentioning from the 2nd Denver show at the Pepsi Center last night:

- Bono sounds great. He may not be able to fill the space created by his falsetto quite as fully these days, but he’s still powerful, emotive, and in tune. And he removed his glasses a number of times. Even though I knew he planned it, there was real candor in the gesture.

-Larry sang on a number of songs. As usual, his cadence was simply powerful and his technique simply perfect. What an incredible miking job on his set, too.

-Adam moved around more than usual, taking advantage of the elliptical outer stage.

-Edge was in top form, harmonics, watch cap, and all. I found it satisfying that both he and I were wearing black Chuck Taylors.

-"City of Blinding Lights" opened the show. A solid opener, the best song on the Vertigo album, I think. "Oh! you! look! so . . . beautiful tonight," sung large, with the lights pulsing, was cathartic. Then more rockers to get–and keep–people out of their seats: Elevation, Beautiful Day, Vertigo. My brother and I never sat down.

-"Bullet the Blue Sky" was longer than usual and took on a dark, Bluesy overtone that worked well. Edge improved on the solo in a fresh way.

-"Gloria," not heard live by most fans for many years, was incredible.

-During "Sunday Bloody Sunday," Bono dedicated the song as follows: "This is no longer about the orange, white, and green. Now it’s about the red, white, and blue."

-They played "Bad," which has been a rarity so far on the tour, and seemed to make the entire stadium levitate.

-"Running to Stand Still" was welcome, silent, wonderful.

-During "One," dedicated to Africa (what Bono called "a continent in flames"), the audience held their cell phones open with outstretched arms. Bono killed the lights, and it was like looking at stars from a mountain top, so many blue and white dancing points of light. The point–if suggested by anyone but Bono it would have been melodramatic–was that the Western world should work as one to save Africa now, before historians looking back write that we missed our chance. Effective. Look how bright we are as one.

-Bono on two occasions thanked Denver for being with the band through thick and thin, "even when we were at our most pretentious, our most artsy," he said. And he harkened back to the Red Rocks show captured on Live Under a Blood Red Sky.

-Ending with "40" was a great move. Each member of the band left one-by-one as the crowd chanted the chorus. Bono first, with a few nods and waves. Then Adam put his bass down, waved, and descended into bowels of the stage. When Edge left only Larry remained, gradually tapering off until he only played just the bass drum: Dum . . . da-dum-dum. Dum . . . da-dum-dum. Then he stopped and the crowd was a capella for about 30 seconds. Then Larry came back in full force for another minute. Being a drummer, singing along with just Larry playing was transcendental for me. Then he stopped, his techie took his earpieces, and he jumped off his throne and trotted down the ladder. The audience continued: "How long . . ." until the lights came on.

-Bono’s the only rock superstar who can say, "God is great!" at a sold-out stadium show and receive standing, roaring applause. Regardless of your views on God, that’s an incredible thing.

-Great show. Buy tickets from the scalpers right before it starts and save yourself 62 bucks off the face value like my brother and I did.

"40"

I waited patiently for the Lord.
He inclined and heard my cry.
He brought me up out of the pit.
Out of the miry clay.

I will sing, sing a new song.
I will sing, sing a new song.
How long to sing this song?
How long to sing this song?
How long, how long, how long
How long to sing this song?

You set my feet upon a rock
And made my footsteps firm.
Many will see, many will see and hear.

I will sing, sing a new song.
I will sing, sing a new song.
I will sing, sing a new song.
I will sing, sing a new song.
How long to sing this song?
How long to sing this song?
How long to sing this song?
How long to sing this song?

Realclimate.org

2005-04-21T11:43:00.000-06:00

Science, the science community's preeminent peer-reviewed journal, endorsed this global warming facts site. I repeat their endorsement here because geoscientists of all political stripes agree that global warming is both real and directly related to human activity, and I'm tired of "debunkers" promulgating false "facts":

Frustrated by Web sites claiming to debunk global warming, several scientists this month [Ed.: Dec. 2004] launched their own blog on the evidence that humans are heating up the planet. Realclimate.org is hosted by a public relations firm called Environmental Media Services, but nine academic and government scientists write the content, says co-organizer Gavin Schmidt of NASA (speaking in a personal capacity). They hope to counter industry-supported sites such as http://www.co2science.org/ and http://www.junkscience.com/, where so-called experts "have a habit of seriously misquoting, distorting, and outright manipulating data," says Schmidt.

So far, the site has addressed topics such as why the heat generated by large cities makes only a minuscule contribution to surface warming and the flaws in Michael Crichton's latest novel, State of Fear, which dismisses global warming as hype. Visitors can chime in, but comments are screened before they're posted.

You Know You're Profiting from Oil Exports When . . .

2005-04-20T16:16:00.000-06:00

It's not often I come across a story like this one.

Evidently, Qatar has become concerned about pressure from human-rights groups to stop using underfed slave boys as young as four as camel jockeys in its national camel races.

So--being as wealthy as it is--it is funding the development of robot jockeys. That's right, Asimov: robots. (Look at the photo. They're unbearably humanoid, complete with jerseys.)

This is a country with way too much money and way too much free time to be so ethically disturbing.

I'm not gonna expand on this to cover other countries in the region, but feel free.

Ten Thoughts for Today

2005-04-20T14:29:00.000-06:00

1. Why is it that I have to go the National Review to find an article about how much of the revenues from United States' purchases of oil imports from Venezuela (the U.S. buys more than 15% of its oil from that country) go to Cuba, who, in return, sends "intelligence personnel" (read left-wing radicals/militiamen) back to strong-man Chavez? (Even more of the revenues fund Venezuelan contracts with Russia to buy MiG-29s and 100,000 AK-47s.) Even if any part of this is untrue, why hasn't Big Media been doing intelligence gathering of its own? The Christian Science Monitor has this story today, but NR had it almost 2 weeks ago.

2. I think younger liberals and Democrats need to realize that sometimes, even though it may "feel" strange at first, we live in a post-Vietnam, post-Gulf War I age where terrorism is real, tyranny is real, and using the "big stick" (rather than speaking softly) sometimes makes the most sense. That said, from whom can the future leaders of the world now learn diplomacy?

3. Dying Rwandans need some Big Dubya. (Speaking of big sticks.) If there is one place on the planet where nearly everyone would get behind Bush saying "Screw everyone else; we're goin' in," it's in Darfur. C'mon! I'm becoming annoyed.

4. AJMac had a good post on leadership the other day. I like this passage:

The sine qua non of leadership is merely that people follow you. Nothing else is required, really. Which means, of course, that a lot of bad leaders out there are leading people to terrible places. Good leadership requires more than simply taking charge; it requires one to lead in the right direction. However, all leaders have one thing in common. If you are to give others the opportunity to follow you, you must decide to go where no one else is going. You must make up your mind, commit to your course 100%, and not be dissuaded by the lack of popular support for your decision. You must lay everything on the line. You should base your decision upon the best information possible in real time. However, once you have first stepped on the road less traveled, you must not turn back at the first sign of resistance.

5. The accipiters are a genus of forest hawks. I like the idea of navigating around obstacles--large trees, shrubs, rocky outcroppings--at high speed. All in pursuit of something worthwhile. Like a dragonfly. Or a mosquito. That is, if you happen to be a gyrfalcon.

6. I'm tired of women I know putting down birds. I love birds. I'm an amateur ornithologist, actually. I don't know a lot, but I recognize most of the birds I see. I'm constantly reading about them, drinking in all the details: beak shapes, wing lengths, scapular colors, breeding plumages, habitat range, forage behaviors, etc. A lot of these women seem to think birds are like flying rodents. I simply don't get it. Luckily, my wife is a Ph.D. ecologist, so she appreciates birds and other living things.

7. I've come to realize that it would be very easy to be an atheist. There'd be a lot of good reasons to be one, I suppose. But it would feel so empty. I often say that Nature and love are enough God for me. Well, that's simplifying it; but there's a kernal of truth there. It seems that atheists must be devoid of wonder or a sense of mystery. Because, looking out across the valley in Yellowstone or over a reef in the Florida Keys, I feel so much beautiful, creative, living energy. Such astounding complexity and order. And the love I know in my life: it has a source beyond me, beyond those who love me. I know there are arguments for and against what I'm saying. Some very elegant. But for me, maybe it's that I'm left yearning for so much more than humanity. Because, despite the goodness therein, there's a lot of ugliness in being human.

8. All that said, I often reflect on John Lennon's line: "Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try." Written and sung for peace here.

9. When I think of the Inupiat people who live on the North Slope of Alaska, I think about eating an apple when I was working up there. That one apple cost the funding agency close to $50 to make available to me. In that same outpost (Atkasuk), I met two teenagers on an ATV coming back from a hunting trip. Their machine was covered with blood. They carried rifles. They had just shot a caribou and were coming home to find some others to help them bring it back. Ambivalence about oil drilling should be expected.

10. Real Fig Newtons are better than generic ones. The cake is lighter, richer. The filling more golden, softer, juicy.

"Secularism" and "Relativism" as Warped by the Right

2005-04-20T11:50:00.000-06:00

Two words are increasingly ping-ponging their way around the blogosphere–indeed, around the cultural crossroads of America defined by the various media organizations, both Left and Right.

The Christian Right’s freewheeling application of these concepts to anyone who has not come to believe in their orthodox views is disturbing. What is outrageous, however, is the ease with which the purveyors of these terms characterize those embodying the traits symbolized by the concepts as either disabled, stupid, or, much worse, evil.

I take the rote dictionary definitions from Mirriam-Webster Online:

"Secular": "1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not ecclesiastical or clerical 2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation 3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration."

"Relativism": "1 a : a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing b : a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them."

The term "secular" is used by the Christian Right on the one hand to connote "without God," which is in context with definition 1a, of or relating to the world or temporal. On the other hand, "secular" has frequently been retooled to mean not only "without God," but "against God." As an extension, it seems that Christian orthodox apologetics now use it to mean "against us."

The term "relativism," as used by the Christian Right, has nothing to do with definition 1a, but rather 1b, which, translated into its current socio-political context seems to mean, "a view that there is no absolute truth and/or that truth claims are only valuable in relation to other truth claims and/or that everyone’s idea of the truth is viable because there is no one truth."

I want to talk about "secular" first. I, as far as I know, am neither disabled nor stupid. Moreover, I hope that I do not embody evil, despite my humanity. That said, I am very comfortable with a secular world, as I have always known it, which is based on definition b: "not overtly or specifically religious." I am private about my spiritual beliefs, as are most folks I know who were raised in Midwestern Protestant congregations. I hold my faith close, and soberly consider God and whatever His wishes might be. I trust, however, that he has a certain amount of trust in me, in us, made in his image.

I firmly believe that the world, in and of itself, is good. Orthodox Christians would, I think, agree: God created it and said it was good. OK. And the temporal nature of the world is what we, as humans, are afforded. OK. So the issue is not about "the world," or "worldliness" per se, but the "absence of God." This is where I take issue.

Here’s why. Recent surveys have shown that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God. Europeans, I’m not sure. But I’m willing to bet that a majority across the pond would check that box, too. When the Religious Right criticizes those who are secular, they cite their opponents in the abortion debate, the gay-marriage issue, the Creationism-versus-evolution fiasco. But being on "the other side" in those debates does not necessarily mean that that person does not believe in God, or that that person is not a Christian or person of faith.

What it may very well mean is simply that the opponent has not reached the conclusion that Orthodoxy is the best description of ultimate truth.

Most often, the Christian Right scoffs at the "modern era’s" concentration on the satisfaction of individual desires as the end-all-be-all of life. It’s no wonder. By most moral and ethical standards, pure selfishness is held in disdain. Certainly, the Christian worldview puts the self far down the priority list. I agree that this age in the history of civilization has found many of us far too focused on individual taste, desire, and fulfillment.

That does not mean, however, that all of us out here struggling with day-to-day survival and the details of the life we know for sure–that in front of our eyes on the planet Earth–are either "without" or "against" God. And with the many palatable and convincing versions of what is ultimately true available to educated Westerners, it is hardly a surprise that many people–even many Christians–disagree on what is absolutely true. This is not easy stuff.

To the extent that the Christian Right scoffs at those atheists who believe only in the world "in front of us" as the only one that exists, and calls them "secularists," fine. But, don’t throw the rest of us in that hole.

To the extent the "secular world," however the Right characterizes it, seems wayward from God, I am not surprised. These–like most–are confusing times. These–unlike most–are times of intellectual and scientific advance, of globalization, of high education in the West and in many parts of Asia. And–sadly perhaps–searching for and finding the absolute truth, whatever that is, takes more energy and intellectual and spiritual commitment than many folks can muster in this world. That is not reason to debase honest folks for doing the best they can in this life.

Finally, to the extent that "secularists"–read, those who are not Orthodox believers–write in the Mainstream Media about the Church and criticize it for being "backwards" or "anti-progress," it is one thing to explain to them their misunderstandings of Orthodoxy.

It is quite another thing to react with knee-jerk defensiveness and put them down for treading on sacred ground that to many–even to many other Christians–is not sacred. Education is one thing. Outright warfare–to an extent from both "sides"–is another.

Now, "relativism." Just briefly. Those Orthodox Christians who believe in absolute truth believe in their version of absolute truth. That version may be what is "absolutely true." But no one but God knows that for sure. To call everyone else who does not believe in that version of absolute truth a "relativist" is both arrogant and demeaning.

I, for one, believe that there is an absolute truth. There is only truth and falsity. That’s it. God is the One who knows absolutely what is true. He is the only one who knows fully His mind and His way, the nature of the universe. We humans are left to struggle with the evidence and lack thereof that we can comprehend with our five senses. Beyond that, we must rely on faith.

For the Christian Right to say that all those who look at the evidence or lack thereof and come to different conclusions than their own are "relativists" is to invalidate their own journeys of faith. In fact, ironically, many the Christian Right call "relativist" are probably just "absolutists" of different persuasions.

It is one thing to disparage those out there who believe that there is a unique universal truth subject to each person’s whimsy, each person’s idea of what may be true. Certainly this is impossible because, at the least, there is mutual exclusivity.

Beyond that, God, Truth, is whatever It is. Nothing more or less.

It is another thing to disparage those of us who are struggling with the truth, or like me, are willing to say, there is one Truth, but I have more questions about It than I do answers. I suppose in that way I am a relativist by the first definition: "1 a : a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing." I can only know what my mind allows me to know. What my soul allows me to know.

I–in what I can only hope is viewed as humility–am the first to recognize God–and only God–as the reservoir of knowledge of the absolute truth.

A Vision Thing

2005-04-17T20:49:00.000-06:00

I was struck by two occurrences in the blogosphere over the weekend. Really, in the grand scheme of blogness, they were tiny, minor. But I was struck by them.

First, over at ANWR News, there are two readers who have taken to ruthlessly debating the merits of the last few posts over there. These guys--one an oil-industry insider, the other, a biologist/journalist--are carrying on hours' long conversations in each comment stream, giving Haloscan a run for its money. (Good thing it's free.) What strikes me is not the passion, which I appreciate. That can be found in every corner of the blogworld. What strikes me is how these guys are throwing facts and citations at each other in support of their cause: one link to an oil site, one to the USGS, another to a Senate hearing, another to a North Slope newspaper. On and on. "Facts" v. "facts".

Reading over it, I have no idea which facts are actually facts or which facts are opinions that look like facts. In order to find out the truth, one would have to devote solid days online and on the phone to figure out where the data came from and who did what with it. I and few others have time for such independent research.

What I'm realizing is that out in the blogosphere there really are no facts that will win over a person who has his own facts. Why? Because it's like two attorneys arguing over the facts and merits of a case without a judge or jury. There is no objective party willing to fully digest the information.

So, while it's interesting to me as a reader to watch the "facts" stream by, I'm left empty. Sure, I might come away with a few new ideas, but I feel like I've been watching commercials end-on-end for days. In a dark room. In an unfinished basement.

Civil lawsuits in this country are decided by a preponderance of the evidence. Criminals are convicted by juries only when there is no reasonable doubt of their guilt. Based on the evidence. I'm all for the evidence. But in the context of the blogosphere, does the "evidence" matter out here, or are folks just flogging each other?

I realize this is not profound. I also realize I've done my fair share of citing to what I consider facts. So maybe this is all hooey. But I was struck by it.

That brings me to the other post I saw. This was at althippo, home of the Beltway commenter who seems refreshingly removed from the Beltway. It's a simple concept. Recounting a conversation he had, he wrote on April 15, 2005 that he was struck by this idea about responsibility: "Your kids are going to live there someday. That captures in a nutshell so many of my concerns about current events: the bankruptcy bill, Social Security, or destroying a wildlife refuge. Put in other words, we have a generational responsibility."

This is not particularly profound either.

But it meant so much more to me than reading about all the facts.

Because at the end of the day it's not about the facts. It's about the gut feeling, the worldview, the attitude, the priorities, the spirit that runs you.

I'll use ANWR as an example. Why don't I want drilling in the Refuge? Because when my daughter grows up I want her to live in a country where she can dream about the land, about wildlife, about nature removed from humans. And I don't want her dreams to be longings for what once existed.

As althippo said, it's about vision. I can see beyond 25 years' worth of replacement Saudi oil. I can even see beyond the need for oil, even though I and every other citizen in this country can't live without it today. I can see beyond ANWR to other resource conflicts. More and more of them. I can see beyond my own lifetime on this planet. I can even see beyond my daughter's. And her daughter's.

It's when I allow myself to see beyond the existence of relatively wild, relatively open, relatively untouched landscapes that my heart sinks.

What depresses me is that so many people don't want to gaze that far. Their vision is myopic.

Defining Self

2005-04-13T14:53:00.000-06:00

At Pithy Banter, I was asked in a comment to do some defining.

I have a hard time defining myself because I have more questions about life than I do answers.

That doesn't mean that I'm so open-minded that my brain has fallen out, though. I realize that I embody fairly easily understood characteristics as well.

Here are a few:

1) I tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. However, my socially liberal leanings have become more moderate in the past few years.

2) I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but I vote for more Dems than Repubs.

3) I am more interested in good reasoning and sound judgment than I am in party politics or philosophical assignment.

4) I'm highly educated.

5) While I and others consider me intelligent, I constantly strive to be smart. There's a big difference.

6) I'm an attorney. But I don't always like defining myself as one. I'm also a journalist, a photographer, a drummer. Most importantly, a husband, a father, a first son. I like science and technical details. I like tools.

7) I grew up in the United Methodist church, which overall is more liberal than, say, the Southern Baptist church, or Presbyterianism, but has its own liberal/conservative divide. (Hence, the internal fight over whether gays can preach has been raging for some time.)

8) I struggled between boredom and utter transfixion in my early years in church. Today, I don't often go, but am interested in finding a place where my intellectual investigations are welcome, and the singing is not just mediocre.

9) To be truly convinced of anything important, both my head and my heart must be in unison convinced.

10) I am mostly comfortable with my Christian upbringing but also constantly struggle with my faith and with some of the tenets (at least what some Christians consider tenets) of Christianity. I am curious, skeptical, full of questions, and hard to please.

11) That said, I believe in God and His way (whatever that might be), and strive to better understand and apply the tenets of Christianity. I also have many Jewish friends whose varying degrees of genuine interest in spirituality I admire and respect. And I very much respect and hold in high esteem those who are committed to doing good in the world.

12) I have severe and incredibly lucid moments of doubt.

13) Luckily, I suppose, those are balanced by moments that I comprehend as filled with God, brought on by the love of my wife and daughter, the love I feel for others, the spirit and company of family and friends, the kindness of strangers, the witness of mercy and compassion and humility, acts of incredible justice, and being outside: fishing, in the mountains, camping, breathing fresh air, watching birds, and generally loving the complex, always intriguing beauty of nature.

Worth Protecting

2005-04-12T14:52:00.000-06:00

This is in response to AJM's comment, below.

Africans, like American teens, can be taught abstinence. Of course. The problem is, the "message" takes time and energy and money--a lot of time and energy and money--to disseminate. I'm not sure when all of the potential HIV vectors (read sexually promiscuous men and women) are are going to be contacted and lectured on abstinence. But I know--as an absolute fact--that thousands, ney, millions more will be infected and die before then.

I've heard the "mixed messages" argument many times. I totally disagree that encouraging condom use is "encouraging people to engage in an act that affects much more than their immune systems." Whether it's viewed as condoning or not, I really don't care. People are smart enough to understand the difference between short-term solutions that put out fires and long-term solutions that cure the arsonist. The bigger point: until (and in many cases after; I'm doing everything I can to resist quoting last month's Yale/Columbia study) people are educated about the negative consequences associated with extramarital sex, people will engage in extramarital sex. It's the lesser of two evils to prevent the spread of AIDS at all costs.

I also disagree with AJM that telling Africans (or teens) to use a condom is patronizing. Hardly. It is recognizing their human vulnerabilities in a way that saves the lives of them and their families. To hold back is to patronize. To keep condoms from them is to say you and your family are not worth protecting because you have not committed to change your behaviors. Worse, from the outside, it might look like Conservatives are saying "you're not worth protecting because you're not like us."

We are all human, all sinners, all prone to weakness. AJM is saying that by acknowledging this weakness and somehow "allowing" it, we undermine the ability of these people to change, become more God-like. I can understand his concern. But it's secondary to the bigger problem. While I agree that behavior modification in the long run is the way to go, I cannot condone putting scarce resources into behavior modification only when incredibly cheap and, contrary to AJM's assertion, effective condoms are available and could be widely disseminated.

And--by the way--I know a lot of Christians who happen to agree. This is an example of where the liberal Methodists and other Protestant denominations diverge from their Evangelical cousins.
---

AJM's comment:

First of all, The Accipiter's obvious anger is understandable. Any policy that has as a known effect the unnecessary infection of innocent women and children with an incurable disease is beyond justification. (As an aside, I know that, while The Accipiter and I disagree on this point, neither of us doubts the other's good faith or thinks that the other is unmoved by the AIDS pandemic and its tragic consequences.) But to put aside an irrelevancy, the movement toward abstinence-first education and away from condom distribution is not about judging others or punishing the wives and children of "sinners." As The Accipiter correctly points out, we all are sinners (I would add: in the hands of a just and merciful God).

From the Christian perspective, AIDS is merely a symptom of an even more fundamental problem. It is one of the natural and disastrous effects of extra-marital sexual activity. The other symptoms include other sexually-transmitted diseases, divorce, depression, low self esteem, teen pregnancy, and deadbeat fathers. So, we Christians believe that stemming AIDS with condoms is a little like treating a massive head wound with a band-aid. And yes, as The Accipiter anticipates, I would very much like to include here a reference to Uganda. While Uganda is dealing with the source problem -- sexual promiscuity -- the symptoms, including AIDS, are being held in check. Other African peoples need not convert to Christianity in order to see the effectiveness of abstinence-only education and programs in Uganda and to adopt such programs within their own nations.

I say that condoms are a little like band-aids because the analogy cannot be pushed too far. Band-aid distribution occurs with the tacit understanding that their necessity can be expected, though that necessity is never sought. People are generally not tempted to suffer wounds. They are, however, tempted to engage in extra-marital sexual acts, which adversely affect not just their bodies but also (if the Christian view is to be believed) their souls and psyches. Condom distribution may stem the spread of AIDS a little (they are not 100% effective and there is no guarantee that they will be used, in any event). But it has been proven (in Uganda and elsewhere) that incentives toward sexual purity reduce the spread of AIDS a lot. And by distributing condoms we are mixing our messages -- encouraging people to engage in an act that affects much more than their immune systems.

You might disagree with imposing the "Christian" approach upon non-Christians if it can be established that it is, in fact, within the exclusive purview of Christians and effective only for Christians. (In any event, the Christian approach is hardly "appalling.") However, we Christians happen to believe that our approach is in the best interest of everyone, whether they recognize our God or not. The evidence favors that view. To throw up our hands in resignation (they are going to have sex anyway; we might as well make it safe) is patronizing. Africans, like American teens, can be taught. It is also against the best interest of us all.

To promulgate anything but abstinence education and incentives is to do a disservice to those whom we are trying to help.

AIDS' Collateral Damage

2005-04-12T10:35:00.000-06:00

Today, in a thoughtful critique of the Left's use of the word "progress," AJM wrote that one of the tenets of Evangelical Christianity is that "Human life is precious at all stages of development and degeneration." O.K.

If that's true, I find it appalling that Conservatives are so ardently opposed to the provision of contraceptives to those in third-world, developing nations ravaged by HIV. Instead, they say, teaching abstinence is the only ethically justifiable way to quell the raging viral firestorm sweeping the continent. I heartily disagree.

No one doubts that extra-marital sex is one of the main transmitters of the disease. Migrant workers who often must travel hundreds of miles to find work outside their villages spend nights away from their wives, have sex with prostitutes, contract HIV, then bring it home to their wives. These innocent women then pass it on to their innocent children.

Conservatives believe that teaching these men that sex outside of marriage is wrong will help. I'm the first to concede that such an approach--if the men commit to it--will help. Of course, not all of these men will listen or be convinced. And fewer will be contacted by those preaching this agenda. And as long as prostitution runs rampant (and is governmentally supported in many cases), many men will purchase those services.

In the very, very long run, when and if the vision of all Evangelicals--to convert the world to Christianity--is realized, abstinence training could work.

For now, millions of innocent women and children--not to mention the men for whom customs accept extramaritial sex--are dying from a loathesome, preventable disease.

Christ was asked, "Which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew 22: 36-40.

This has a natural corollary. One way to "love our neighbors" is to "show them the way," so their souls can be saved. But before their souls can be saved, their lives must be saved.

Jesus spent a lot of time saving lives without judging the behavior of those whose lives he saved. If I happen upon a man in a pool of blood dying in the street with a bag of money and a gun next to him, do I refuse to try to save his life because I suspect he's a criminal? No.

How can we justify punishing the wives and children of sinners (as we all are) for the sins of their men?

Condom use saves lives. Free, widely distributed condoms save more lives.

Teaching a man to fish so he can feed himself is one thing. Feeding the five thousand so they do not starve is another. Both are honorable, but one is a much bigger priority.

Otherwise, millions of innocent women and children are collateral damage in the Right's war on sin.

ADDENDUM:

Some will likely respond by citing recent progress on the war on AIDS through abstinence in Uganda. I'll preemptively counter that for that country, with that Christian leader, some progress may have been made. But what of the other millions across the continent? What of the thousands becoming infected and dying every day?

White Album Mono

2005-04-10T11:30:00.000-06:00

While I appreciate and often myself delve into commentary about national issues of the day, especially ones with political implications that lend themselves to divisiveness, I am determined not to constantly devote space here to the things about which everyone else in the blogosphere is ruminating. Others are better at spending all their time talking about Tom Delay and the Mainstream Media. Or, at least, they devote enough bits and bytes to it to appear like they've got it covered.

And may I say, while there's a lot of great commentary out there, and sometimes even a unique idea or two, it's easy to get lost in adding one's own voice to an already overwhelming cacophony of he-said she-said and my-opinion-matters-most. I don't wanna get lost in it.

That said (and understanding that I've just added my own blather to the cacophony), I want to tell you about something simple and great.

It's 99.5 on the FM dial, The Mountain, Denver's preeminent, independently owned, classic-rock station. Now I'm not talking about "classic rock" like Foghat or .38 Special or Blue Oyster Cult or whatever the other guys (it seems like all "classic-rock" stations are named either "The Hawk," "The Hammer," The Eagle," "The Rock," "The Riff," or whatever) tend to play.

I'm talking about the really good stuff. Dylan, The Beatles, The Stones, Zeppelin, Hendrix, The Who, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Elton John, The Band, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Sly and the Family Stone, The Temptations, the folk singers, the blues guys, all of the movers and shakers in the '60s and '70s, and their progeny in the '80's through today (read U2, REM, Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews, etc.) Listen long enough and you're likely to hear The Flying Burrito Brothers, The Clash, Curtis Mayfield, Johnny Cash, XTC, Emmylou Harris, the inestimable Midnight Oil, Los Lobos, maybe even The Pogues.

The thing is, they play the songs you always hear AND the songs you only hear when you're at home with your CD collection and your stereo. Listen to it online at the link I put up there.

Now, this is not mind-blowing, change-your-life kind of stuff. Unless you love music like I do. Then it's easy to get wrapped up in the fact that every DJ is genuninely knowledgable: knows the history and inside scoop of the bands, the connections between one band and another, the common themes linking baroque, classical, gospel, ragtime, jazz, blues, rock, and pop.

Or the fact that before every relatively rare commercial break, the DJ leaves the listener with a teaser such as: "This next song was written by a Canadian who many regard as the godfather of Grunge." After the commercial, the listener in this example is told about Neil Young and his liner notes to "Heart of Gold": "This song put me in the middle of the road. Travelling there soon bacame a bore so I headed for the ditch. A rougher ride but I saw more interesting people there."

The gem--in my opinion--of The Mountain's various programs is Breakfast with the Beatles. For 3 hours every Sunday morning, Archer (forgive the single name; he's been in the business for a long time) spins Beatles sets, whole albums, alternative versions, rarities, and spin-offs. It's genious because of the depth of the commentary and the analysis.

Archer is the only person I've experienced who can rattle off details of one cut of Rocky Racoon and tell you all the ways it differs from another (volume differences, mixing parameters, vocal inflections, engineering nuances, recording ambiance, who ate what for breakfast the day of the session, etc). And he knows everything there is to know about the Beatles themselves: from what they emerged, how politics and culture influenced them and vice versa, the legacies.

This morning for instance, Archer spun all 4 sides of the original U.K. mono version of the White Album, which--to a guy like me who's owned the U.S. stereo version of the White Album since he was 16 and knows it in and out--was like hearing stories about a good friend's past that you've never heard before.

Plus, how often do you hear "Julia" on the radio?

The best part of it was having my 13-month-old in my arms and dancing around the house with her as she bounced up and down, smiling and spinning and Stevie Wonder head-swaying.

I've Had It With CBS

2005-04-08T16:37:00.000-06:00

As if the Mainstream Media isn't in enough trouble already, and as if CBS itself hasn't suffered enough for its own blustery boondoggling, now this:

A CBS photo-stringer was arrested today by American MPs in Iraq for--it is alleged--he is an insurgent (or, for you who are more comfortable, a terrorist). And the evidence is pretty damning: "One official said at least four videos in the man's camera show roadside bomb attacks on U.S. troops. All had been shot in a manner that suggested the cameraman had prior knowledge of the attacks and had scouted a shooting location in sight of the target."

Bastard. I can't count on both hands the number of journalistic ethics lines that blatantly crosses.

And that's the least of it: He's the enemy!

This only bolsters the criticism the AP took earlier this week for its Pulitzer photo shot by a stringer who Powerline suggested was of the same ilk.

I'll continue defending good journalism, but I'm running out of protaganists.

Marburg in Angola

2005-04-08T14:35:00.000-06:00

Ever since reading The Coming Plague, medical journalist Laurie Garret's phenomenal discourse on the sorry state of the world's health-care systems with regard to the proliferation of virulent virus- and bacteria-borne diseases, I have been interested in all things epidemiological.

Now Marburg virus, a haemorrhagic-fever virus in the same family as Ebola, has emerged in Angola, with devastating effect. This is the latest report from the World Heath Organization:

As of 7 April, 205 cases of Marburg haemorrhagic fever have been reported in Angola. Of these, 180 have died. Zaire Province has reported its first 6 cases, bringing the number of affected provinces to seven, all concentrated in the north-western part of the country.

Mobile surveillance teams in Uige were forced to suspend operations yesterday when vehicles were attacked and damaged by local residents. As the situation has not improved, no surveillance teams were operational today in this province, which remains the epicentre of the outbreak.

WHO staff in Uige were notified today of several fatalities but teams were unable to investigate the cause of death or collect the bodies for safe burial. Discussions have been held with provincial authorities to find urgent solutions.

The dramatic symptoms of Marburg haemorrhagic fever and its frequent fatality are resulting in a high level of fear, which is further aggravated by a lack of public understanding of the disease. Moreover, because the disease has no cure, hospitalization is not associated with a favourable outcome, and confidence in the medical care system has been eroded.

WHO is familiar with such reactions, which have been seen during previous outbreaks of the closely related Ebola haemorrhagic fever. Two medical anthropologists are already in Uige and will be joined shortly by experts in social mobilization from Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Mozambique. Public compliance with control measures is not expected to improve in the absence of intense campaigns to educate the public about the disease.

In African countries, the single most important factor in controlling viral haemorrhagic fevers is the engagement of affected communities as partners in control. To achieve this engagement, local belief systems about the causes of disease and traditional rituals for mourning the dead must be respected. When the public understands and accepts a few simple messages – avoid contact with blood and other fluids when caring for the ill, don’t touch bodies of the deceased – transmission within the community can be stopped and the outbreak brought under control.

International appeal

Specialized international staff and equipment have been deployed rapidly and measures are beginning to have an impact. Control of the outbreak will require intensified and sustained technical support from multidisciplinary teams, and additional materials and supplies. Provision of adequate personal protective equipment is a particularly urgent need. Increased field coordination of technical, operational and logistic support is likewise needed.

Today, WHO has launched an appeal, through the United Nations, for funding to support the emergency response to this outbreak. WHO needs US$ 2.4 million to support the Ministry of Health, Angola to intensify ongoing operations in the field.
To reduce the risk of transmission in the community, priority activities include intensive social mobilization and health education in the towns and villages of Uige Province. To reduce the risk of transmission in health care facilities, priorities include the provision of personal protective equipment for front-line staff and essential supplies for infection control, including disinfectants. Additional activities that urgently need to be strengthened include the early detection and isolation of cases and the tracing and follow up of contacts.

My reactions:

1) 180 of 205 is a very high death rate, even for Marburg.

2) Locals fear hospitals because they see family, friends, and community members go there with headaches and leave as corpses. Therefore, they want nothing to do with modern medicine and the associated WHO/international surveillance teams whose caravans they attack. This is a stark case of ignorance claiming lives.

3) WHO needs $2.4 million to support its Angolan field operations, while battling the virus is as much about battling the people to educate them as it is about not touching bodily fluids or corpses. Which raises the question: While Marburg and Ebola are rare, wouldn't it be worth WHO/international-community resources to educate villagers about the viruses before they break out? Maybe that education takes place. I don't know. But I doubt it. It's a resource problem, I'm sure. Hence the $2.4 million request.

(I can't fail to mention the directly related problem of educating legions of third-world peoples all over the world about drinking clean water and other sanitation techniques. And for that matter, finding, making available, or giving them clean water.)

4) Clearly, this is a fairly thin branch of a large tree that represents many, many problems in Africa (esp. sub-Saharan Africa), but it is indicative of the larger problem: The combination of corrupt or (physically and morally) absent national governments (Angola's civil war has left nothing but carnage, fear, and distrust), warring factions and their ruthless warlords, economic despair, and poverty poses the most daunting challenge the Western world has on its plate. And I suggest it is obligated to take on this challenge. Yet, the continuing devastation in Darfur and the Congo, as just two vivid examples, rarely find airtime on Western TVs or ink in Western papers.

The only reason we hear about Marburg is because it's the stuff of made-for-TV movies (think "bleeding from all orifices").

Everything else is too messy.

ANWR News and Cost-Benefit Analysis Out of the Box

2005-04-07T10:01:00.000-06:00

If you haven't been over to this site in a while, go to ANWR News and check out the fine work this journalist is doing. His recent posts, among them a senator's demand for details on U.S. oil exports that is denied, a polar bear focus, and an honest talk about the "drilling footprint" are especially worth note.

His posts brought to mind an environmental economics class I took as an undergraduate at the University of Michigan's School of Natural Resources and Environment. Aside from the usual microeconomic perspectives on natural resources, we studied somewhat "out-of-the-box" concepts like the following two, which should be discussed in light of the ANWR controversy:

1) Existence Value :

"Value from knowing environmental goods exist independent of use or option value. If we lose a species in the wild, such as the Bengal tiger, very few of us will have our welfare directly affected by not being able to see it, photograph it or hear it. That 'use value' is very small. But many people will lose the option to do that in the future, should they care to. Economists call that 'option value.' Further, many people around the world derive some benefit just from knowing that Bengal tigers exist in the wild. That is 'existence value.'"

What is the existence value of the ANWR coastal plain and its caribou, polar bears, gray wolves, nesting birds? For that matter, what existence value should or does attach to the landscape as whole, unscathed, and rare?

2) Coase's Theorem :

"The assertion that if property rights are properly defined, then people will be forced to pay for any negative externalities they impose on others, and market transactions will produced efficient outcomes."

Here, property rights are not properly defined, because ANWR, despite the provision setting aside the 1002 area for potential future drilling, is federal property; as such, oil companies should not have more influence over its use than you and I and the other 270 million Americans do. Because of lobbyists and republican-representative government (which for the most part I happen to like, don't get me wrong), the vox populi takes second seat.

I submit that because of the existence value of the ANWR coastal plain, the negative externalities of drilling (degredation of the non-economic value of the plain and its inhabitants) cannot be offset by in-kind or other "payments" of any kind. (Or payoffs by 25 years "without Saudi Oil," which is a spin concept I and many others have deflated.)

Where housing and industrial developers are usually required to offset destruction of wetlands by creating new ones (which is itself hugely controversial because the quality of the "man-created" wetlands is often strikingly less), the oil companies or the complicit federal government agencies/Congresspeople who want drilling cannot "create" another ANWR.

That said, what about paying for the negative externalities of oil production and use in order to create more efficient outcomes? Emission taxes, regulatory fees, oil prices to some extent do this. These are beginnings. I'd like to find a comprehensive evaluation of all the negative externalities of oil production and use. Does anyone know of one?

By the way, I got the two definitions from an interesting site, The Environmental Valuation and Cost-Benefit Website.

20 Thoughts for Today

2005-04-06T13:25:00.001-06:00

1. It looks like the Bush Doctrine might just be working after all. Judging from the progress on the ground in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria (we’ll see), George W.’s move to knock the legs out from under totalitarianism might eclipse Reagan’s then-criticized push to yank down the Berlin Wall. I’m gonna wait 5 or 10 years before making a final call on this, though. The mullahs in Iran are still living high on the hog. Goodness knows Bush wants at ‘em. The question of every age: At what cost?

2. The irony of Peter Jennings’ lung cancer is that he quit smoking 20 years ago and has been an anti-tobacco advocate for years. This in the same week that a Harvard report showed that Massachusetts' restaurant-and-bar smoking ban has not hurt its economy. Some day I’ll write a wickedly blunt anti-smoking piece that will prove acerbic and divisive . . . and right.

By the way, the longtime-coming, Geritol-swaddled demise of the Big Three, 6:30-p.m. media conglomerates has just about concluded. Now if we can find a way to tell the stories without everyone turning into a pompous ass like O’Reilly. (Although I admit, entertains me. I actually agree with him once in a while, too. Then I remember Franken’s nicely-researched chapter on him and change the channel over to Animal Planet where no one has an opinion except Khaki Pants).

3. I’m tired of the Right ripping on the Mainstream Media, the MSM, the Liberal Media. I am the first to say that it is in dire need of some redirection and retooling. However, without the big media outlets, none of us would have anything to bitch about. As much as I respect (and often disagree with) the Powerline guys, would they have much to talk about if it weren’t for the White House Press Corp, the AP, UPI, CNN, and the rest? Nope.

4. More on the media. The Right (look for "The Pulitzer Prize for Felony Murder") has mounted an inquiry (read "indictment") of the AP using an Iraqi stringer-photographer who had tribal, neighborhood, or familial connections to the terrorists/insurgents in Baghdad. This guy was tipped off that a "demonstration" would happen, and ended up at the scene, photographing the terrorists shooting three election workers in the head in a busy street last December. Then the photo was one of 20 to win the Pulitzer Prize this week.

The Right says that this shows the AP’s complicity in the killings. I think there’s an issue here, no doubt. It’s one thing to hire Iraqis as freelancers because they know the streets and the people. It’s another to hire any journalist to do anything when he knows or has supportive relationships with his subjects.

A bigger issue has been raised, which I think is more important. It’s not new. The Vietnam War fostered the very same debate except with regard to NVA and Viet Cong militants. The question: Is shooting, then publishing, photos of terrorists shooting election workers "legitimizing" or otherwise "aiding" the enemy?

My simple answer: There is no doubt in my mind who the good guys are, and that they are engaged with evil people who do evil deeds like kill election workers. But even evil people have stories. Every person on the face of the Earth has a human story. A Conservative Evangelical friend told me yesterday (I paraphrase, with apologies if necessary): "They are pure evil. Their stories are not worth telling. All the AP is doing is fostering their cause."

I agree that they are evil. But their stories are absolutely worth telling. Because to understand the enemy is to defeat him. To understand the enemy is to make sure that his progeny do not rise from the same dung. To understand the enemy is to understand that "pure evil" emerges from complex real-life circumstances where human beings only see black, or whose idea of black and white is reversed, or are prevented from understanding what is right. Or worse, are prevented by threat of force or force itself from acting on what is right.

To prevent the pictures from being shot or shown is to prevent the world from knowing the truth. Journalism–ideally, and in its best light–is about telling the truth about our world, whether we like it or not.

Whether the stringer was a courageous countryman covering the horrors of his day-to-day existence or a propagandist/protaganist/militant-sympathizer in the pockets of both the terrorists and a naive or money-hungry AP is another question all together.

5. They are terrorists. And they are insurgents. We’ve been over this one.

6. Been reading the Bible a lot. I’m tired of humans interpreting everything for me. Everyone has their take. So I’ve asked God to just tell me what he thinks of all my good-deed-doing, loving-their-neighbor Jewish friends. For the two commandments that sum it all up are: a) Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind; and b) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

7. Faith is a pain in the butt for evidence men.

8. But evidence men are left with empty hands too.

9. I see God in my wife’s eyes and my daughter’s eyes. It’s no illusion or contraption of mind.

10. Will Bolton–if he gets the seat–gut the U.N. and make it an arm of U.S. unilateralism? Or just run it into the ground through U.S. influence? He did say that it would make no difference if 10 stories of the U.N. building suddenly disappeared. That’s a bold statement. I’m happy to admit that the U.N.’s leadership is questionable and its inclusion of states with abysmal human-rights records is downright problematic.

It is possible his bold voice–and Ned Flanders-looking face–will help fix it.

11. I’m no longer speculating whether Condi Rice is a lesbian. I’m now focused on her hair.

12. Chicago is a great city overlooked by lovers of great cities. So get on the bus!

13. I’m the most creative immediately before going to the bathroom.

14. That said, let me change the topic: There’s a Norwegian wolf hunt, too. And the Swedes are perturbed to say the least.

15. I hate job searches but love good jobs.

16. I like raisins. And I like bran. And raisin bran.

17. I wish I had an Amish friend.

18. My definition of discipline, something I admire in others and drill every day in myself: Doing something that is only hard because you have made it hard to do. That, of course, doesn’t get to the fact that your or my "making it hard to do" might mean putting on extra pounds over years, or developing mental roadblocks to self-understanding, or whatever. Still, if something is worth doing, it’ll present a challenge of one kind or another. Rise up and start.

19. I love my dog. And not just because he likes the way I take care of him. He’s got good spirit.

20. Speaking of good spirit, here’s this: When you’ve started something good, Maintain the Seed.

The Governor Weighs In

2005-03-31T20:26:00.000-07:00

For those of you who missed Powerline's link to this early this morning, Governor Murkowski had a guest spot as a columnist for the Seattle Times. He gave us his "honest look at the facts" surrounding ANWR drilling. It didn't surprise me to see that a lot of it consisted of opinions, rather than objectively verifiable data.

And while most of it consisted of obvious, overreaching, overgeneralized pro-drilling sentiments like, "wildlife in ANWR will continue to coexist with cautious oil and gas exploration" (no one doubts that; the question is how healthy and ecologically sound the populations will be), I actually found some good information that gets overlooked in the ANWR debate.

For instance, "Protecting the environment is a global issue, not just an Alaskan issue. Stopping the exploration of ANWR only shifts oil production to other parts of the world where environmental standards are lower." Good point about the NIMBY issue. But, oil production is already in other parts of the world where environmental standards are lower. No one's talking about cutting off Venezuelan oil imports, are they? And: "Some say ANWR will take at least seven years to begin production. That delay is because of the comprehensive environmental-impact study necessary to ensure that the environment is protected." OK. Good to know. Sounds about right.

Another: "We need an honest discussion of the facts and science regarding responsible ANWR oil production and its numerous benefits for America."

Righto. Fantastic. . . .

Umm. OK. But, wait a second.

An "honest discussion of the facts and science regarding responsible ANWR oil production" will actually have little or nothing to do with its "numerous benefits for America." Because if the discussion were actually "honest" and involved "facts" and "science," Americans and their legislators who are itching to drill would have to face reality and realize drilling in ANWR is a short-term, short-sighted, economic and politically costly so-called solution to a very complicated problem for which there is no silver bullet. So there really wouldn't be "numerous benefits for America."

Sadly, if the Governor and his pro-drilling comrades continue to allow the tail ("numerous benefits") to wag the dog ("facts" and "science"), ANWR will only be the first step toward casually sacrificing the innate value of pristine wilderness for short-term profits and band-aid psychological "security".

Check Out This ANWR Blog

2005-03-30T10:46:00.000-07:00

Here's the best, most reasonable and comprehensive ANWR blog I've seen:

http://anwrnews.blogspot.com.

Check it out. The journalist running this site has both his head and his heart in the right place. And, above all, he's a fact man.

Where Can I Get a Secret Service Lapel Pin?

2005-03-30T09:24:00.000-07:00

Three people were removed from President Bush's Social Security town hall meeting at the Denver Wings Over the Rockies Museum last week by a Republican staffer dressed like a Secret Service agent, complete with lapel pin and earpiece.

Astonishingly, the Rocky Mountain News, Denver's conservative branch of its two-paper newspaper company, has the story today.

The three are members of a group called Denver Progressives. The reason the staffer physically removed them from the speech even though they had legitimate tickets received from Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez's office: a "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker on the SAAB they drove to the museum. Read the story in their words here.

What's more disturbing: the removal by a clearly misguided staffer playing security professional, or the fact that despite legit credentials for attendance, they were removed because of a bumper sticker?

Now, to be fair, the Progressives also wore "Stop the Lies" T-shirts under their business attire. And they admit having considered baring the shirts at the meeting. But the shirts were not visible before or during their removal.

What if these three had been Quakers who legitimately supported Bush for his Pro-life stance and wanted to hear his take on Social Security, for example, but absolutely (like Pat Buchanan seems to lean nowadays) opposed and oppose the war in Iraq? Can't a pacifist Bush supporter display a bumper sticker opposing war?

More importantly, what if these three--as they say they did--really wanted to hear Bush speak about Social Security? Or, as one of them said, wanted to be in the presence of a President, out of awe. The tickets were real. There was zero indication these three would disrupt the talk.

So, where does that leave us? This Repub. staffer had just the bumper sticker to go on? O.K. That's troublesome for First Amendment reasons. But what if the organizers of the event had more information than that? Two of the three Progressives were flagged as they went in and told not to cause a commotion or they would be arrested. Why? Is there some kind of database? Are members of the "Denver Progressives" on a list on some agent's Blackberry? Denver is all too familiar with such "spy files".

It's True that Just about Everyone in Alaska Has a Gun Rack on His Car . . . or Bike

2005-03-28T14:48:00.001-07:00

Alaska: what a great state.

I mean it. I really enjoyed my time there and I'm going back in July. But that doesn't mean I don't think that Governor Murkowski--at least with regard to the natural environment--is nuts.

First, in an interview I saw on Real Time with Bill Maher, he said that he didn't know what amount of oil companies might find in ANWR or whether they would find any at all. Now, I know this to be true because I oppose drilling in ANWR, and one of the reasons is that the availability of oil is questionable. Even if it's there, it's very doubtful whether it exists in economically and politically justifiable amounts.

But he's the guy who's been pushing for oil drilling because it's so good for the country. Can't he at least pretend to be a little more sure of the presence of oil?

Luckily, perhaps, as althippo reports on March 28, 2005, oil companies have been feeling skittish about setting steel to earth on the coastal plain for fear of the legal consequences.

But just when that twinkle of good news--like a little pixie dust--settles on the worried bunch of us who care about humans' responsibilty for the Earth, I read this from Defenders of Wildlife:

The death toll from Alaska’s aerial wolf killing program has reached at least 210, with hundreds more scheduled for elimination by April 30th. Wolves are being shot directly from airplanes, or being chased to exhaustion by aerial gunning teams, who then land and shoot the wolves point blank.

Excuse me? Hold on. Let me clean this wax from my ear with a pencil eraser.

"Wolf-killing program"?

If DOW is to be believed:

The citizens of Alaska have twice voted in statewide measures (1996 and 2000) to ban the aerial killing of wolves. Nonetheless, Governor Murkowski signed a bill two years ago overturning the most recent ban.

"It’s deplorable that Governor Murkowski continues to back the extermination of wolves in key areas across the state even though his so-called predator control programs lack scientifically-based standards and guidelines to monitor the program," stated Karen Deatherage, Alaska Associate for Defenders of Wildlife. "Lower-48 and urban trophy hunters are clearly the only beneficiaries of the governor’s ill-advised policy."

Now, I don't know about you, but I understand deer-population culling through hunting. I grew up in Michigan where the white-tailed deer population is at least twice as large as the human population of the state. There were autumns where more dead and mutilated deer carcasses lined highways than stood motionless in every other backyard or along the side of the road, eyes fixed on me, as I rode by on my bike.

One had to wear orange whenever leaving the house, it seemed.

That said, I've never heard of such an aggressive campaign to kill predators, especially ones that are endangered in the lower 48. (Yellowstone visitors salivate over the chance for a fleeting glimpse of a wolf in the Lamar Valley.) And I'm floored by the audacity with which so-called "hunters" are downing these incredible animals. From planes. By exhausting them until they can't run away. I'd link you to the video I watched, but I don't want to make the reader as sick to their stomachs as I was.

I'm ambivalent about most hunting practices. I'm a fisherman--mostly I fly and spin-fish for trout, and I'm intense about it--and about 95% of the time I practice catch-and-release. When I keep the fish, I kill them and eat them and share the goods with friends, cold beers in hand. The hunters I know are good, solid people. Most of them are environmentalists, too. Makes sense.

Killing wolves from planes has nothing to do with hunting or fishing or anything else that I'd remotely consider "sporting." It's slaugher for trophy mounts. But no, the Alaskan government says, it's to increase the moose population.

Aside from the obvious fact that Alaska profits from the licenses purchased by aerial wolf-snipers and the Alaskan economy benefits from their plane rentals, accomodations, and other purchases, my question is: how did the moose population get so out of balance? Hmmm. Did it have anything to do with . . . humans not paying attention to the ecosystem?

To top it off, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game makes this self-contradictory statement:

When the Board determines that people need more moose and/or caribou in a particular area, and restrictions on hunting aren't enough to allow prey populations to increase, predator control programs may be needed. . . .
[Then the next sentence:] Wolf hunting and trapping rarely reduces wolf numbers enough to increase prey numbers or harvests.

Huh? Is that a typo or a brain fart, or, did I just read--in support of wolf hunting--"[w]olf hunting . . . rarely reduces wolf numbers enough to increase prey numbers or harvests." Isn't that the point? Did the person who composed this public-relations piece accidentally include a bit from some objective science report on the effects of the program? What is this?

Those idiots in the Piper Cub flying slowly over panicked gray wolves running for their lives below might as well be shooting family dogs. Of course, it's even worse. Because if they shot my dog, I'd sue them. After my wife and my friends restrained the instinctual me from beating their heads in with a pipe wrench.

I guess that wouldn't be humane.

Don't watch the video.

A Song About Humanity

2005-03-25T16:42:00.000-07:00

The Boxer, Paul Simon, 1968

I am just a poor boy,
Though my story’s seldom told,
I have squandered my resistance
For a pocketful of mumbles,
Such are promises.
All lies and jest.
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.

When I left my home
And my family,
I was no more than a boy
in the company of strangers,
in the quiet of a railway station,
Running scared.
Laying low,
Seeking out the poorer quarters
Where the ragged people go.
Looking for the places
Only they would know.
Lie-la-lie . . .

Asking only workman’s wages
I come looking for a job,
But I get no offers.
Just a come-on from the whores
On Seventh Avenue.
I do declare,
There were times
when I was so lonesome
I took some comfort there.
Lie-la-lie . . .

Then I’m laying out my winter clothes
And wishing I was gone,
Going home.
Where the New York City winters
Aren’t bleeding me,
Leading me,
Going home.

In the clearing stands a boxer,
And a fighter by his trade
And he carries the remainders
Of ev’ry glove that laid him down
And cut him till he cried out
In his anger and his shame,
“I am leaving, I am leaving”
But the fighter still remains.
Lie-la-lie . . .

---

Something about cold, raining afternoons wherever I might be, whenever the time, whatever the age. The humanity of it. The up and the down. This always grabs me.

Is Cheney an Omelette Man? Does W Like 'Em Fried?

2005-03-25T13:00:00.000-07:00

Since it is Good Friday and Easter is approaching, today is a good time to talk about Christ. But I'm tired of talking about big, important topics. At least for today. Go to AJM's site if you'd like two posts (1, 2) on Christ's suffering and Easter.

If you stay here, you get this instead--and this might be more palatable to you folks out there who are more private about their faith or don't profess to adhere to any particular brand of faith but like rabbits.

I want to talk about the White House Easter Eggs. Notice I capitalized "Easter Eggs". Evidently, since 1994, the White House has graciously accepted and displayed, with the coordinating assistance of the American Egg Council, a 50-states Easter-egg collection. Every year a new set of 50 is sent to the White House. You can find this year's here.

My question is what happens to the eggs after Easter. My mother once kept a red Easter egg in one of the specialized egg-cup stations in our refrigerator door. For 8 years. I counted.

I picked it up once in awhile and shook it. As the years went by, it started to rattle.

Finally, in high school, when my mother was away and my friend and I were feeling especially daring, I cracked it open. Inside, I found that the entire contents of the egg--yolk and albumin--had collapsed into an incredibly hard, small, black-yellow sphere.

So my friend and played with it for awhile. Rolled it around. Threw it. Scratched it with a knife. Then got bored and tossed it in the trash.

So what happens to the White House Eggs? Shall we assume that each one from years past (at least the ones that aren't hollowed out in the artistic process) has a solid core bobbling around? Or, are the fresh ones eaten on Mondays that follow Easter by hungry staffers? Are any of them fresh after such artistic application? Or, are they preserved like Han Solo in perpetuity in a special closet off the hallway to the Situation Room?

I can see W with fried-egg sunny-side-up yolk running down his chin. Cheney must eat Egg Beaters, though, right? The heart thing and all that.

More on Being Reasonable

2005-03-24T14:10:00.000-07:00

I write this as a response to a thoughtful comment on althippo. Bill Coughlan wrote (and I paraphrase, hopefully with accuracy) that it was tough for him to be patient and reasonable and anything but "negative" when so much invective, "intolerant" Right-wing rhetoric is out there, in blogs, in the media, and in the culture.

(As an aside, I think there's as much trash talk on the liberal side, at least in blogland.)

He paraphrased Andrew Sullivan on Real Time with Bill Maher saying that one cannot convert red-staters by calling them morons. I remember Sullivan on Real Time. He made a number of good points that night, especially that one.

But I think it's less about "converting" than finding common ground and mutual respect. That's where convincing other people that your ideas have merit starts. With listening to them. Listening honestly and being open to what they're saying. And you might find out that their ideas have merit.

I think it's fair to say that if there are problems with the government, culture, whatever, then what may be perceived as "negative" responses to those problems are really--or at least should be--catches, "gotchas," or otherwise constructively forceful watchdog comments. In that way they are positive, not negative.

The negativity comes from the folks who see everything in black-and-white and are too insecure to leave their comfortable fraternities and hornet nests full of "commentators" (If you can actually call them that. It seems like more often they are more concerned with putting down anyone who doesn't sound as clever as they do), cynics, and group-thinkers.

Those people *do* consider all Bush supporters "evil," or all liberals "evil," and if you disagree, then you are "troll," too. (I was called a member of the "left-of-center fascist thought police" this morning by someone with too much time on his hands and not enough ideas. All for trying to intelligently make the point I'm making here.)

Well, I'll have none of it.

One of my good friends, AJM, is a Conservative Evangelical Orthodox Christian Republican. In months of in-depth, strip-down-all-the-assumptions conversations we realized we had a lot in common other than hair color. The main thing is that we both care more about Truth than anything else when it comes to Big Issues/politics. It takes work to find common ground. Though he and I don't agree on everything, we have a great amount of respect for each other. And, frankly, I've learned a heck of a lot about "Evangelicals" and Republicans that is NOTHING like many of the "liberal" portrayals of them out there.

So, I'm not seeing things in terms of red or blue. Just what makes sense. If we can start from there, we can be a whole lot more constructive.

Bill mentioned his disdain for those who he called "willfully ignorant." Here's my take on them. Have mercy on them. Consider them lost and try to help them find their way. Try to educate and listen and be patient.

That is, until they keep talking trash and their intractability makes you so nuts that you have to beat them down intellectually. Then just run circles around them until you can't stand it anymore.

I know it sounds harsh. But anyone who offers their opinions without any support, ignores evidence, brushes aside good logic and reason, adheres to zero social graces, and expects less than that shouldn't have opened his mouth anyway.

And the "willfully ignorant" don't exist only in one political party either. They're everywhere. Red, blue, and purple.

Give Me Something Real

2005-03-23T10:34:00.000-07:00

Today, althippo "rounded up" some left-of-center blogs, and made some comments.

I especially like this comment, which is dead-on:

"There's an old saying: avoid negative people. That goes for bloggers, too, both left and right. What I'm saying is that this may be a good time to ask yourself whether your message is entirely negative (Bush is evil, Delay is corrupt, Cheney is Quasimodo's sadistic twin brother, etc.) without a redemptive positive message. 'Nuf said."

Although I tend to be left-of-center by some degree politically, it's totally issue-specific for me. I have Democratic-leaning friends and Republican-leaning friends. When I brush away the political detritus, I'm left with one thing: people whose opinions I respect, and people whose opinions I don't respect. And "a redemptive positive message" goes a long way.

The easiest way to lose the respect of others is to hitch yourself to someone else's star and ride the party line without questioning the basic assumptions on which you stand. It's especially bad when all you have to offer is the same worn-out, flimsy critiques, caricutures, and straw-man arguments.

Give me something substantial, bereft of pure political color, and worth contemplating seriously.

I always try to question my basic assumptions, because doing so strengthens the foundations for my arguments. Analyzing one's basic assumptions can lead to incredibly powerful insights and new perspectives on what is true versus what "sounds good".

More "Lefty" bloggers could stand to exercise a little more discipline and rethink their rationales. The same goes for many bloggers from the Right, no doubt.

USGS and ANWR

2005-03-23T08:23:00.000-07:00

As readers of The Accipiter know, I have often quoted or otherwise referred to the alternative hippopotamus, whose comprehensive take on ANWR is inspired and, I think, crucial to the issue. He also lends his cyber-pen to a number of other topics worth discussing. So read him if you get a chance. He's done me the favor of posting a link to The Accipiter from his new stand-alone page, and I appreciate it.

More on ANWR, now that votes have been cast.

Althippo cites to a 2002 USGS report:

On March 29 [2002], the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press reported that a 75-page report released by the U.S. Geological Survey "concludes significant harm could result from drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” According to the report, caribou and other wildlife are vulnerable and may face substantial risk if oil is developed.

Althippo then asks whether "the Bush administration put pressure on the USGS to suppress their findings[.] Let's just say that a) the USGS could have weighed in on the issue when it first came up in 2001, but chose not to, and b) the finding certainly undercuts the Bush argument that drilling will have minimal impact."

Having some familiarity with the USGS myself, I decided to go to their website and find ANWR research that's been publicized. There's a lot of it. And, to me, it looks like a lot of good, objective science.

A 2002 report, which, because of its length and comprehensive nature suggests it is the one cited, states: "Petroleum development will most likely result in restricting the location of concentrated calving areas, calving sites, and annual calving grounds [of the Porcupine caribou herd]. Expected effects that could be observed include reduced survival of calves during June, reduced weight and condition of parturient females and reduced weight of calves in late June, and, potentially, reduced weight and reduced probability of conception for parturient females in the fall."

It continues:

"In summary, 4 research-based ecological arguments indicate that the Porcupine caribou herd may be particularly sensitive to development within the 1002 portion of the calving ground: . . .
[1] Low productivity of the Porcupine caribou herd; [2] Demonstrated shift of concentrated calving areas of the Central Arctic caribou herd away from petroluem development infrastructures; [3] Lack of high-quality alternate calving habitat; and [4] Strong link between calf survival and free movement of females."

This is from "Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries Section 3: The Porcupine Caribou Herd - Part 5," Biological Science ReportUSGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0001, found at http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section3part5.htm.

Interesting, and supportive of the The Wall Street Journal's and the AP's take.

This summary of the history of USGS' ANWR work, found in the report, is more important, however. I quote it in full:

In 1980, when the U.S. Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), it also mandated a study of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Section 1002 of ANILCA stated that a comprehensive inventory of fish and wildlife resources would be conducted on 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain (1002 Area). Potential petroleum reserves in the 1002 Area were also to be evaluated from surface geological studies and seismic exploration surveys. Results of these studies and recommendations for future management of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain were to be prepared in a report to Congress.

In 1987, the Department of Interior published the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, Coastal Plain Resource Assessment - Report and Recommendation to the Congress of the United States and Final Environmental Impact Statement. This report to Congress identified the potential for oil and gas production (updated most recently by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2001), described the biological resources, and evaluated the potential adverse effects to fish and wildlife resources.

The 1987 report analyzed the potential environmental consequences of five management alternatives for the coastal plain, ranging from wilderness designation to opening the entire area to lease for oil and gas development. The report’s summary recommended opening the 1002 Area to an orderly oil and gas leasing program, but cautioned that adverse effects to some wildlife populations were possible.

Congress did not act on this recommendation nor any other alternative for the 1002 Area, and scientists continued studies of key wildlife species and habitats on the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge and surrounding areas. This report contains updated summaries of those scientific investigations of caribou, muskoxen, predators (grizzly bears, wolves, golden eagles), polar bears, snow geese, and their wildlife habitats.

If this is to be believed--and I think we're safe believing it--the Bush Administration has always known or should have known of the potential adverse effects on the Porcupine herd that drilling would have. In fact, West Wingers from the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton Administrations should have known as well.

The question is not, then, about whether Bush knew, or put pressure on the USGS to suppress their findings. I suspect their findings--incrementally, as research has been finalized--have always been publically available.

It seems to me that the Bush Administration knew and has always known of the potential negative impacts, and either chose to consider them as "minimal," or ignore them all together. The question is whether the impacts will be "minimal". That's a subjective point, I suppose. Sadly so.

From what I read in the report, I would characterize the impacts on caribou of the Porcupine herd (which, as althippo pointed out, are on the Endangered Species List) as much more than minimal.

The point: The Bush Administration wants ANWR open to exploratory drilling. End of story. All the chatter about directional drilling and other "good" things (while it has its merits) is window dressing and palate cleansing.

I don't doubt for a minute that drilling in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, . . . is less harmful to the environment than it was in 1975, when Prudhoe Bay was rocking and rolling. But the ethics underlying the rhetoric have always been questionable. I do not doubt for a minute that what the Bush Administration has characterized as "good news" about ANWR all along has been about politics and money, not wildlife or "safer technology."

By the way--and this is getting off topic a bit--which agency will ultimately oversee drilling in ANWR? Interior by the USGS or Interior by the Fish and Wildlife Service? Maybe Homeland Security can do it!

I joke. (I think. (?))

Perhaps there is some kind of hybrid approach being contemplated. Does anyone know? Since these are executive agencies, obviously whether a pro- or anti-Wildlife Refuge administration is in power as of 2008 is key.

Orange and Green

2005-03-17T09:34:00.000-07:00

Whether you're wearing Catholic green or protestant orange, today is St. Patrick's day. St. Patrick brought Christianity to Ireland after having been imprisoned by Druids and, as the tale goes, drawing strength as a crusader from his imprisonment. He probably didn't chase any snakes away because they weren't there in the first place, and probably died on March 17.

For those of us with Irish blood like myself, the day has some meaning. For me it's a chance to focus a little bit of my energy on the Emerlad Isle, or Eire, its Irish Gaelic name. The continuing struggles in Northern Ireland and whether Sinn Fein will ever divorce itself from the politically undermining forces of the I.R.A. aside, Ireland is more important to America than we allow.

First, I've been there. It's gorgeous. Often misty and dew-draped. Richly and brightly green. Just like I thought it be. Its forests burst with ferns and dripping foliage. Its rolling meadows with stacked-boulder frences are roamed by scraggly-haired horses and bold sheep branded with colored spray paint. Its people are the most welcoming I've ever met: warm as if my wife and I were neighbors; honest as if we were family; blunt as if we were pubmates (which we often were). I was enlivened by the Irish human spirit, singular in its humility and its raw grace. Americans, ancestorally Irish or not, can learn from this.

Second, while politics and the attendant incidents of violence color Ireland's religious heritage, its heritage should not be overlooked for what it is: openly accepted and acknowledged, and still vital in contemporary society.

Americans by-and-large seem to have forgotten or perhaps miscategorized the religious heritage of this country.

In Ireland, it seems that everyone talks openly about God. Every other person I met was either paying tribute to God for a perceived blessing or asking God for assistance, out loud, as part of regular conversation. For instance, one might say, "We'll be lookin' to th' West for a break in th' clouds, God 'elp us." Or, "God's will, Shelby'll gettin' inta th' advanced Irish class."

(That said, I also heard the F-word spoken so often in regular conversation--by men, women, and children--that I was amazed. And amused. I was refreshed, actually, because they don't treat that word--which I suggest is free of any blasphemous or otherwise heretical connotations--with kid gloves like we do.)

I am convinced that invoking God is not just tradition in Ireland. The Irish, by-and-large, realize (as in "have made real") their religious heritage and live with that knowledge.

I wish Americans of all stripes were more comfortable with the idea of religion, took their religious heritage more seriously, and considered more carefully what the founding fathers were after when they considered "religious freedom," the Bill of Rights, and their visions of America. Everyone--whether faithful or skeptical or atheist--would better inform the political and legal debates in this country if they were intellectually honest about America's religious heritage.

Third, and finally, the Irish demonstrate why being funny and telling great stories is so important. They love life. Yeah, yeah, there's a lot of gloom and blues in those great Irish tales, but the vigor for life, the yearning for life, the passion for life, pours out of them. We should remember this and take the time to sit, drink, eat, and talk. Tell stories. And laugh more together.

There's a lot more to be said, I know.

For now, Síochán leat. Peace be with you.

Dirty Thumbs

2005-03-16T16:38:00.000-07:00

Because I'm so entirely annoyed right now about the ANWR decision, I've decided to lighten up this place with an observation I made back in December that deserves posting here:

I wash my hands every day. In fact, I wash them about 5 times a day. I don't do this because I'm obsessive-compulsive, although perhaps I act that way when I eat M&Ms only in even numbers. I do it because I don't want to get sick. And, as an added bonus, I'm soothed by the warm water.

I most often wash upon returning from errands at lunch. I come back from the downtown TJ Maxx feeling like I should sanitize.

Despite my disciplined washing, I often forget my thumbs. When I realize they've been neglected, I hop to it.

Now I want you to think about the last time you washed your thumbs. Not "washed" as in "happened to glance them with a whispering of water and soap intended for fingers pointer through pinky." I mean, grabbing that big, curved, wider-than-thou sucker and scrubbing the daylights out of it. Unless you're a surgeon or a person who hitchhikes in gale-force winds near a sewage pond, I bet you haven't washed them purposely EVER. Am I right?

OK, maybe you did once in the mid-nineties after you painted your living room. But, since then?

Our thumbs are opposable for a reason. For every use of the hand, the thumb is usually participating. For every finger task, the thumb at least provides backup, and at most is an equal partner in the endeavor. So it gathers bacteria and sludge from around the way. And it needs to be cleaned before it heads back to work.

I say all this assuming the people who read it already wash their hands. If you don't, please start. I'd rather not hack up Rhode Island-sized lugers because I happened to walk into a coffee shop behind you after you pawed the door open with your personal five-digited germtopia.

And for all you people who sneeze INTO your hands, instead of into the corner of your arm or a Kleenex: 1) thanks for not exploding into the airspace but: 2) make sure you wash twice. And scrub up your arms a bit, too, eh?

A Sad Day for Northern Alaska and the Rest of Us

2005-03-16T16:23:00.000-07:00

The Senate voted 51-49 to leave the ANWR drilling proposal in the budget, thereby taking it out of filibuster range and guaranteeing exploratory drilling.

It's a sad day for the flora and fauna of the North Slope and a sad day for the country.

I am convinced, without a shred of doubt, that marring this beautiful wilderness will in no way justify the few barrels of oil that might come out of any commercial operation that eventually is established. And, what seems to have been ignored is that . . .

ANWR IS A WILDLIFE REFUGE.

Shame on the Senate.

And the most shame on those who only see the world in dollars and cents. They ruin it for the rest of us who understand the value of nature for nature's sake.

I'm barely keeping all of my multi-syllabic cuss-word phrases to myself.

---

Here's what althippo said. The scariest thing about it is the truth it holds:

"Years from now, in an advanced civilization in a country that may not even exist right now, someone will give a lecture to a rapt and incredulous audience. At some point the lights will be dimmed and the slide show will start.

The first slide will perhaps will be from the Banerjee exhibit, the one that that was nixed at the Smithsonian last year.

'This was Alaska,' begins the lecturer. 'In the early 21st century, the leadership of the United States, one of the wealthiest and more powerful nations in the world became so drunk with greed and hubris that they destroyed a wildlife refuge. And this is what it looks like now.'

When the next slide is shown the audience gasps. One begins to wail.

The lecturer continues: 'I'm sorry if this disturbs you. It disturbs me as well. This is what greed looks like. This is what hate looks like. Never doubt that there are real living people who want to destroy the earth. Doubly so if they can profit from it. And if they ever happen to come to power, this will be the result.'"

---

It's Always Fried Chicken

2005-03-16T13:11:00.000-07:00

Jimmy Ray Slaughter, 57, was injected with a lethal dose of chemicals today in an Oklahoma prison. He was convicted of killing his girlfriend and their 11-month-old daughter in 1991. He proclaimed his innocence as he died.

This sounds like a post about the death penalty, I know. But it's not. Although I have ethical concerns about the death penalty that I might discuss in another post, this post is about something else: food.

CNN posted the story about this execution today and ended it with this sentence: "For his final meal, he requested fried chicken, mashed potatoes, cole slaw, biscuits, apple pie and cherry limeade."

What does it say about America that this it is what the reader is left with at the end of a story about a convicted killer himself killed by the state?

(And cherry limeade? What was he thinking? Not to mention that every story like this seems to mention the last meal, which, not by any coincidence I'm sure, includes fried chicken.)

Is this some kind of "reality TV" moment gone bad? We need to know all the sweaty details? Or are we so obsessed with what we eat and why and who eats something else and why and why a dying man would choose fried chicken that this is somehow important?

Is this just fluff--a little light reading, a quaint aside to make us feel somewhat connected as humans to this story--to help us leave the story on a good note? Or is there something insiduous and more cosmic about the "big choice," the last meal, the fried chicken?

Or am I just hungry?

The Teddy Roosevelt Ethic

2005-03-16T09:45:00.000-07:00

Today, althippo writes in a comment to his latest ANWR piece describing the very few Republican votes needed to remove the issue from the budget:

"There's a lot of sensible people that should be opposing this.

With all the space that Marshall Wittman takes up opposing the lefty agenda, I don't understand why he doesn't use a single sentence to evoke Teddy Roosevelt's belief in preserving the national landscape.

More generally, do Republicans want to surrender their duty to protect the environment?

While I try to understand various positions on a controversial issue, this one really baffles me."

The problem is that numerous Republicans do not consider protecting the environment a duty.

If they did--if this were some kind of conviction for them--they would not allow themselves to be senselessly vulnerable to the few remaining interest-holders who promote more drilling on the coastal plain.

And, I suspect, those Republicans who do consider protecting the environment a "duty" are the ones who actually go outside. Who hunt, fish, hike, kayak, mountain bike, camp, run, whatever.

There's the famous anecdote about T.R. leaping off his galloping horse into his pack of dogs that had swarmed upon a flushed mountain lion. T.R. scatters the hounds, then wrestles the cougar to the ground and kills him with his hunting knife.

Republicans need not be so hard-core to understand the importance of the ANWR issue. They need only spend some time with their children in a park or at a campsite and absorb the wonders of nature through their eyes.

Do These Genes Fit?

2005-03-15T11:21:00.000-07:00

Today, AJM writes about "chimeric experimentation" and God's disdain with humans using their brains to create mouse-human hybrids that AJM calls "moumans." AJM writes: "Humans are not like other animals. God gave us dominion over His creation. We have used that dominion, in the fullness of time, to obtain mastery of the genome . . . and to conduct chimeric experimentation."

As an aside, I'm not going to confront AJM about humans' "dominion" over everything else. Some Christians (and others, I suppose) have over centuries interpreted that to mean that humans should manipulate Nature to every conceivable end, needlessly consuming everything and eventually destroying the planet. But I know that AJM believes God entrusts us with the responsibility to care for the Earth as we receive its bounties.

That said, I don't know much about this phenomenon called chimeric experimentation. I don't know its contours or its history, but I certainly understand the implications for bioethicists and theologists alike. What should we do with these big brains and opposable thumbs? It's an age-old dilemma: science fiction writers of the early Twentieth Century imagined the creation of half-breed humans/monsters (not to mention humans/machines) and Greek mythologists evisioned clove-hoofed minotaurs.

But those folks didn't know about the universal interchangeability of genetic material. Now we do. Human DNA works perfectly with mouse DNA. DNA is DNA. RNA is RNA. It's species-non-specific. (A question is why God would give us such malleable stuff in the first place. What do the Creationists think? As opposed to those of us who are theistic evolutionists or pure, naturalistic evolutionists? While we may not be "like other animals" in some ways, we certainly and remarkably share in most ways our biology.)

Harvard researchers in the early 1980s inserted human oncogenes into mice chromosomes, thereby producing human cancer in mice so they could test drugs on the animals. Did medical ethicists and others shiver, looking down the long road at whose threshold they then stood? Sure. With good reason.

AJM's point that our ability should not drive our activity is oft-repeated and true. And I speculate that it's well-accepted in the medical sciences. Indeed, breast cancer, Parkinson's disease, and ALS research; vaccine development; basic microbiology: all depend in some ways on genetic research and genetic engineering. This is genetic manipulation that is, by-and-large, well-accepted. The benefits are clear.

I note that the debate looms over stem cells because it is intertwined with the abortion debate. That is understandable, regardless of which side you're on. I leave that for another day.

I'm not sure what to make of the "chimeric experimentalists," as much as they're made out to be devils incarnate, playing God. While the benefits of human brain tissue growing in mice might not be evident, are they possible? What if such research eventually resulted in a cure for Alzheimer's? AJM suggests it doesn't matter, for somewhere these folks have crossed a line. And, in a science-fiction leap rare at Dojustly, he goes Sci-fi on us, envisioning mice-human hybrids as scientists themselves, experimenting on us! I can see it in black-and-white on the big screen in a smoke-filled cinema in 1952, the audience, mouths agape, wearing 3-D glasses.

But where is that line? Doctors have inserted pig's hearts into transplant patients (to little avail) and regularly attach artificial limbs, including working artificial hands (to much success). Have these techniques crossed a line? What about organ transplant from human to human? What about infusing an Ebola victim with an Ebola survivor's blood--full of antibodies? What about something as simple as giving antibiotics to a sick child? The list goes on and on.

When are we being human, taking care of other humans? And when are we "playing God"? All of it involves manipulating our natural environment and manipulating other organisms.

I understand that one question is where our manipulation of DNA and chromosomes crosses a line.

But another--far more important--question is at what point we should or should not use our considerable brain-power to prevent otherwise natural and often fatal consequences of our souls' existence in purely biological vehicles.

Where is the line?

Iranian Protesters Dissed by the Mainstream Media

2005-03-11T14:16:00.000-07:00

I was a mainstream journalist for awhile, and I typically try to defend the Mainstream Media (as it's been well dubbed). But I can't come close to defending this.

Yesterday and into the wee hours of this morning, 56 Iranian dissidents hunkered down on a Lufthansa A320 that had arrived from Frankfurt in Brussels, Belgium. They refused to deplane until the United States and other western nations signed a pledge not to help Iran's "Islamic regime of mullahs."

The dissidents have since been hauled off the plane by 90 Belgian security officers, and Lufthansa is considering suing them for fouling up its departure/arrival schedule.

I didn't get this from CNN or the New York Times or the AP. Not even (gasp!) Fox News carried it. I got it from a friend's wife who happens to be on an Iranian dissident group's email list. Then I Googled and found the Edmonton, Ontario paper carried it and the Malaysia Star carried it. That's it! What the hell is going on here?

Is this story not important? You bet it is! And for any number of reasons: recent news on Iran and its nuke programs; the U.S.'s political approach to Iran as a terror threat; the E.U. and its maturing economic and political stature; Belgium's and Lufthana's actions.

Not to mention the cause of freedom and democracy in the face of tyranny.

Who is running the news rooms? Is anybody awake? Is anybody home? Don't make me speculate that there's some kind of political reason for this. Don't do it! Don't get crazy on me!

HELLO!!!!

UPDATE: I did find the story on CNN's international website, but not their U.S.-based CNN.com site. My complaint holds.

UPDATE #2: I found it by searching through CNN's U.S. site, going to "World," then "Europe News." It's the same story its international website carried.

I'm still annoyed. This is clearly not a story that the United States media cares about. It is being treated as incidental, and that's unacceptable in the current international political climate.

A Backdoor Maneuver

2005-03-11T10:38:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: I'm not the only one freaked out about this. See althippo for the most comprehensive and convincing look at the ANWR issue that I've found.

---

The Senate Budget Committee yesterday voted to keep language in the $2.56 trillion budget to make sure Senate Democrats cannot filibuster legislation allowing drilling in ANWR. Sen. Russell Feingold, who opposed the lanuage, said boot-strapping the highly devisive ANWR issue onto the budget was "a backdoor maneuver." I agree.

It feels just like a pork-barrel project pinned to a completely unrelated, legitimate piece of legislation. Despite the 12-10 vote, it smells like a midnight rider.

Clearly, whether to drill in ANWR is controversial. But why make it more controversial by using questionable procedural techniques to limit normal debate on the Senate floor? I know that there has been debate about filibustering itself and whether filibustering rules should be changed. But that's another issue altogether.

As it stands, if the proposal to open up ANWR is so controversial that it might cause the Democrats to filibuster it, why would Republicans want to undermine what they obviously believe are the merits of their case by procedurally ham-stringing their opponents? If it passes now and the Dems can make the case that the "backdoor maneuver" made the playing field unfair, honest debate and sober convictions will take second seat to politics, dishonesty, and trickery.

Where does that leave the ANWR debate? Tainted. Where does that leave the American public? Disgusted.

Such a technique begs the question whether the proposal is sound enough to pass at all, regardless of one's political or ethical motivations. If you have to change the rules mid-game, you must be pretty desperate.

"No Amount of Make-believe Can Help This Heart of Mine"

2005-03-09T15:59:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Check out the ANWR posts at althippo. Pretty insightful stuff.

---

Today, Bush pushed Congress to pass his energy bill, which has been stalled since the beginning of his first term. The hangup, of course, is ANWR.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

According to CNN, Bush said, "[d]eveloping a small section of ANWR would not only create thousands of new jobs, but it would eventually reduce our dependence on foreign oil by up to 1 million barrels of oil a day." The American Petroleum Institute agrees, saying the refuge sits on enough oil to replace U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia for two decades.

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups say hogwash, that the number is off-the-charts exaggerated. They argue that oil reserves beneath the refuge's coastal plain would last less than a year -- and expose the refuge to oil exploration that would irreparably damage it.

As appeasement, Bush said oil exploration can be limited to a 2,000-acre site -- "the size of the Columbus [Ohio] airport" -- and could be done "with almost no impact on land or local wildlife."

I'm not gonna argue about the impact on land or local wildlife. Having worked in a tundra research lab where we studied the impacts from Prudhoe Bay, I know the impacts are real, long-lasting, and damaging.

I'm passionate about the environment. I studied environmental science and policy in college and graduate school. I've advocated for environmental protection as a lawyer. As an attorney I've also helped defend the U.S. government's environmental-policy agencies from environmental groups. I've seen both sides.

And I love playing and working outside, thinking about being outside, and contemplating all the wonders offered by the earth and its plant and animal inhabitants.

I'm also passionate about finding ways to convince others that "the environment" (an overly generalized term, but it connotes enough meaning for this post) is worth preserving, and natural resources are worth conserving. I leave no option off the table in this endeavor. I welcome all ideas. Social incentives, religious incentives, cultural incentives of other kinds. Economic incentives are potentially the most ethically challenging, but I welcome them most because they work.

Having read this so far, the reader knows where I stand on ANWR. I think opening it to exploration and oil development is ridiculous. But let me reframe the question. Because I don't want you to take my word for it.

Let's say the oil industry is right, and that ANWR could produce enough crude to "replace" our dependence on Saudi Oil for two decades.

First, two decades is an incredibly short time period. My understanding is that estimates show fully alternative-fueled vehicles--if they do at all--will not replace gasoline-fueled combustion engines for at least twenty years, and more like 50 years or more. So where do we get the oil we need beyond the 20 years? I'm not counting fuel oil. And the conversation never seems to include our reliance on other countries' oil, like Venezuela's.

Second, the United States' relationship with Saudi Arabia insists that we purchase their oil and they contribute to stability in the Middle East. If it weren't for Saudi oil, I have no doubt that Saudi Arabia, which already tends in many ways toward de facto recognition of radical Islam and anti-Americanism (think of their support for Egypt in the war against Isreal) would tilt the power balance in the Middle East (even further) away from pro-American interests.

Third, consider this (typical NIMBY) analogy. You own fifteen acres. Your home sits on an eighth of an acre. The rest is wild, beautiful forest. You love it. You spend your free time galavanting in its bounty. You searched high and low for this and you will never move. You also know an oil reserve sits under your land. You know that you could make a million dollars--money beyond your wildest dreams of money--if you sold the rights to that oil and let an oil company suck it up and sell it. However, you also know that there are no other 15-acre lots with wild forest on them. None. And the only lots with forest are not wild. They are used, full of old tires, dead campfires, the shells of cars, the trees are second-growth, rutty dirt roads rip through the heart of them. You get the picture. You wouldn't sell. You are happy with your good fortune and money couldn't change that.

Now add to the analogy. You're one-hundred million dollars in debt because you invested in a bad deal. You could sell the oil, make the million, and pay down a tiny bit of the interest on your debt. But it would barely make a dent. And your beautiful forest would never be the same. So you don't do it. And you try to find a way out of the deal.

We're in deep with fossil fuels. I'm not gonna complain about it because I drive a car, heat my house with natural gas, and own a billion plastic items made from petroleum derivatives. But the cost-benefit analysis doesn't play out in favor of wasting wild lands for one free foot forward in the first mile of the marathon that is reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

The point is, American citizens own ANWR. It's certainly not forest. I spent a month on the North Slope of Alaska and the closest thing you get to a tree is either a tall bush or a female barren-ground grizzly standing on her hind legs looking at you over the tall bush (which happened to me). But it is incredible, and wild, and virtually untouched.

Sure, there's Prudhoe Bay and its assemblage of oil-industry metal, the National Petroleum Reserve, Atkasuk, and Ivotuk and other native villages and camps, and there are scientists. But east of there, there's nothing but rolling tundra, rich with plant and animal life. It's alive. It's wild. And it's untouched. And ANWR is greater in area than most western states. It's a jewel. Whether you think it's God-given or just there, it's a jewel.

So we shouldn't drill there. 20 years. 50 years. 200 years. No time divorced from Saudi oil is good enough. Because once the drilling starts, ANWR is no longer a jewel. It's a jewel with a chip in it. And that's not good enough. Because no amount of make-believe will make it a whole jewel again.

Fourth, (and this is perhaps the most minor point but also the most politically-frought one) we've fought and are fighting enough wars in the Middle East. Why give up what we've arguably been--at least in part--fighting for: oil coupled with stability.

I'm not going to argue the merits, whether the wars "should have" or "should not have" been fought, or whether we "should be" in Iraq. I think there are good reasons to be there now that we are there. But I have no doubt that if we didn't care so much about Saudi oil and Saudi Arabia as a power broker, we would think longer and harder about putting boots on the ground in the Middle East.

(I realize there's the Saudi price-control issue, the Isreali issue, the spreading-freedom-and-democracy issue, and the anti-terrorism issue; all valid points that I am not minimalizing here, but don't have time to touch.)

In sum: Congress, please, leave the refuge alone.

---

"No amount of make-believe can help this heart of mine." Dreamworld, Midnight Oil.

For All the Talented, Over-achieving, Alcoholic, Crack-addict Men Out There

2005-03-08T13:43:00.000-07:00

UPDATE #3 3/9/05. I answered Lizzie McGuire's question below as a comment. Also, I jumped into the fray over at Brayton's site (see update #2, below).

UPDATE #2 3/9/05: See Ed Brayton's blog "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" and this conversation (look at AJM's comments, too) between AJM and the author of that blogsite. I'm tempted to jump in.

UPDATE 3/9/05: See AJM's comments today for his intellectual/Evangelical/orthodox take on sin. I'm somewhat satisfied. I'll either post further ponderings at some point or send the remainder in a note in a bottle out to sea.

---

AJM's second response to my homosexuality post is fantastic. And challenging. Here I go.

First, I address (briefly), AJM's "aside": "the biological and psychological evidence on the inbred vs. learned question so far points heavily in the direction of homosexuality being learned as a response to life circumstances." I will not bother AJM to scrounge for, dig up, or otherwise manifest the biological and psychological evidence for this. I will surely not ask him to go far afield beyond links connected to Christian websites into what he and I could agree were objective studies. I do not question that AJM has considerable knowledge of this evidence. Without seeing it, studying it, and critically analyzing it, however, I am skeptical whether the "evidence" is supported by good science.

AJM then goes into a string of comparisons to other somewhat despicable characteristics (including being male, which I certainly understand, at least when I'm feeling particularly self-effacing).

AJM writes: "To begin with, how is the homosexual's circumstance distinguishable from that of any of the following?"

"The baby born to a crack-addict mother. This child is almost certain to enter the world with a pre-existing addition to cocaine (among other serious problems). Does that make resisting drugs more difficult for this child? Of course. Does the child's prediliction make drug abuse any less sinful for the child? Of course not."

First, while I agree that drug abuse is a terrible problem, I'm not sure how it's a sin. Perhaps, this is a point about which an orthodox Christain's assumptions differ from a United Methodists'. Second, there is a big difference between crack babies and homosexuals. If the crack baby's mother or the crack baby's mother or father had never smoked crack, the crack baby would not be a crack baby, and would not have the problems therein associated. It's possible the baby and her mother would still have addictive personalities. But maybe they'd be long-distance runners addicted to lunchtime runs instead.

The homosexual, following the hypothetical that he is "born that way" (which I believe to be true in most cases), does not depend on parents or grandparents who "partook" of anything. His orientation is simply genetic or otherwise biologically wired into him. A crack addict may be wired to be susceptible to addiction, but not to be addicted to crack. In the same way, a homosexual is wired to be one. That leads me to AJM's next comparison.

"The alcoholic. The evidence is conflicting to what extent genetic factors contribute to alcoholism, but they almost certainly play some role. Should the alcoholic therefore get a free moral pass to get drunk? Preposterous. In fact, one who is predisposed to alcoholism bears a heavier burden to avoid drunkenness because of his propensity toward addiction." I agree that the alcoholic should not have a "free moral pass," and that his burden is excrutiating. Both my grandfathers were alcoholics. Fortunately, I have never hungered for alcohol, and whether I have a beer or not does not cause internal conflict. Drinking brings pleasure but I could live without it without much consequence.

The homosexual could live without homosexual relationships, as AJM has aptly demonstrated in his writings (not by his actions, as I know AJM and know that he is devoutly, clearly hetero). But I believe the consequences are negative (no sexual relationships ever), while AJM says those consequences are good: not sinning. AJM suggests that homosexuality is a "predisposition".

I would characterize it differently. I suggest that for most homosexuals, it is like color blindness. (Understanding homosexuals would take offense saying their sexuality is no "less" than mine.) Those who are color blind simply cannot see in the full range of colors that most of us can. Homosexuals cannot feel sexual feelings for anyone of the opposite gender. AJM says they shouldn't act on those feelings. Unless there is a naturally negative consequence (see prior posts) to homosexual action, that's like saying to a color-blind person: close your eyes. Because you're different, you should deny yourself any visual experience. If God thinks homosexuality is a sin, then God thinks homosexuality is a sin. But if humans think homosexuality is a sin, and God does not, and there still exists in homosexuals the blessing of sexuality, where does that leave the homsexual? Like an alcoholic needing to get drunk? Or like the dehydrated needing water?

"The man. Statistically, men are far more likely to think about sex than women and far more often. Does this excuse men from culpability for the sin of lust? Try telling that to your wife." O.K. But I bet the "sin of lust" wasn't so easily teased apart from all of the human feelings "man", you, or I had for our wives before they were our wives, either. In other words, our wives wouldn't be our wives if we weren't sexually attracted to them. And we were sexually attracted to them before they were our wives. There was lust blended in with the love and the admiration, I have no doubt. Are we "excused"? No. But we're happily married, yes?

"The talented achiever. A simple fact of life is that some people have more talent than others. Experience also tells us that some people will work harder and achieve more than others. Are the talented person, the hard worker, the success, and the overachiever permitted morally to indulge in pride? They certainly have more reason (and good reason, at that) to be proud than a slouch has." He's right. They have more reason. But--here's the human talking, perhaps--indulging in pride is different than having a loving, consensual, intimate sexual relationship.

THE REAL QUESTION

AJM knows what the real question is. He stated it:

"So, we see that the most relevant question is really not one of genetic predisposition but rather whether homosexual conduct is a sin. In fact, that is the only question. It is not an easy question, but if we can answer it all else falls into place."

He's right. I'm not at all convinced that homosexual activity--especially that undertaken within the framework of a committed relationship--is a sin. (A bunch of readers are going, "Ooo!" Others are saying, "Yes!")

Like I have a bunch of readers. . . .

AJM's upbringing, his early home life, his college and gradute studies, his experience, have all shaped his worldview. My upbringing, my early home life, my college and graduate studies, my experience, have all shaped my worldview.

Although I know a lot about AJM, I will let him explain himself if he cares to do so. What I can say about me, however, is that I did not go to Christian schools, or Christian colleges. I was raised in the United Methodist church. I was allowed to ask a lot of questions. But few of my peers or my elders had answers. And even fewer wanted to entertain my queries.

So my questions about God and His ways far outnumber my answers. But I am convinced that there is one Truth. And that it resides in the world and this universe for us to find. I am convinced that Biblical studies are important, but I believe they are only one tool with which to discern the Truth, including what God has done, is doing, will do, wants, or doesn't want. AJM wants the Truth, too. He is more sure of it than me. He is valuable that way. A good teacher. But I am a skeptic, so his work is cut out for him.

Sinners in the House!

2005-03-08T13:17:00.000-07:00

AJM responded to my earlier post on homosexuality. His response was thoughtful and utterly logical, as expected. I appreciate. I reply here to his first response.

AJM wrote:

"The Accipiter . . . has, as usual, raised several good questions concerning both sin and homosexuality. Some can be dealt with quickly: the Church ought to refuse to ordain clergy who engage in any extramarital sex (or, in the Catholic church, any sex at all) regardless of their sexual orientation and not as a "punishment" for being homosexual (I realize this begs the ultimate question, which I will attempt to address later); the fact that many Christians find homosexual sin more offensive than other sins is a mark against Christians, not against Christ, and reflects our own sinfulness and ineptitude at sharing His grace; the sinful nature of homosexual acitivity does not depend upon homosexuality being learned, rather than inbred; that an alcoholic is more readily tempted to drunkenness does not make drunkenness any less sinful."

Many Christians do find homosexual sex more offensive than other "sins." They are offended by it because it's different than "normal" sex, it's "gross," and it's associated with what many people discern to be culturally distasteful (too-effeminiate men; women with men's haircuts, etc.). I suggest that these reactions are more culturally based than they are scripturally based, however. I say again, I don't think the Bible is particularly clear on this. Especially in light of the difference between Old Testament legalisms in chapters such as Leviticus and the embodied spirt of the law in Christ of the New Testament. And that's saying nothing about what seems to be an eternal conflict regarding the inerrancy of the Bible (but that's a different posting that I won't get into, especially with a Christianity scholar like AJM).

But the bigger issue to me is why--if all sins are equal in God's eyes--humans can use any of them to preclude someone from being a member of the clergy. I don't think they can. Since all humans are sinners, and all sin is "equal," why allow any human to hold a clergy position? The obvious answer is that humans are all we have. God Himself doesn't take the pulpit every Sunday. While he might bless the words, it's Preacher Dave or Pastor Finnegan who's leading the flock. And the Church can't allow just anyone to preach or be a clergyperson, right? "Everybody stand and welcome John. He just killed his neighbor for borrowing his weed whacker and failing to return it. He'll give the message today."

Absurd, right? Well, maybe not. I'm just not sure where to draw the line. Or--more importantly--if the Church has any business drawing the line. If I lust in my heart, no one can see that, so they can't hold that against me. If I am a homosexual and keep it "in the closet," they can't hold that against me either. If I'm caught with my hand in the offering basket and bills are coming out, not going in, that's a problem. But where does the Church find its support for holding ANY sin against anyone who wants to participate in the celebration of God?

Perhaps it's because if the sin is known by others--if it is apparent--that person is not "fit to lead," being morally suspect. But that makes no sense. The given state of humanity is that everyone is morally suspect (at least for Protestants; Catholics play with that notion within their hierarchical system).

And who is to say sinners--sometimes the "worst" ones--aren't good teachers, leaders, and--in their approach to dealing with sin--Christian examples?

Revisiting Journalism in the Blog Age

2005-03-08T11:18:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Cronkite lambasts Dan Rather.

I posted a number of comments back in January 2005 to AJM's posts on the Dan Rather/CBS News debacle of late last year. I post the string here so that it is accessible through my site and so I can refer to it. Thanks for your indulgence. And, thanks, as usual, to AJM, for the conversation.

AJM began with this comment.

In response, I wrote:

First, the independent review panel found no evidence that CBS falsified any documents. There is also no evidence that the documents were falsified. There is evidence that CBS judged these outside documents to be true when they were not verified as true. By any good journalist’s rule of thumb documents must be considered false until verified by more than one source as true. Sadly, CBS blindly defended their veracity; hence “Memogate.”

Second, to the extend this is “Rathergate,” I take issue. Rather defended his staff’s representation of what was true. These are the same people he depended on for years to give him good information. Mary Mapes broke the Abu Ghraib story, which no one doubted was true. Rather had good reason to trust her. He failed when he didn’t verify a story with such obviously powerful political ramifications.

But he did not fail when he trusted a staff he had every reason to trust. (Nonetheless, read none of this to say that Dan–what’s the Frequency, Kenneth–isn’t particularly weird.) All in all, this was less Rather’s fault then this producers’. But he is Executive Producer, and the buck stops there. Or should.

Third, I agree that admission of one’s biases–and hiding nothing–tends to increase a person’s (or in this case, media outlet’s) credibility. I also agree that bloggers are doing some great things, and the future of mass media is driven in large part by the new ingenuity underlying faster, more interactive, more personable, more potent–and potentially more honest–information sharing.

That said, bloggers by and large are not professional journalists. Nor are they necessarily any good at finding a story that hasn’t already been “found” by the mass media, parsing good information from bad by interviewing many sources other than those already interviewed by the mass media, or interpreting information from all relevant perspectives other than their own.

Bloggers today–and the Conservative news outlets are–by and large–pundits and pundit sanctuaries. They comment on the news as it is reported by the mass media. They have become the news in many cases. And they–often with great skill–point out the inconsistencies and mistakes and biases inherent in humans reporting on the world.

But they do not–and in most cases cannot–“cover” the news. They can only comment on what’s been exposed by others. Andrew Sullivan doesn’t send field bloggers to Sri Lanka or Afghanistan. Real Clear Politics gathers op-ed pieces from the mass media outlets. While there’s a lot to be said for the value of personal punditry, talking heads depend on the news brought back from the front lines by others who dug it up and sweat it out. And those guys are usually professional journalists.

Professional journalists are taught in journalism school that objectivity is like perfection: a good goal that will never be achieved. However, Professional journalists are also taught that attempting to be objective in every story is essential to good reporting.It is true that whether in framing the story idea, articulating interview questions, or characterizing facts in a written or spoken piece, a journalist’s own world views inform his story. The “professional” journalist, however, will work hard to realize his own biases to the best of his ability and filter them to the best of his ability from his work. This is a job that should be–and most often is–taken very seriously.

On the other hand, many journalists see themselves as part of the “4th branch” of government. They have a watchdog role to perform and take it seriously, too. Some would say that such a role inherently breeds bias against the government or against an administration or a particular political party, depending on who’s in the majority. Ideally, such biases would not naturally flow from the journalist’s responsibility to keep an eye on those in power and make sure they’re playing straight. I think striving for objectivity goes hand in hand with the watchdog role, but that’s fodder for another piece.

To cut to the quick, my emphasis on professional journalism is meant to say one thing. I don’t want my news from people who have candidly and transparently admitted their biases. Once a journalist–not a pundit–admits her biases, she says to me, “Despite my attempts at objectivity, my biases will affect my reporting. I am not professionally committed to preventing my personal opinions from overwhelming me and distracting me from my job. Therefore, I cannot be trusted to deliver facts to you.”

I want my news from professionals. I don’t want commentary from these people. I want facts. (And that’s a huge subject in itself. Too many journalists can’t resist the temptation to be pundits as well. Brett Hume on Fox is a great example. Anchor one hour, talk-show host the next; And I dare say Fox does not openly admit its biases. How do they want me to read “Fair and Balanced”?) That’s it. Whether the journalist is a Republican, a Green Party member, an Evangelical, or an atheist should have zero affect on the information I receive. That’s what I expect.

AJM replied with this.

I responded as follows:

Bias is inevitable. That's why I wrote: "It is true that whether in framing the story idea, articulating interview questions, or characterizing facts in a written or spoken piece, a journalist’s own world views inform his story. The “professional” journalist, however, will work hard to realize his own biases to the best of his ability and filter them to the best of his ability from his work. This is a job that should be–and most often is–taken very seriously."

Professional journalists are committed to recognizing their biases and filtering them out. Does this mean that reporting the news is "unbiased"? Not necessarily. But that is the goal. And it is a noble goal. When reporting facts--not opinions of the journalist--this goal CAN be met. It is by no means EASY to meet, however. AJM's point that pure objectivity is impossible is absolutely true.
But that doesn't undermine my point that professional journalists are taught to recognize their own points of view and keep them out of the story.

Next, do I (me-myself-and-I) think the documents were fake? Yup. I do. But nothing has been done to prove unequivocally that they were faked. OR--which was more to my point--that they were real. CBS' failure is/was huge. But understanding the failure for what it really was is important. It was a failure to follow rote journalism rules and abide by ethics designed to give journalists credibility. Shame on CBS for it.

AJM lists a whole slew of bloggers who scoop real journalists because they're in the best circumstances to observe the "news." AJM misses my point. He lists American soldiers, American diplomats, and the Rocky Mountain Alliance. Fine and good. I love the fact that anyone can report the "facts" they see around them through their blogs.

However, the American soldiers are "reporting" on the wars and relief efforts IN WHICH THEY ARE PARTICIPANTS. The American diplomats reporting on the tsunami are "reporting" on THEIR OWN EFFORTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES THEY SEE AROUND THEM IN WHICH THEY ARE INVOLVED. The Alliance is reporting on ITS OWN INTERACTIONS WITH THE GOVERNOR.By "reporting" stories in which they are actors, these bloggers are NOT doing journalism. Not even close. They are reporting on direct observations and their feelings on these observations. Professional reporters--attempting to be objective--keep out of the story. Their are dispassionate observers. They are on the sidelines, attempting to look at the story unfolding around them from the perspectives OF ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. Are they perfectly objective? No. Do they attempt to be unassociated with the subjects about which they report? Yes.

Journalism schools for about 5 years or so have been struggling with a new phenomenon called "Creative Non-fiction." "Old-school," "classic" journalists hate this new form of reportage. It is exemplified by stories like John Krakauer's 1998 book "Into Thin Air" in which he--as a reporter for Outside magazine--writes about the tragic deaths of his fellow mountain climbers on Mt. Everest, and his own escape from death in those same circumstances. In Creative Non-fiction, the writer is free to be part of the story, even the main subject of it, yet still attempt to "report" on the "facts" as they occurred. This is completely out of step with journalism, but is the very thing AJM cites most bloggers are doing.

Now, just for the record, I repeat myself. I do not think pure objectivity is possible. Every decision involved in every story--from the topic to the choice of reporter to the color of the rain suit the reporter wears while covering the hurricane to the turns of phrase an interviewer puts forth to his subject to the adjectives chosen to describe a bombing scene to the decisions made by editors to run the story at all--is informed by myriad biases. That does NOT mean, however, that journalists are not out there working very hard to fairly ignore these biases when reporting THE FACTS.

Candor, as AJM says, is what counts. OK. Reasonable enough. One can be candid in saying "I have this bias." One can also be candid in his actions. I can frank or sincere in my expression when I, as a reporter, inform the reader, the viewer in my everyday work: Here are the facts, presented by a professional journalist. I have made every attempt to filter my own biases from this report because that is my duty and I take it seriously.

AJM says all journalists should tell the viewer their biases. That's a nice idea. But it's like asking a police officer to admit he speeds and runs red lights and--by the way--doesn't happen to like African Americans. All before he arrests a black guy for speeding and running a red light. Do we expect him to do this? No. Do all cops have biases that might affect their work? Yes. But they are professionals who answer to a higher ethic than their own. That means they filter this stuff out AS MUCH AS THEY CAN.

And that's all we can expect of any professional, journalists included.But we can neither expect it nor ask it from the Marine in Afghanistan who's writing in his blog about carrying his dead comrade's body through heavy enemy fire to the safety of a Armored Personnel Carrier. And I wouldn't WANT him to put HIS biases aside.

And one last point: Just because the Bush administration calls the enemy "terrorists" doesn't mean the MSM should follow his lead. Are they terrorists? For the most part I think so. Most fit the basic definition: idealists willing to use force on innocents to create fear and coerce action in their favor from established powers. However, all of the "enemy"--whether actually part of an organized terrorist group, or simply those opposed to U.S. presence in the country--are "insurgents": those who revolt against civil authority.

Informational Capitalism

2005-03-08T10:50:00.000-07:00

The White House has credentialed the first known blogger-journalist for access to the White House briefing room. Garrett M. Graff, 23, writes Fishbowl D.C. , a self-proclaimed gossip blog about the D.C. media. Now, I'm not sure sure of Graff's credentials as a journalist, see my views on this, but I'm impressed that he's there. Thanks, Scott McClellan, who said: "Historically, . . . the White House has admitted the traditional media and the nontraditional media, as well as colorful individuals with certain points of view from the left and the right."

Blogging finds its wings in what I call "informational capitalism." If your blog is worth reading, it will eventually gain recognition in the marketplace of ideas. This might take time, and the readers will initially only be friends and family, but the theory holds.

Simply because one individual's blogspace occupies the same physical space on your computer monitor as, say, CNN, the New York Times, The Nation, National Review, or RealClearPolitics, that individual has an opportunity to convince you his ideas are worth considering. Regardless of his worldview, her politics, his agenda, her characteristics, or whether she does this as a "real job."

This is unprecedented in the information age; indeed since the advent of the printing press it has never been so easy to publish one's own thoughts and commentaries so that they compete with everything else in the common pool of ideas readily accessible by the reading public. Concedely, a blogger's access to you, the viewer, is not on equal footing with CNN's. You know about CNN. You know how to find it. It's harder to find Graff's blog, AJM's, or mine. And we can't do much--other than convince others to look or to sponser--to attract you to us in the way of marketing or positioning ourselves more favorably in Google-search-land.

That said, if what we say has meaning, has impact, is credible, and is worthy of your interest, we stand toe-to-toe with any other information source out there. Andrew Sullivan, the first credible news commentator/blogger, is to be thanked for blazing the way.

What an incredible thing.

Homosexuality

2005-03-04T20:44:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: AJM responded again.

UPDATE: AJM responded more fully here.

UPDATE: AJM has posted on his site, a first, quick comment. I'm sure more will follow, so stay tuned.

AJM wrote some comments about the Anglican Church's struggle with homosexuality. He wrote, "I, too, often am tempted toward, and too often commit . . . sins such as sloth, pride, cowardice, lust, greed, and so on. The Church rightly condemns those sins. Yet some Church leaders insist upon making a special exception for the peculiar sin of homosexual activity. Why?"

Here's why. Because certain influencial members of The Church are convinced that homosexualITY (I stress the I T Y) is not a sin.

While they might feel confident that homosexual activity is a sin (as they consider extramarital sex a sin), they cannot get past the fact that, like those experiencing other forms of biologically divergent circumstances--such as dwarfism, color blindness, extra fingers, perfect pitch, incredible beauty, exceptional athletic prowess, genius--homosexuals simply embody homosexuality. Therefore, by punishing them for acting on this innate biologically driven phenomenon, they are punishing them for being that way in the first place. And these particular church leaders cannot accept that.

I believe homosexuals are created that way. Born that way. Call it whatever you want: a cross to bear, a sinner's burden, a doomed existence. Call it an opportunity to act against biology and toward God. I call it people who are innocently attracted to other people . I call it an opportunity to love in their own way. I call it natural. Some call it abhorrent. I call it a percentage of the population. Obviously, there are many views.

But, in the end, I bet the Anglicans who seem so reluctant are those who can't--in their view--hold the less-palatable-to-heterosexuals aspects of creation against gay people.

I commented: "AJM will say: punish them for their actions, then. I will counter: Since we are all sinners, can any of us truly differentiate sin (and now I add that I'm not convinced homosexual activity is a sin)? AJM might (might) say: homosexual actions are not murder, but they are certainly more offensive to God than greed or lust or pride or cowardice. To that, I have no answer, except to say that. . . I wish I could see through His eyes."

AJM commented as follows:

"As always, I appreciate The Accipiter's comments. I certainly agree that homosexuality, whether its causes are biological or sociological, is not a sin. I would not say that homosexual activity is any more or less offensive to God than other sins.

Compared with God's holiness, all sin is perverse and disgusting, especially mine. And I certainly would not suggest that we punish homosexuals for their actions. I cannot say whether homosexuality is inbred or learned. I tend, from my personal experiences with friends who have struggled with (and some who have given in to) homosexual temptation, to believe that homosexuality is a disorder with psychological and sociological causes and, like other sexual disorders, can be cured. "

I'm not sure how AJM characterizes a refusal to consecrate Bishops who openly engage in homosexual sex. But I see it is as punishment.

AJM continues: "Regardless, it certainly is a difficult cross to bear, just as The Accipiter suggests, and one that I do not desire for myself. But, just as the Church would do me a disservice by discounting the significance of my sins, I think we do homosexuals a disservice by discounting the significance of homo sex. Celibacy is a tough path. But many have traversed it faithfully for reasons completely unrelated to homosexual proclivities. And it is no more difficult than the sacrifice of one's life for one's country, working in lands far away from home to provide for one's third-world family, or many other sacrifices that people make daily."

I respect AJM very much for writing this, because I think it's a sophisticated point, and one most conservative, orthodox Christians would not make. However, I fail to understand how, if "homosexual activity is [not] any more or less offensive to God than other sins," it is so much more offensive to the Church than many other "sins" seem to be (like pride or slothiness).

I think the Church has it backwards. There is a difference between one sin and another. Sloth, greed, pride, cowardice, lust, lying: all of these have natural, negative consequences for other people who are affected by the person exhibiting these characteristics. (Moreover, these characteristics are much less biologically based "traits" than they are personality components.)

Homosexual activity has no such natural consequences. It affects the homosexual, and, sure, it affects in various ways those associated with him or her. But not in naturally negative ways. Not in ways that necessarily have negative consequences. (Other than sin, which is what AJM I suspect will contend.)

Put sin aside. Why should a homosexual be pushed to lead a life of celibacy--what AJM likens to dying in battle--when being sexually active has zero naturally negative consequences?

Now, the natural reaction to this, is: Hey, Mr. Accipiter, what about AIDS, STDs, the whole "nastiness of anal sex" (as some see it), etc.? I say simply, those are not necessary negative consequences. Those are ones that must be carefully avoided, or--in the case of others' view of homosexuals and what they do--are culturally motivated, learned, or inherited.

Homosexual sex, when practiced safely, and when between consenting adults, has no naturally negative consequences.

AJM continued: "Whatever calling God has placed on my life, and whatever temptations to which I am most likely to fall prey, I hope the Church will always speak clearly to me about my sinful condition and about the perfect God-Man who offers redemption to me. " I respect that. "I only worry that the Church is refusing to offer that same marvelous grace to homosexuals. That is to the detriment of the homosexual and of the Church."

But this only makes sense to AJM and those who agree with him about the role of the Church and the nature of homosexuality.

Perhaps because I am not an orthodox Christian like AJM I don't recognize homosexuality as a sexual disease or "disorder". And I certainly do not think homosexuality itself is a sin. Frankly, I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or another about whether homosexual sex is a "sin," either.

What I do believe, based on my experience in life, is that sexuality exists along a continuum. I believe people find themselves straight, gay, or more or less straight or gay. And, as AJM and any other reader must admit, one may choose to act or choose not to act on the innate sexual feelings he or she has.

I belive that for sexuality, just like many other characteristics, there is a bell-shaped curve. Based on numbers alone, I believe that homosexuality is near the tails of the graph, rather than the center. That, however, does not make homosexuality any more a "disorder" than someone with blaze-red hair has a "disease," or someone who can memorize 400 random numbers in 4 minutes has a "disorder," or someone who has a third nipple has a "condition". As far as I know, there are no physiological "problems" linked to homosexuality, regardless of how "abnormal" it seems to some. None.

That said, why is it so easy for some to believe that God would want homosexuals to live a non-sexual life? To not express their sexuality, which all Christians consider a gift from God? It is one thing to argue that God--based on passages found in the Bible in various places--would not condone gays sleeping around any more than he would condone non-gays having all kinds of sex with all kinds of people. However, how is it that gays who are committed to one another, living monog0mous, loving lives together, fall under the same umbrella? I don't think they do. I don't believe the Bible is clear on this.

Some may say: It is sex outside of marriage. That's a sin. And marriage can never be for gays because it is naturally between a man and a woman. Simple. But I'm not convinced.

AJM once offered some proof for the existence of God and what He "does for a living," all without resorting to Scripture to prove his point. I was, and am, superbly and sincerely impressed.

I now challenge AJM, or anyone else, to do the same here. Without using the Bible: What makes homosexual sex, in and of itself, bad? Why is it sinful? And, further, just to sweeten the pot, why is marriage "naturally" between a man and a woman?

I have my responses lined up and ready to go. I wait for AJM to take a whack at me with a big wet noodle.

Is God Playing with Us?

2005-03-04T16:43:00.000-07:00

UPDATE 3/9/05: As I knew he would, my Evangelical friend AJM devoted numerous paragraphs to this. See for yourself. I find some of it satisfying. Perhaps I should send my further questions on a note in a bottle out to sea. Perhaps I'll write a post later.

---

I know at least one person out there will attempt to answer this question, because he's the only person who ever reads this drivel.

Let's assume the following:

1) God created humans.
2) God gave them free will.
3) God knows the past, the present, and the future and is without time, space or any other pesky physical or 4th-dimensional encumbrance.
4) Humans sin.
5) God told Moses (and others through other mechanisms) that sin is bad.
6) Sin is offensive to God.
7) Redemption of sin is the only way to God.

Allright.

If we accept all those as true, then isn't it also true that God knew when giving humans free will that humans would sin? Of course. So isn't it true he created not only humans with free will but also humans-as-sinners? Yes.

So, why is God offended by sin? He made us sinners.

One possible answer is that God gave us, in giving us free will, the opportunity NOT to sin. But no human is capable of that. So it is really NOT an opportunity, right? Every human sins.

So that leaves me with this: God made humans and everything else, and said "It is good." But humans were NEVER truly good, and NEVER can be. So was that really "good enough" for God? Otherwise, why would he say it?

Why should I believe that God hoped at any time before "The Fall" that humans COULD be good, i.e., sinless? He always knew we never could be. So he expected The Fall. Moreover, I suggest, because he could have limited our free will, it was planned. God knew it and could have done something about it, but didn't.

So He designed us to be sinners. To what end?

So He could delight in joining us/giving us His Son as an opt-out provision (or "opt-in" provision)? So He could "punish us" by denying us Him for being exactly what He made us if we don't accept Him?

By using the free will He gave us (which allows us some of the freedom He has), we actually find ourselves not only LESS like Him but also incapable of being either like or with him except THROUGH HIM (Christ)? Why?

Essentially without giving up the free will he gave us and letting Him guide/control us, we're nothing? So why give us free will at all? I've heard it's so our love for him came from an honest place. So. Why does God need to be loved? He has all the love the universe knows already, with or without us.

Isn't this like creating a child and teaching it--or in God's case, providing it the capability--both to love and to murder but hoping it only loves? To what end is teaching it--or giving it the opportunity--to murder? So that when it does not murder, God feels good? Why does He need to feel good? He is the ultimate Good, regardless of us and our feelings for him. Can't "feel" any better than that.

Chew on it.

UPDATE: Anonymous makes some good points. To her "caged bird" analogy, which I think is deftly on-point, I have to say: Why would God want or need our love anyway? What difference does it make to Him? As far as I can tell, He is the source of love. He created it. He has it all. So why does he need us to express it? To boost his "ego"?

Or, as I suspect, is it that through loving Him, we then are able to love other humans well?

The Hugging Sound

2005-03-04T10:12:00.000-07:00

All this talk about evolution and creation is just murky murmuring in a back-hall closet when I hear the hugging sound.

The hugging sound is the warm, purring, throaty vocal inflection my one-year-old daughter makes when she spots her stuffed baby doll (the frog-like, big-eyed "Lily," who talks about colors and counts butterflies, pink flowers, and blue birds) or when she wants a hug from me or her mom. It's not unlike her leaning over at her waist and reaching out for me with both arms straight out, palms stretched, when I get home. It's also not unlike her laughs when I buzz my lips on her belly. It's incredible.

The hugging sound started after she got attached to her doll. My daughter doesn't quite know how to turn Lily on or make her talk. And she doesn't know that holding her by her foot so the green head with a pink bow on top bounces along the oak floors would harm her if she were alive.

Of course, to my dauthter, Lily is alive. Hence the sound. She loves this doll. She cuddles it and walks in her frankenstein-like way across the house to pick her up and hug her and peer at her with her usual inquisitive, raised-eyebrow intent.

So when I am the thing that inspires the hugging sound in her--which has only begun in the last few days--I feel like for the first time, my daughter is telling me that she loves me. Yes, I've seen it in her eyes before. And I know by her hugs and her comfort with me and her desire to be held that she loves me. But it's different when she vocalizes it. It's a bolder-colored sentiment.

So, regardless of how we all got here, I never take for granted this wonderful life and the joy of my daughter and her love.

Out of respect for Ross

2005-03-03T11:03:00.000-07:00

AJM says that Hugh Ross is not a theistic evolutionist. From what I've heard and read, I suspected AJM would take issue with that label. Here's the evolution/creation debate portion of Ross' website.

You decide:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics.

This dude's a sharp cookie. I'll look more closely at his work before I take issue.

Regarding AJM's comment that most Creationists are those who believe that "'days' is best interpreted as epochs of undetermined length that can be approximated by accepted scientific methods," I'm left wondering why I hear so much Creationist rhetoric on TV, in the papers, and on the radio: 1) about the world being much younger than scientists tell us it is; and 2) about how radioisotope dating and other "accepted scientific methods"--and these are well accepted in science--are faulty measuring tools.

That leads me to this question: I wonder whether the vast majority of Creationists know: 1) what "scientific methods" are at play in the creation/evolution debate; 2) whether those methods are or are not accepted by the people who are in a position to evaulate them (scientists who use them and those otherwise technically well versed in the methods enough to thoughtfully criticize them); and 3) how those methods that are at play actually work.

Beyond that, I question how many Creationists care about the scientific method at all. I know AJM does. But he is a highly educated, whip-smart guy whose logical and analytical tools are razor sharp. He understands the importance of science. I am not at all convinced that most Creationists do. Frankly, I don't think many evolutionists do, either.

Enough for now.

And on the first day . . .

2005-03-02T20:44:00.000-07:00

I've decided to begin my examination of the Creation-Evolution debate and its significant parts. Hopefully I won't be forced to measure the whole project in geologic time. There's a lot to dig into. Here's a start.

Having just formatted this, I gaze down the list as I scroll and wonder if God's chuckling as He reads it. Or if He's just content that we care and hopes we'll find our way to the truth.

To what do you subscribe?

Full disclosure 1. I'm a theistic evolutionist and feel good about it.

Full disclosure 2. I lifted this list from http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm. A bunch of thoughtful Canadians doin' their utmost darndest to present unbiased in-depth coverage of all the religions of the world (including atheism and secularism) and how they overlap or conflict. I'm pretty sure AJM can find a gap in their armor, but I like them and appreciate their efforts too much to try.

Here we go:

Origin Theories

Analogical Days: Creation started: Unknown. Duration of creatoion: Six "days," of unknown lengths. "Days" are God's work-days, not 24 hour days.

Biblical reality: Creation started: 1) Stars and earth: billions of years ago; 2) Humans: about 8000 B.C. Duration of creation: 1) Three days, each 24 hours long.2) Three days, each 24 hours long. Two separate creation intervals.

Calendar-day: Creation started: After 8000 B.C. Duration of creation: Six 24-hour days. Many alternate names.

Day-age: Creation started: About 10,000 B.C. Duration of creation: Six "days", each 1,000 years long.

"Days of divine fiat": Creation started: Unknown. Duration of creation: Six 24-hour days for God to initiate creation. It took a long interval for creation to actually take place.

Expanding time: Creation started: About 15 billion years ago. Duration of creation: First day: 8 billion years. Each remaining day half as long as the previous day.

Framework hypothesis: Creation started: Unknown. Duration of creation: Unknown. Genesis not to be interpreted literally.

Gap theory: Creation started: Billions of years ago. Duration of creation: A gap of billions of years between creation and the Garden of Eden story.

Indefinite age: Creation started: Billions of years ago. Duration of creation: Six time periods, each tens or hundreds of millions of years long.

Intermittent day: Creation started: Unknown. Duration of creation: Six days, each 24 hours long. Days of creation separated by long intervals of time.

Replicated earth: Creation started: Billions of years ago, for the original "old" Earth. A few thousand years for the "new" Earth. Duration of creation: Billions of years, for the old Earth. Six days for the new Earth. It took God billions of years to create an original earth. Then he copied in in a few days.

Revelatory-day: Creation started: Unknown. Duration of creation: Unknown. The six days of Genesis refer to the time that God took to describe creation to Moses.

Revelatory-device: Creation started: Unknown. Duration of creation: Unknown. "Days" are like phases of a construction project.

Seven-day: Creation started: Billions of years ago. Duration of creation: Six 24-hour days. It only took God six days to create the world, many billions of years ago.

These last two are scientific theories based on secular data. According to www.religioustolerance.org, these are accepted by over 99% of the geological and biological scientists in the U.S.:

Naturalistic evolution: Start of universe: About 15 billion years ago. Species developed over: About 3.5 billion years. Species evolved due to natural forces and processes.

Theistic evolution: Start of universe: About 15 billion years ago. Species developed over: About 3.5 billion years. Evolution guided by God. Within theistic evolution, you find Dr. Hugh Ross and most Roman Catholics.

I Love the Liberals I Love

2005-02-22T23:18:00.000-07:00

I love the liberals I love because they're not the liberals the Right paints when the Right paints liberals.

The liberals I love want the truth. They crave and fight with all their guts for justice. They care about facts more than personalities and politics. They care more about what's right than what feels right. They care about people more than almost anyone else cares about people. And they care about people no matter what those people have done or are doing, or will do, no matter what manner of sins have been committed. That doesn't mean they like these people or want good things for them or, at the end of the day, don't want them killed. But they care enough to consider them.

Now, some liberals go too far, don't think enough, don't ask enough real questions, don't peel off the layers of dust and baloney to find the truth and what's really going on. Others are too weak. They think love is all flowers and should never be tough. They think you can win a war started by bad guys by not fighting back. Others don't really care about much except themselves and their own comfort level and the way they have made the world out to be in their own heads, and in their friends' heads.

The liberals I love, though, care passionately about what's right, and what the truth is, and who's really doing the right thing and who isn't. The liberals I love thought Clinton was a great politician and a louse of a husband. The liberals I love admit it when Bush helped to bring democracy to Iraq, and they give him credit for it, even though they questioned some of the thinking behind the war. The liberals I love only vocalize the party line when they've decided after a lot of work that it's right. Otherwise, they state their own claims. Make their own voices heard without resonance from look-alikes.

So to all you Conservative, Right-wingers out there who are just as easy for me to caricature, make sure you're careful when you call someone a Liberal. Because, without knowing it, you're going to make a mistake and completely mischaracterize a liberal I love.

When I read that George W. Bush mentioned to his friend who was secretly taping him that he would not cater to the Religious Right and ostracize gays because they are sinners and so is he and who is he to judge them, I thought: "this is a statement I'd expect from a liberal I love." Whether you are Christian or not, religious or not, there is justice in that. And I respect that.

To me, there are no Blue States or Red States. Only the people I respect.

God, Can You Make George Stop Buggin' Me?

2005-02-22T23:01:00.000-07:00

If God has given us free will, what is appropriate for us to request in prayer, for those of us who are convinced that such communication is a meaningful way to speak with God? Certainly we can choose to pray, but is it appropriate to ask God to affect others' free will as it affects us?

In other words, when one asks God to protect him from harm, is he not asking God to prevent the person who is not paying attention to the traffic jam in the left turn lane from ramming his car into mine? Is he not asking God to make sure another person doesn't cough without covering her mouth, whereby she infects me with influenza?

At one point does prayer ask too much? If God gave us free will, and "respects" it--in the sense that people are "allowed" to do whatever they want, good, bad, or neutral--then what are we doing asking God to help us with our circumstances, many of which involve the free wills of others?

It's one thing to thank God for helping you become strong enough and fit enough and smart enough to make the winning soccer goal. It's another thing to thank God for "letting you" win when the other side wants the win just as bad. That's another point: Does God take sides? In matters where there is no "good" or "bad," such as a soccer game, does God just ignore the whole winning thing all together?

In what does God intervene? Certainly, His ways are mysterious. But why "allow" so much pain, tradegy, hatred, disgrace, disease when he "could" intervene? That said, why would God look out for Great-uncle Jim who suffers from cancer but "let" a baby be killed by its drunken, rage-filled father?

What about what's important? Isn't a sick person fighting for his life more meaningful to God that whether I do well in my graduate-school exam?

Shouldn't we respect God by keeping some of our worries, our troubles, our thoughts, to ourselves?

One might answer: God can handle it all. Fine. But does anyone have any idea what our responsibility is? Isn't it to be reasonable and do the best we can? That's really all I can ask for help with, right? I can't ask God to prevent someone from killing me, can I? Or can I, because killing me would certainly be wrong?

That said, should we only pray for the morally right stuff? Nix the prayers for finishing the work project on time?

A friend of mine offers what she describes as the most apt prayer: "Thy will be done."

Perhaps that's where we should leave it.

Darfur

2005-02-22T22:55:00.000-07:00

I've heard and read that as many as 10,000 people per month are being killed in the Sudan as a result of ethnic hatred leveled by an ethnic minority power. And the enlightened countries of the world have swept this aside.

Is this situation not as "morally intolerable," as Bush said, as the Iraq under Saddam, or (for political honesty, at least) the reprehensible slaughter that was ignored in Rwanda (for which Clinton later apologized)?

What's the deal? Is it because these people are Africans? What is it? They don't trade with us? Politically insignificant? Just not important enough?

Anyone?

Wish We Had a Wegmans

2005-02-10T13:45:00.000-07:00

Wegman's supermarket in the Northeastern U.S. ranked #1 on FORTUNE magazine’s 2005 list of the 100 Best Companies to Work For. Wegmans has been on the list every year since it began in 1998.

Shoppers love it. They come from far reaches of the county to shop there, skipping Wal-marts and Targets. They can buy Cap'n Crunch and Doritos and fine Italian cheeses and German Reislings all in one stop. The customer service knocks the heads off of every other retailer within a hundred miles. And the prices are low.

Maybe the customer service is so genuinely good because the employees love working there. Many start in high school, go to college (with help from Wegman's), then come back and work their way up. The atmosphere is collegial, steeped in mutual respect, and inspiring. Employees challenge each other on the best way to prepare porcini-mushroom salad or butcher lamb. Some are sent on overseas trips to find out how the French prepare their geese.

The chairman of this privately held, family-owned business is Robert Wegman, who started by stocking shelves generations ago.

What a role-model outfit in this world of corporate puffery and blandness.

And their employers have never wanted a union.

Hmmm. I wonder why. Is it because they were treated fairly? Yup.

This beckons this question: If Wal-mart is as great as it says it is, why do so many of its employees fight for unions? And why did Wal-mart allow one in China, but would rather shut down a store in Canada than allow unionizing there?

I'm a capitalist. I think capitalism works. And I go back and forth on unions.

But if you don't treat your employees with respect, make sure their wages and benefits are fair, and ensure their work environment is healthy and welcoming, you will eventually fail. No matter how big you get.

Plus, it would help if Wal-mart made sure certain parts of its stores didn't smell like urine.

Academia Without a Net

2005-02-10T09:08:00.000-07:00

AJM unleashed himself on Dr. Chernus, a religious-studies professor, the other day. And it seems Dr. Chernus deserves it, as anyone willing to post his opinions on the Internet opens himself to criticism. On his official University of Colorado website, he published his opinions on the Iraq war, on relative truth, and other hot-button topics. It is questionable whether these have anything to do with his scholarly credentials.

As AJM wrote, "How a Ph.D. in comparative religions qualifies him to write authoritatively on the question whether Bush lied about Iraq is beyond me. How he can assume the question and go straight to diagnosing the pathology behind the purported lies escapes me entirely." Fair. However, my credentials don’t have a lot to do with whether or how I write my blog entries. And AJM’s credentials as a trial lawyer–while they may inform his essays–don’t provide a basis for them.

Nonetheless, Chernus’ publications are fair game, especially because he espouses his opinions on his professional, University of Colorado website. And I know from experience that the University allows professors to post whatever they please–as long as it’s legal–on their University-sponsored site.

AJM’s chief complaint is that the academic establishment doesn’t police itself, and allows anyone to say anything, whether credible or not, supported or not. But Chernus–or at least the blog on his site–is an easy target. I want to see AJM use his formidable mental acuity, logical brilliance, and deft penwork to rip apart someone more meaty, more influential, more powerful. Someone whose stuff matters. Or at least take Chernus to task on Chernus’ terms by looking at Chernus’ scholarly work and critiquing it.

However, it will not be easy for AJM to find Dr. Chernus’ scholarly work. (To answer AJM's question), very few people read what academics write, one way or the other. On-line or otherwise.

Any Ph.D. (and I know many, including my spouse) will tell you that few, if any, of his own committee members read his whole dissertation. In fact, it's said that a number of extremely self-confident Ph.D. candidates have inserted nonsense words or phrases--or even better, stylized characterizations of their committee members!--into their dissertations just to see if they're found. Inevitably, they go unnoticed.

Once the newly-minted professor publishes, she typically does so to the readership of her peers in a very small professional circle concentrated on her sub-discipline. Dr. Chernus’ academic publications are probably found in small journals or compiled in symposium notes.

One thing AJM doesn't make clear, however: Publishing in the liberal arts is a totally different creature than publishing in the social sciences, or–especially–sciences or mathematics or engineering. The liberal-arts peer-review process is mostly subjective, based on comparative theories and analysis of one’s work in the light of others. It’s qualitative. Social sciences–sociology, anthropology, economics–are combinations of qualitative and quantitative techniques and review. Science is rigorous and based in quantifiable testing of hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions.

Perhaps AJM would prefer the science peer-review process be applied to the liberal-arts non-scientists? If there were such a way to do so by replacing the quantifiable with the qualitative (as is done in much of anthropology), then perhaps he’s on to something. But reviewing a paper on the tenets of Christianity as viewed through Islamic culture in 2004 (I would love to read that paper, if it exists) doesn’t lend itself to scientific or quasi-scientific peer-review.

That said, let's get back to Dr. Chernus, whose opinions on his blog site don’t lend themselves to any peer review:

1) Who takes this guy seriously? Who knows. Very few people, I'm sure. Certainly some of his colleagues, and perhaps some of his students. But that’s a small group. As AJM points out, he doesn’t seem qualified by his credentials to comment on the political issues he finds so compelling.

2) In light of the fact that he has few readers and few who take him seriously, does AJM suggest that higher-ups in academia–who are not part of Chernus’ little niche of "religion scholars"– cross-check him and vet his rhetoric–especially his opinions on his website–as if it were worth their time and effort?

All across the country--and around the world--professors and academics in the social sciences or liberal arts spout off about this or that, on web pages, in talks, sometimes in class. Much of it is speculation, guess-work, or raw opinion masquerading as something more. Some of it makes it into peer-reviewed publications. Much of it doesn’t.

Out of all this, little pearls of truth and revelation drop out once in awhile. And while I will suggest some qualitatively useful information comes out of it–here and there–the academic machine grinds along and, through a very natural process, most of the ideas become waste product. But the best ones survive and take life outside the halls of the academy.

That "natural process" is as follows. While some ideas--and their implications and applications-- get the attention of the world (Watson and Crick’s DNA helix; the domino theory of the Cold War), or of the local or national population (Churchill at the University of Colorado), few ideas submitted by academics into the academic intellectual chasm ever make it outside the doors of the academy.

The ones that do–like light pushing past the grasping gravity-edge of a black hole–are usually incredibly important (whether "right," "true," or neither), novel, and worthwhile. There's a lot of carbon at the bottom of the mine shaft but only a few diamonds.

So let the peer review process do its thing. If an idea from a religious (sans Christianity)-studies department makes it into the World (capital W), then it’s worth grappling with. But there’s so much inside the establishment that never sees the light of day and is really not worth commentary, except by other academics.

Through the process--the necessary give-and-take of any, and every idea--the most important stuff becomes part of the World (capital W). Influential. Interesting. Expanding and enlightening the human experience. Brainstorming or "thinking out of the box" is where it's at on campus. And, in and of itself, this is not a bad thing. In fact, I suggest that it’s a great thing. Even when the risk is that someone might simply make something up.

Because ideas have some inherent worth. That worth may be closer to 0 than 100 on a 0-100 value scale, but--again I posit--if an idea/hypothesis/theory/opinion sheds any light on the true condition of our World (capital W), or, in its own inability to shed light inspires someone else to postulate in a worthy way, then it's worth is more than 0. And I'm not even talking about the liberal-arts people who specialize in poetry or Eastern mythology or any number of less-tangible, less-"applied" or less-"useful" disciplines. There is worth there, too. And, as with anything else, also a lot that should be jettisoned.

Now, AJM is right on when he accuses academia of paying little attention to itself in this way: Many academics should take the World (capital W) more seriously. They don’t live in it like others who are not in academia do. They often live in tight, insular, idealistic, intellectual worlds (lower-case w), and should pause and consider their perspectives before they comment as if they do live in the World.

One last point. Anyone who thinks the truth is elusive is smart. Anyone who thinks the truth is complicated and often hard on the palate is at peace with the World. Anyone who believes truth is always better than non-truth is either brilliant or at peace with himself or both. But anyone who thinks the truth doesn’t exist doesn’t live in the World (capital W), shouldn’t pretend he does, and should relish his tiny, confused sphere of influence. Because that’s all he’s got.

Christianity: Secularists, Intolerance, Pluralism, and America

2005-02-08T14:26:00.000-07:00

AJM asks:

"Why . . . do so many elite Secularists bemoan the intolerant fundamentalism of Christians? Could it be because they have a hard time holding in seeming tension both Christ's pluralist inclinations and His absolute truth claims ('I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me.')?"

A first, simple answer: yes. Secularists--whether elite or not--by definition are atheists (or, in some cases, agnostic, but I won't treat that here). They regard the idea that Christ was man and God as ridiculous, as they regard the idea of God as ridiculous. So, it goes, the idea that Christians believe, or are convicted of, anything based on Biblical truth is ridiculous, since Secularists don’t regard the Bible as anything more than a book created by men. So any "absolute truths" flowing from the Bible are dismissed.

It follows then that Secularists despise Christian, Bible-based ideas that seem "intolerant" more than anything else they disdain about believers in an invisible intelligent being. They are particularly offended by the ideas of traditional marriage, opposition to homosexuality, or preserving innocent human life from conception on because these ideas, at least on their face, undermine "progressive," "modern" culture.

Most importantly, they never bother to ask WHY Christians–fundamentalist, moderate, or liberal–believe what they do. So they’ll never understand how one seemingly intolerant idea squares with another, seemingly pluralistic one. Or the basis for either.

For some Secularists, however, there is a tendency to forgive all of what’s "good" in the Bible as long as what is unappealing is put aside. It’s easy to feel comfortable with the idea of loving your neighbors and enemies (although not easy to do). It’s easy to feel at home with the idea of forgiveness. It makes a person feel good to love peace and human good-will. Many Secularists would even say, and some do: Would Jesus do THAT? Replace THAT with "attack Iraq" and you get a persistent 2-year-old outcry vocalized by Secularists and liberal Christians alike.

But it’s much harder to feel at home with "homosexuality is a sin." In fact, many Christians do not believe–or are not convicted of–this. But most, if not all, fundamentalist Christians do. What Secularists don’t fully understand is that this is a point of contention within the church as well as between the church and the secular world. Christianity is not easy. It can be incredibly complicated, non-intuitive, and frustrating.

But it’s OK to dispute these things. It always will be. Christians disagree fervently with one another on numerous topics of great political and social weight.

The problem, however, with many Secularists, is that they never even get to what Jesus would do or wouldn’t do–the "good" undisputed stuff–because they associate the whole ball of wax with these politically hot topics. They never get to Jesus’ pluralist teachings or the lessons therein.

If Secularists chose to do so, they could consider the Bible as wholly man-made and still take good lessons for life from it. They could even consider it mythology. But they throw out the baby with the bath water by dismissing all religion as naive, overly optimistic, or simple-minded. And they lose a fundamentally healthy perspective on human society–both in America and abroad.

Most importantly, by dismissing Christianity and other religions whose truth claims may approximate those of Christianity, Secularists miss great ideas. Call them "truths." Call them whatever you want. But they are without doubt important and influential.

One example is the idea of America. As AJM hinted, the fundamental freedoms we enjoy in this country are the products of men who were, by and large, practicing, serious Christians. Their ancestors escaped societies in which they could not practice their brands of Christianity. (Christianity in that way called them to America.) They regarded the notion of justice as God-driven. They regarded the notion of equality among men as God-given. They regarded the idea of freedom as a blessing bestowed by God that must be seized and enlivened in a republican form of government with built-in checks on power and accessibility to all who are willing to participate and work hard.

This exemplifies what AJM was talking about when he mentioned Christianity's tolerance of other worldviews. In the First Amendment, created by Christians, we find the freedom to practice whatever religion one sees fit (within other Constitutional boundaries), and the freedom to be free of state-sponsored religion (also within Consitutional boundaries).

Because of their belief in God and His ideals the Founders transcended, or gave up, themselves. This was for the sake of all Americans, and–I would argue–for all the citizens of the world who are lucky enough to experience the good of America.

I consider this kind of transcendence--or loss--of self one of the most incisive lessons of Christianity.

But even if Christianity weren’t the truth, believing in and practicing the tenets, the pluralistic ideals, of Christ, is good for everyone anyway. That’s where Secularists miss the boat. Many would rather approach life as if humans were the alpha and omega. They are so attached to "self" that they cannot bare the idea of a greater power (other than Nature, but that’s for another entry), or even of a greater good.

Iraqi Joy

2005-01-31T14:11:00.000-07:00

My fellow blogger, AJM, wrote this morning:

This is why Iraq's fledging democracy will succeed:

"Baghdad's mayor was overcome with emotion by the turnout of voters at City Hall, where he said thousands were celebrating. 'I cannot describe what I am seeing. It is incredible. This is a vote for the future, for the children, for the rule of law, for humanity, for love,' Alaa al-Tamimi told Reuters."

I agree, with the following caveat.

Democracy in Iraq will work, as long as the following occur:

1) The elected rulers follow the rule of law; and

2) The rule of law that the elected rulers follow is the product of democratic processes rather than authoritarian whim.

We must remember that democracy in Iraq will not necessarily look or sound like Western democracy. If these two principles are followed, however, the justice, equality, and elevation of the individual that are integral to this noble system will thrive.

I, as all who love freedom should, heartily cheer the apparent success of the Iraqi elections. More importantly, I hope the Iraqis have elected the right people. In this troubled country and troubled region, time will tell.

There is reason for optimism, though. The Iraqi people finally had a chance to ask for what they want rather than hide their desires for fear of state retribution. It took courage to vote, especially in parts of the country in which insurgents and terrorists are at large and have threatened those who would cast their ballots.

But thousands upon thousands risked their lives to do it. This should be a stark lesson for those in America who choose to sit aside when their opportunity to vote arises.

Cheney Was Chilly

2005-01-28T11:37:00.000-07:00

So, the media asks, why did Dick Cheney dress like a Minnesotan in a dump truck with a snow plow fastened to the front when he represented the United States at yesterday's Auschwitz ceremony?

I think it's because he was chilly. And he knew he'd be sitting on a folding chair aside rusty barbed-wire barriers in the woods in the frigid Polish air.

Although against the backdrop of austere black wool and hatless world leaders he looked out of place in his puffy parka and watch cap, he certainly looked American. And yes, he looked silly. Like my dad when he used to take my brothers and me on sledding trips at the local park. But does it say as much as the media suggests? Or nothing at all?

Poem: AIDS in Africa

2005-01-28T11:03:00.000-07:00

I.

In the south of Africa.

The landscape quivers in fever mirage.

Birds aiming for savanna ponds
crash-land onto cracked dirt roads.

The baked earth scatters sharp white light with life
forms, shapes and colors,

small sandy monkeys
and larger antelope with wet breath,
lazy trees standing still.

The air standing upright and solid and still.

Water buffalo flies
hover over
shoulder fur
clumped with mud.

Dogs with curled tails,
ribs stuck under thin skin,
rats and mosquitoes
darting and stopping and going again.

Naked footprint puddles
in old water
stained days-yellow and brown, reflecting

dry grasses and far-off forest shadow greens,
the ache-hot and heavy
of the sun.

The village quivers in a dim way,
a heart outside its split brown chest,
blood cords stretched thin,

blood as still sludge,
choked with contagion.

Mud and branches are walls and ceilings.
Mud and branches are shelter from the sun.

Shelter from rain that rarely falls
unless in torments
whose quick floods recede like ghosts
back into the other world.

II.

Mother, 19 years.
Child, 7.
Baby, 1.

This as every morning,
mother and child walk barefoot without hats,
or shirts,
mom carrying baby
to the river.

Thirty minutes there.
Thirty minutes back.

For waste-water mixed with fresh.

Putrid sewer water
for walking dead people to drink.

Walking dead mother whose husband had lovers
who had lovers
who were young and now gone.

Walking dead child.

Dying baby.

III.

Mother carries brown water in an old plastic jug

cadaverously

on her back

to the village.

IV.

The arrival of loud white trucks in the village.

Dust rises in the clearing from which the dogs scatter.

The knowing man from the city,
400 miles over the two hills to the north,
gets out.

He proclaims,

exactly as a sober, sweaty,
hopeless British man would,

that it is too late,
always too late,

that he hopes the children will die first

so they will not be alone.

Measuring Soul

2005-01-25T11:43:00.000-07:00

Let's assume humans have souls.

But what is a soul? It is easy–and common–to conceptualize the soul in accessible, tangible, everyday ways. The young man in the car next to you at the stop light, nodding his head and shoulders back and forth to a 1970s funk beat. A woman and her young daughter sitting on a grassy sand dune, warm-lazy in the setting Pacific sun, relaxed and inspired. The tears of a wife welcoming her husband back from war. The passionate speech of a civil-rights leader resonating in tone and substance across a vast lawn packed with people. To these, one might attach the notion of the soul at work, the soul touched, the soul giving, the soul embracing.

But what we are talking about here are the effects, or some attributes at least, of the soul. That goes only so far toward telling us what it is.

It "is" something. But what?

Christianity tells us that the soul is beyond biology, yet an embodiment of the true spirit of each human being. For those who make the effort, their souls are embraced by God even when their bodies have become lonely lumps of carbon. Other religions offer similar ideas, most often of something fundamentally super-physiological, part of the universe, somehow connected with God, gods, the afterlife, or Nature.

That’s a start. And maybe that’s the end of our ability to describe it. But I’m convinced there’s something more, more "is."

A coffee cup "is" something. It’s ceramic or glass, has mass, reflects light so has color, is utilitarian.

Exhalation of breath "is." It is gas, mostly nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and oxygen. It is water vapor. It contains tiny microbes. It carries odor. It relieves mammals of waste products. It feels like relief when air has been held too long in the lungs. Weight lifters and kick boxers use it to guide their thrusts.

A photon "is." Physicists describe it as both a wave and a particle. It is a package of energy, but has no mass. It can be measured by complicated processes or by the skin as it darkens then burns during a day at the beach. It is heat, microwave energy, X-ray, ultraviolet, and visible light, and other radiation. It is the reason Bill in San Diego, when he turns on his local T.V. station, sees the sprightly, eager anchorwoman laughing at ridiculous, bad jokes every night. And so, in the way light is radio and T.V., at least, a photon can seem like magic.
And so does the soul. It’s elusive. Hard to understand. Yet right here. Right there. Alive. Evident. Like magic.

But it’s not really magic at all.

I suggest that the soul is a reservoir of the subconscious that drives our personalities, our loves, our presence in the world. A key to the "true" person, not the one with arthritis or the one with red hair. Not the one who can’t drive very well or who plumbs or who writes legal briefs. Rather, the engine of conscience, the "is" of what it is to be one unique human being, the underlying self that drives the bigger self that is more accessible. But, even more importantly, this "self" is not "self" at all. It is really God at work in every person. And in that way it is pure Nature.

I also propose this. Even the most advanced science of 1,000 years from now will not be able to measure the soul as anything more than an idea or a feeling.

But so what?

It is not measuring the soul that allows us to understand it. God measures it, but not with scales. And He certainly understands souls in ways that humans cannot. In the soul we find kindred with God.

But I believe even we humans are able to understand it better than we do. And it seems to me there is only one good way to do this. It requires using the soul. Pushing it. Challenging it. Putting it to work. That means doing good things that are hard to do that cause you to reach deep into your humanity, maybe for something good you haven’t found yet.

That means struggling to find truth and make it real in your life. That means putting yourself aside so much that it is painful. That means fighting for the truth and for what is right. That means pushing boundaries, questioning the status quo and the statements and opinions of others. That means questioning your own assumptions. That means being critical and skeptical and cautious.

But it also means being joyous and alive and an embodiment of the good you want in the world. It means being creative, and using imagination. And finding your heart of hearts and making it work.

It is one thing to feel and acknowledge beauty. Perfect tree bark in perfect, clear, warm afternoon light. The intricacy of the irises of your dog’s eyes as he looks at you and loves you unconditionally. A canvasback duck paddling in puddles of rippling steel-gray sheen on a farm pond. Your lover’s hair and the smell on the top of her head.

It is one thing to do "good deeds." A dollar and a kind word to the homeless man in a wheelchair with a dog. An unexpected phone call to a lost friend. Anonymous giving to charities. Sacrificing one’s comfort and pleasure and convenience for others. Or, as C.S. Lewis wrote, giving that makes the giver hurt. Or, for that matter, giving that makes the giver less secure in any number of ways.

It is said things like these are "good for the soul."

It is another thing, however, to look inside, grab what beauty is there, and send it out. Then make more of it, and send that out, too. Take C.S. Lewis at his essential word: escaping or losing the self that surrounds the soul reveals God. Realizing human frailty and incapacity and inability reveals God. Stripping away so much of the humanity that is imperfect is the only way to truly understand the soul.

And when that happens, one then will realize what the soul is good for. That is when the soul finds its song.

Accipiter

2005-01-25T09:40:00.000-07:00

Main Entry: ac·cip·i·ter

Pronunciation: ak-'si-p&-t&r, ik-

Function: noun.

Etymology: New Latin, genus name, from Latin, hawk: any of a genus (Accipiter) of medium-sized forest-inhabiting hawks that have short, broad wings, a long tail and a characteristic flight pattern of several quick flaps and a glide. Largest genus of the birds of prey, consisting of about 50 species of falconiform birds, or “bird” hawks, of the family Accipitridae. Sometimes accipiters are referred to as the “true” hawks.

- ac·cip·i·trine /-'si-p&-"trIn/ adjective or noun.

Examples: Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus); Eurasian sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus); northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis); Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter Cooperii).

Flying Around Trees

2005-01-24T17:57:00.000-07:00

Navigation. . . .