Annan on Darfur

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan writes on his view of the situation in Darfur, concluding the

[t]he international response is thus falling short in two lethal ways: another $350 million in aid is needed to help more than three million people survive the rest of this year, and more troops, police, aircraft and other transport, training and logistical support are needed to enable the AU to protect the population in much of Darfur.

Sudan Arrests Aid Workers in Darfur

Reuters reports that

Sudan arrested a second aid worker over a report on rape in Darfur and is also holding a man who translated for Kofi Annan when the U.N. chief met rape victims in the region, U.N. and aid officials said on Tuesday.

News of the arrests came a day after the authorities detained a senior official from international aid agency Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) in Sudan, whose remote region of Darfur has been plagued by more than two years of bloodshed.

The aid worker held on Tuesday was also from MSF Holland, which published a report in March detailing about 500 cases of rape over a period of 4 1/2 months in Darfur, where a rebellion has raged since early 2003.

So, for reporting what the Sudanese government and its agents are doing, they get arrested by the very people they are reporting on. The translator was arrested for accompanying Kofi Annan inside a reed hut to translate the words of a pre-pubescent rape victim, after the government gave its assurance that no one would be harmed for speaking the truth.

Ezra Klein: Health of Nations

Ezra Klein has put together a very interesting analysis of the health care systems of various nations around the globe in comparison to that of the United States. (Hat tip: Folkbum.) His conclusion is that the French system is the best overall.

Klein also includes a link to a spreadsheet showing the health care expenditure per capita in different years and in different countries. I have made a graphical presentation of these data from 1990 through 2002:

(Click on the image for a larger, more readable version.) Looking over these data, it is glaringly obvious that we Americans pay a whole lot more for health care than anyone else in the world. Furthermore, the cost has nearly doubled since 1990. Finally, it looks from the chart that the US costs are rising faster than anyone else's. As I wrote before, these costs present a serious and growing burden to the economy.

The typical American argument, typically argued by those with excellent health insurance and large bank accounts to cover the remaining expenses, against government-run health care is that the quality of health care would go down and we would lose the ability to choose our own doctor. Looking at the data, Switzerland has the second highest per capita expenditure, and Americans pay 50% more than Swiss do. For all that extra money, are we really getting 50% better care? I don't think so. Klein writes of the misconceptions of government run care,

What really leapt out at me during this series was how normal government provided health care is. Other nations have doctor choice, hospital choice -- in France, they don't even have limits on specialist choice. Americans have somehow fooled themselves -- or been fooled -- into believing that government-run health care is somehow different from what they enjoy now. I genuinely believe they carry some sort of dystopian vision around with them, of gray waiting rooms and faceless bureaucrats and bread lines with stethoscopes, rather than grain, at the front. In order to keep that prophecy whole, they've had to mentally classify medicare as some weird, third sort of category -- government paying for private health care.

I'm not necessarily in favor of a government run program, but I maintain that this is a looming storm on the horizon, a far more pressing crisis than Social Security and one that demands much more difficult and far reaching decisions to resolve. Yet, the administration is doing nothing about it.

Update (5/31/2005): I was incorrect in my impression about the rate of increase for US expenditures. Looking at the 2002 numbers as compared to 2000, the US shows the 8th highest percentage increase (16.1%), not the highest. Ireland is actually the highest, with a 33.4% increase in expenditure over that 2 year span. Still 8th highest is not all that great.

George Will on the French Vote

George Will comments on the eve of the referendum for the EU constitution (that has since taken place with a resounding rejection by the voters)

Many French voters will use today's referendum to vent grievances against Jacques Chirac, who has been in power for 10 years, which would be excessive even if he were not overbearing. Some French factions, their normal obstreperousness leavened by paranoia, think the constitution is a conspiracy to use "ultraliberalism" -- free markets -- to destroy their "social model." That is the suffocating web of labor laws and other statism that gives France double-digit unemployment -- a staggering 22 percent of those under age 25.

Furthermore, with a Muslim presence in France of 8 percent and rising, there is a backlash against Chirac's championing of E.U. membership for Turkey, which would be, by the time it joined, by far the most populous E.U. country. Admission of Turkey would further reduce -- more than did last year's admission of 10 nations, eight in Eastern Europe -- the European Union's output per person, which according to one study already ranks below that of 46 American states.

Pedophiles

There was an interesting contrast of cases played out last weekend. Mary Kay Letourneau, a former school teacher who seduced her 12 year old student and had children with him, married the student, now an adult, in a wedding that garnered a lot of news coverage. Down the coast, Michael Jackson, accused of molesting children, continued his defense in court. Two pedophiles, one vilified the other romanticized.

The TV "news" show Entertainment Tonight devoted a lot of coverage over the last several months to the pending marriage of Letourneau and Villi Fualaau. Apparently her pedophilic (if there is such a word) relationship had become entertainment for the public. CBS News describes their "love story", again in the entertainment section (CBS and Entertainment Tonight are both owned by the same company), in romantic terms ("a relationship that survived seemingly insurmountable obstacles") as introduction to a misty eyed account of their beautiful wedding. ET's Jann Carl observes that "their love lasted" despite the obstacles of things like, you know, jail.

The man here is an adult now, and he can marry whoever he wants. But why are we romanticizing this relationship that began as something not all that different than what Michael Jackson is accused of. (The wedding even took place at a winery.) We're talking about a 34 year old woman seducing and raping a 12 year old boy! This is a love story that has beaten all odds? Oh my. This is just sick, and the entertainment "news" business should be ashamed of itself. Maybe next we'll hear about the beauty of Jackson's relationship with his young accuser. Sick.

Update: Apparently, ET paid $1 million for the right to cover the wedding! That's how much a "star" this pedophile has become.

Evolution in Cobb County, GA

Another front in the ongoing battle between supporters of science and their opponents is taking place in Cobb County, GA. Last week, stickers placed on science text books indicating that evolution is a theory or origin rather than a fact were removed by court order. The court order comes as a result of a law suit by some in the county alleging the "disclaimers violated the principle of the separation of church and state." The disclaimer read

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

I have two questions on this.

First, how could anyone object to the disclaimer? Evolution is a scientific theory to explain the origins of life. It is not a fact. As with all theories, evolution should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this disclaimer.

Second, how could this possibly be a violation of the separation of church and state? Where is religion mentioned? Now, I understand that the stickers have most likely come about due to the lobbying of conservative Christian groups who think they are somehow undermining the theory of evolution by calling it a theory. They are doing the right thing but out of ignorance rather than understanding. Be that as it may, there is nothing religious about this disclaimer. This is not endorsing a religious view like intelligent design. The disclaimer simply expresses a correct understanding of science, whether that was the lobbyists' intent or not.

This is a perfect example of what I have said before, namely that both sides in this battle are taking highly questionable stands. One crowd thinks it is supporting science education by rejecting a disclaimer that would help properly understand science. The other thinks it is undermining science education by calling for a disclaimer that helps to properly understand it. This "battle" is just plain silly.

Why the Filibuster Deal was Good for Conservatives

RedState.org's Trevino has a very good post which looks at the filibuster deal from a conservative point of view and concludes it is in the end good for them, and ultimately saves them from themselves.

What's bad? What's bad is easy enough to see: the party and the Administration have lost their way in the second term. The pressing issues of the day -- the war, the deficit, the dollar -- have all been ignored in favor of bizarre voluntary fights on Social Security, the filibuster, and the rearguard actions to defend Tom DeLay. It is a stupefying squandering of political capital that speaks ill of the party leadership from the White House to the RNC to the Office of Senator Frist to the offices of activists from Main Street to K Street. I wish I could have faith that the internal bloodletting to come would bring some common sense to bear, but I do not. For the moment, all we can do is cross our fingers, thank God that the Senate Democrats have a pro-life leader to take the sting out of defeat, and hope that the much-reviled "moderates" can, on occasion, save us from ourselves.

He also comments on how the religious right was used to pursue a goal that ultimately would have proved destructive to the GOP:

We ought to turn for a moment to these people of faith, the "values voters" of November past, who presumably engage in politics because they want to defend traditional families, fight abortion, and establish a more just and humane social order by their lights. The foolishness of a Democratic party intent on alienating them notwithstanding, these people are not inherently Republican, nor are they all inherently conservative as conservative is commonly conceived. They are aligned with the GOP in this generation by reason of the American left's shortsightedness, canny GOP strategizing, and circumstances of history: but that alignment is, I think, less solid than is usually assumed. Recall, for example, Karl Rove's thesis that these persons stayed home in 2000, thus denying the President his popular vote victory. Having mobilized them in favor of eliminating the "judicial filibuster" -- in reality, the filibuster itself -- what were the possible outcomes? The problem here is that there would have been no good outcome from the party's point of view. Assuming a victory, they, and more accurately, their leadership, would have felt temporarily empowered. But in time, the win would turn to ashes in their mouth: having pushed through, say, Owens, Saad, et al., abortion would not have been outlawed, and the President would not suddenly have become more than the fair-weather defender of life and families that he presently is. (On this latter note, more has been written elsewhere by better persons than me -- suffice it to say that the Administration is notably lukewarm on these core moral issues when it's time for action.) In the end, the connection between this procedural fight and the moral issues that they care about would have been revealed for what it always was -- almost entirely illusory -- and they would have felt alienated and used.

Coalition for Darfur: Complexity as an Excuse for Inaction

This week's Coalition for Darfur post deals with the excuse for inaction that the situation is just too complex.

Ten years [after the Rwanda genocide], it now appears as if a few relatively simple measures backed by the necessary political will could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. But in 1994, the genocide appeared massively complex and that complexity was routinely cited as a justification for not intervening.

And Wolfowitz is making exactly the same justification for not intervening in Darfur today.

Were there feasible solutions to Rwanda? In hindsight, the answer is obviously "yes." Are there feasible solutions to Darfur? It is hard to say because right now it seems so complex, but there certainly are if the world powers can muster the will to address them.

But unfortunately, it is far more likely that ten years from now, when perhaps another one million Africans have needlessly died, we'll wonder why we did not act when "it looks in hindsight to have been so simple to prevent something that was so horrible."

Stem Cell Research (Again)

The House yesterday passed a bill expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and opening new lines. I have written on this before, and little has changed. I have one basic problem with the debate: it's based on misleading marketing.

My understanding of how embryonic stem cells would be used is

1. Somehow the cells will be coaxed into developing into specific cell types (heart, brain, etc.),
2. somehow these new cells will be introduced into the patient's body,
3. somehow the body will be persuaded to accept the cells into the body's tissue where the new cells will grow, and
4. somehow this will cure diseases like Alzheimer's as well as paralysis from spinal injuries.

All those "somehow"s are where research has to be done. And that's just to develop the treatment technique. After that comes much more research on how to apply this technique to specific conditions. Finally, there's all the regulatory processes that would have to be completed to get a treatment out to the public.

The researchers (politicians too, remember John Edwards' campaign promise that a Kerry-Edwards administration would cure paralysis?) push the potential end result in their drive for funding. But it is all speculation at this point. Scientists can't even do the first step in that sequence, yet. Who knows if they will ever get all the way through. This will be a long process of research and study, yet somehow that never seems to get mentioned. Unless Edwards was expecting some unconstitutionally long administration, he would almost certainly fail to fulfill his promise. Playing on people's emotions with the promise of a cure that may never come or will not come for years is misleading and disgusting. They are little better than snake-oil salesmen.

I am not saying that the prospects are not as grand as the researchers and politicians claim. Maybe this line of study will eventually lead to a cure for Alzheimer's. (My father-in-law has Alzheimer's, so I certainly hope they can find a cure. I have some idea of how terrible that disease is.) It makes sense to me as a layman that this could work. But scientists should be methodical, not ones to jump to the end of the line. And they should be honest about how long it will be to get any results. Let's not jump the gun here with funding and publicity assuming that whole sequence exists when it doesn't. Funding should be appropriate to the task of addressing step #1. The debate raging now should only be held if and when we get to the point where we are actually considering a treatment approach, i.e. when all the other steps in the sequence have been addressed.

I also have to point out again that President Bush has not banned embryonic stem cell research, as Amygdala recently wrote. The president did not ban research. He was the one who initiated funding of stem cell research. What he did in 2001 was to restrict the number of sources of embryonic stem cells that could be used in research. Like the president has done in other areas, his critics are more than willing to allow people to believe an untruth as long as it helps their cause.

Political Wire: Bonus Quote of the Day

Political Wire: Bonus Quote of the Day for 5/24:

"The only reason he's still up there in the 40's is that the Democrats are really brain-dead and have nothing positive to put on the table... This is more than a rough patch; it's a dark moment right now for Bush."

-- a "veteran Republican who has close ties to the White House," quoted by the New York Times, referring to President Bush's falling approval ratings.

As I said...

Dobson Blasts Filibuster 'Betrayal'

Dr. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family and one of the leaders of the Christian Right, has released a denunciation of the Senate compromise to avoid the nuclear option in dealing with the use of filibuster to block judicial nominees. Note that Dobson describes the group of Republicans who helped bring this about a "cabal", which means "the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons secretly united to bring about an overturn or usurpation especially in public affairs." So, according to Dobson, these are plotters trying to overturn the government. Interesting.

Deleted scenes from Revenge of the Sith

Amygdala has several posts dealing with deleted scenes from Revenge of the Sith, here, here, here, and here. These are primarily for purists but the fill in a lot of dropped story lines (e.g. seeds of the Rebellion and Palpatine planting seeds of distrust in Anakin of Padme which become important on Mustafar). Much of this we will see on the DVD, I'm sure.

Howard Dean's Do Nothing Plan

On yesterday's Meet the Press, Democratic chief Howard Dean laid out the party's strategy for fixing Social Security. Tim Russert called it the "No Plan Strategy," where the Democrats just don't come up with a plan. The argument for this strategy is that it worked for the Republicans in 1994. The Clintons came up with a proposal for health care reform, and the Republicans just let them run with it and tie their own noose. I call this the "Let the Other Guy Shoot Himself" strategy.

The problem is the analysis of 1994 is incomplete. Did the Repubican run start with the Clintons shooting themselves and their party in the foot? Certainly. But once the Democrats were wounded, the Republicans came up with the Contract On For America, a vision of what the Republicans stood for and what Republican governance would look like. Whether one likes their view or not, the Republicans were offering a portrait of what they believed and what they would do once in power.

The Democrats cannot just sit around with no idea of who they are. This was the strategy in the 2004 presidential election: vote for Kerry because he's not Bush. We don't really know who he is, but we are certain he's not Bush. Where did that strategy get them? A Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008.

The Democratic party needs to stop simply criticizing whatever Bush is doing, and start coming up with a clue of who they are and what they stand for. They need to start understanding mainstream America. (Just read the condescension in the New York Times comments on the NASCAR culture. As a Glenn Reynolds reader says, "Replace 'NASCAR' with 'Hip-hop,' and then ask yourself whether this would have run in the Times.") They need to find a way to articulate their new-found vision to mainstream America. Simply saying privatization is a bad idea is not enough.

Movie Review: Revenge of the Sith

It's all over. With Episode 3, the Star Wars saga, at least at the movies, comes to an end. While there will doubtless be numerous revised versions of the films in the future, the story is told. In the end, the 6 films tell the story of Anakin Skywalker. One trilogy recounts his fall to evil, the other his redemption. Episode 3 is the final fall.

Warning: there will be spoilers here. On the other hand, if you really don't know where all this is going at this point, you probably aren't reading this.

The story starts with a pitched space battle through which our Jedi heroes Skywalker and Obi Wan Kenobi fly to find General Grievous' ship. The general is the droid commander of the droid army, and he has kidnapped Chancellor Palpatine. After making a graceful landing on Grievous' ship, the two make their way to Palpatine where they confront Count Dooku. Once again, the 2-on-1 battle goes mano-a-mano when Kenobi is taken out. This leads to Anakin's first crucial choice in the film. Having defeated Dooku, does he arrest him, which is the Jedi way, or does he execute him, which is the Sith way. Palpatine, showing his true nature, coaxes Anakin to the dark path.

Back on Coruscant, the shadowy political moves start again. Anakin is put on the Jedi Council on Palpatine's orders. The Jedi have grown distrustful of the chancellor, and view Anakin's friendship with Palpatine with suspicion. Because of this distrust, the Jedi insult Anakin by refusing to grant the rank that normally comes with membership on the Council. Anakin, on one hand, feels unworthy of membership but on the other hand is angered by the slight.

While this is happening, Anakin and secret wife Padme Amidala are reunited, and Anakin learns he is going to be a father. (Don't worry, I won't tell you who the kids are. Suffice it to say, they play something of an important role in subsequent episodes.) But, as happened in Episode 2 with his mother, Anakin starts having nightmares that Padme will die in childbirth. This is one of Anakin's great flaws: he is unable to deal with letting go of people he loves. The death of his mother in Attack of the Clones drove him to a murderous rage. Still having the heart of a Jedi, Anakins seeks advice from Yoda, who advises him to simply let go of attachments, not exactly the answer Anakin is looking for.

Palpatine has a different answer for him. Attending the theater, the chancellor tells the story of a Sith lord who had learned the power to control death. The catch is that, to get this power, one has to go down the dark path. Eventually, Palpatine strips away the subtlety of his seduction of Anakin and reveals himself as the Sith Lord Sidious, offering his help in saving Padme, though there may be something of a cost which Palpatine doesn't get into.

Kenobi is out of the picture in all this because he is off tracking down Grievous, leading to a spectacular battle between Kenobi (one lightsaber) and Grievous (four lightsabers). For all Obi Wan's Jedi training, the general is defeated by a blaster, which Kenobi calls uncivilized.

Finally the political tensions between the chancellor and the Jedi come to a head. With Grievous and Dooku, the putative heads of the separatist movement whose threat caused the Senate to give Palpatine extraordinary power in Clones, dead, there is no reason for Palaptine to not lay down his power and step away from the Chancellorship. When he doesn't, the Jedi decide to move against him. Anakin tells Master Mace Windu the truth about Palpatine. Windu and three other Jedi confront Palpatine and try to arrest him, but are unprepared for a pitched battle with a Sith Lord. Only Windu survives.

Meanwhile, Anakin is struggling with himself on what to do. Does he do the Jedi thing and let Palpatine be taken, or does he throw everything away for the dangled carrot of aid to Padme? Again, if you don't know the answer, you haven't been paying attention. Skywalker races off to Palpatine's office where he finds Windu and the chancellor at the end of their battle. Windu has seemingly won. Palpatine's face has been scarred by the force lightning he has thrown at Windu. Mace, realizing that arresting Palpatine (the Jedi way, remember) is not a realistic option because he controls the courts, decides he has to execute the chancellor. Technically, this is a violation of the letter Jedi code similar to what Anakin did in executing Dooku earlier, but not a violation of the spirit of the code. If he allows Windu to kill Palpatine, Padme will die. If he stops it, he will have to kill Windu and be outcast from the Jedi.

This, then, is the climactic moment of the trilogy. Anakin must choose his destiny. He can no longer straddle the fence, trying to be a Jedi but also giving in to his darker impulses at times. As Windu's arm is coming down for the death blow, Anakin chooses. He hacks off Windu's arm (yet another arm hacking) and Palpatine pushes Windu out the window. Having pledged himself to the Sith, Anakin gets a new name: Darth Vader.

Vader's first tasks are to basically clean up the mess of the Jedi and the war. The Jedi are made enemies of the state and Vader is dispatched to clean out the Jedi temple. The clone army, led in the field by Jedi, and ordered to turn on their commanders and execute them. This tragic scene of betrayal is carried out all over the galaxy. Only Kenobi and Yoda survive, and they are gathered together by Senator Organa of Alderaan.

Vader is then dispatched to Mustafar to "take care" of the remaining separatist leadership.

Learning the identity of the Jedi who turned and wiped out the younglings in the temple, Kenobi is dispatched to kill Anakin, whom he calls his brother, and Yoda goes after the newly named emperor. The latter have a pitched battle with lightsaber and chairs, but in the end Yoda is unable to defeat the Sith Lord.

Kenobi follows Padme to find Anakin on Mustafar. When Vader realizes Padme has (unknowingly) brought Kenobi to him, he turns his range on his beloved wife and chokes her nearly to death. Then Vader faces Kenobi in what is easily the best lightsaber duel in all six films. These two titans slug it out with all they have in the lava river. In the end, Vader makes a risky move and Kenobi dismembers him. (Not just a hand this time.) Kenobi vents his tremendous disappointment and sorrow over Anakin's fall, and Vader vents his tremendous hatred of his former mentor and friend. This scene of bitter recrimination between the two contrasts with an earlier scene, the last time they see each other before Mustafar, which shows the deep friendship between the two men.

The crippled and nearly dead Vader is left to burn in the lava while Kenobi tends to Padme. But the emperor rescues what remains of Vader. His body torn and burned, Darth Vader is given mechanical limbs and placed in a black, armored suit that will keep him alive. The scenes of Vader being rebuilt are contrasted with the scenes of Padme giving birth to twins, who she names Luke and Leia. The first thing the armored Vader asks, in a strangely James Earl Jones-ish voice, is about Padme. The emperor informs him that Vader, in his rage, has killed her. As Vader screams out his pain, Palpatine smiles knowing that Vader is now fully his. This is not totally a lie, because Padme has died, having lost her will to live because of Anakin's transformation. Like an abusive husband, Vader does not blame himself for Padme's death, but Kenobi. If Obi Wan hadn't been there, after all, he wouldn't have gotten mad and turned on Padme. With this rage against the Jedi, the last traces of Anakin Skywalker disappear.

The only thing that remains is what to do with the children and the two surviving Jedi. The boy is taken to Tatooine to be raised by his Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru, where he will be watched over by Kenobi. The girl is taken by Organa to be raised as their adopted daughter. Thus is the stage set for Episode 4.

The film is fantastic. Now, I have to say I liked the first two films better than many others. To me, Attack of the Clones was the second best film of the five that had been made, yet I've seen it described as "stinking up the place." Certainly, Phantom Menace was a total disappointment, but even there I don't think it was as bad as some people said. I really liked Hayden Christiansen in Clones, but many others didn't. They complained about his awkwardness around Padme and the screwy dialog. But don't they realize that Anakin, at that point, has lived essentially like a monk? He has had very little contact with people outside the Jedi world, and has certainly never had a girlfriend. What do you expect, a polished lothario? Part of him has been built to extreme heights, but other parts of him have been left at a child-like state. The dialog was awkward, but is what one would expect.

But this film is great, and most everyone seems to agree. The dark undercurrents are balanced by the kind of humor we found often in the 4-6 trilogy. (I loved the scene when Yoda confronts the emperor and just brushes aside the imperial guards like flies. The whole audience cracked up at that image.) The acting is superb. The score is, as always, fantastic. The tragedy of Anakin Skywalker is told in a realistic, human manner. His fall is something we can relate to in a galaxy so different from our own.

We see and understand the struggles Anakin faces as he tries to reconcile the different parts of his personality. One of the underlying plot elements of the 4-6 trilogy is that, even after years as Darth Vader, there is still some good in him. This is shown in Episode 3 as well. Even after turning, he loves his wife. More than that, I swear I saw in one quick shot of his face as he is taking care of the viceroy on Mustafar that he was crying. Maybe I just imagined it, but I swear I saw it. I'll have to see the film again to make sure. Darn. But in a subsequent shot, with Vader gazing out over the lava alone, there is clearly a tear running down his cheek. Part of him loves the rush of power, but another part is horrified at what he is doing.

One of the questions Anakin has to address is what defines loyalty? Is it patriotic to dissent? Is one being disloyal to one's country by opposing the leadership of the country? The Jedi grow distrustful of Palpatine and ask Anakin to spy on the chancellor. Is that treason? Where does the country end and the leadership begin? This is something we have struggled with as a nation. Was it disloyal to protest the Vietnam War? How about the Iraq War? We have this idea as a nation that loyalty and patriotism, at least in times of crisis, demands full support of the leadership of the country. This was shown in Bush's popularity polls after 9/11, and the fear many had of expressing any kind of disagreement with the president lest one be considered disloyal at a time where unity was demanded above all else. This was shown in Vietnam where the American culture was torn to shreds between protesters and those who felt the protesters were traitors, even though the latter group was supporting a cause that was so plainly a disaster.

Is one's loyalty to the ideas of a nation, or to the institutions of the nation? Elsewhere, I have written about the connection between Palpatine's rise and that of Hitler. This is another parallel. One of the problems of organizing resistance in Germany to the Nazis was the fear that it was treason. It took forever for the so-called resistance to come to the conclusion that Hitler had to be killed. Like Anakin, they had the silly notion that he should be arrested and brought before his own courts. Like the American anti-protesters during Vietnam, the German people were going to be loyal to their government, even if that government was destroying the nation.

Most important for purists, the story lines flows cleanly into the 4-5-6 trilogy, but there are some continuity problems. In particular, Padme dies in childbirth, but in Episode 6, Leia remembers her "real mother," presumably Padme. The biggest continuity problem I've seen ever since Phantom Menace is pretty simple. As a Sith, the Vader of Episode 6 is pretty darned weak. Watch him fight Luke and compare his skill and technique with Darth Maul of Menace, or the young Kenobi and Vader of Sith. The Vader of Jedi is supposedly the greatest of them all, but Maul would rip him to shreds. The Episode 6 Vader is so slow and primitive in technique. Yes, there is more to being a Jedi/Sith than skill with the lightsaber. Force powers factor quite significantly in battle, but we never see much of those from the 4-5-6 era Vader either. In light of the newer films, we have to imagine the earlier films had better fights.

In the end, Sith provides a tragic chapter to close out the 28 year old film series. There is an emptiness to the end, and not simply because there are no more episodes to come. Whereas the original series closed out with the triumph of good over evil and with Anakin's redemption, this one closes out in the darkest of night. But we all knew it would end up that way.

Bush in Milwaukee

The president was here in Milwaukee yesterday touting his Social Security privatization proposals. I wish I could provide a first hand account of the event, but I cannot. Several bloggers, including Josh Marshall, have tracked reports of either Secret Service or party workers posing as Secret Service removing people who dissent from Bush's views from similar events. All part of the president's free exchange of ideas, I guess. For this event, they went even further, blocking off access to the Art Museum for all but approved guests. I like to take walks past the war memorial and down to the lakefront after lunch. But the war memorial is an access point to the art museum, so that whole street was blocked off by police who told me I couldn't even walk down there.

I understand security considerations. But in 2000, I attended a speech by soon-to-be popular vote winner Al Gore at the war memorial. For that, the street was not blocked off and the public was invited to attend. Yes, he was just the vice president back then, but still. It's not that there wasn't security. There were police everywhere, and I remember looking out the windows and seeing the sharp-shooters on adjacent rooftops. The point is there can be public access and still maintain security.

So having the police block off public streets and access to public buildings would seem to go beyond simple security. I think he just wanted to keep the riff-raff out lest the Bush-style exchange of ideas became a real exchange of ideas.

Blaming the Messenger

Anne Applebaum writes about the underlying issue in the Newsweek flap: it was plausible.

But surely the larger point is not the story itself but that it was so eminently plausible, in Pakistan, Afghanistan and everywhere else. And it was plausible precisely because interrogation techniques designed to be offensive to Muslims were used in Iraq and Guantanamo, as administration and military officials have also confirmed.

Andrew Sullivan has made the same point before.

Darfur Facing 'Inevitable' Famine

On top of all the other suffering in Darfur, the people there now face what USATODAY.com describes as an 'inevitable' famine.

Food prices have doubled, immigrants' remittances have been cut off, and the demand for day labor and homemade handicrafts has collapsed. And now the region enters the annual hungry season —gafaf, they call it — when food from the last harvest runs low and daily meals drop from three to two to one.

It all means that Darfur, so benighted that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan likened it to "hell on earth," faces another curse: famine. A Tufts University study released earlier this year says that because of problems unprecedented even in Darfur's tortured history, "regionwide famine appears inevitable."

If so, the international community — already struggling to reach the 2.6 million of Darfur's 6 million people who need help — may have to feed and shelter even more. And this effort, second only to the tsunami relief operation in South Asia, promises to stretch on for years, until some way is found to put Darfur back together again.

It is particularly telling that, after all the words about genocide, "all agree that violence is no longer the primary killer."

As usual with Darfur, few are talking about this new catastrophe hitting those who have survived the previous catastrophes of the region.

"People are starving and no one is reporting it, because technically they are not starving," says Bir Chandra Mandal, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Program emergency director in South Darfur. They die from TB (tuberculosis) or malaria or diarrhea, their immune systems weakened by malnutrition. He calls it an "invisible famine."

Coalition for Darfur: Delays and Complications

This week's Coalition for Darfur post is about the world's inaction in responding to the situation in Darfur.

The genocide in Darfur began more than two years ago. Since then, more than 400,000 people have died and the international community has yet to take any concrete action toward stopping the violence or helping the nearly 2 million displaced return to their destroyed villages and resume semi-normal lives.

And the longer the world delays, the more complicated the situation seems to become.

"Star Wars" and the Rise of Dictatorship

At the Cannes premiere of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, many are talking about the political symbolism of the film, in particular the parallels between the transformation of Republic to Empire under Palpatine and events in the United States since 9/11. But, as I commented elsewhere, the story is repeated throughout history, something Lucas well understands.

Lucas said he patterned his story after historical transformations from freedom to fascism, never figuring when he started his prequel trilogy in the late 1990s that current events might parallel his space fantasy.

"As you go through history, I didn't think it was going to get quite this close. So it's just one of those recurring things," Lucas said at a Cannes news conference. "I hope this doesn't come true in our country."

...

Lucas began researching how democracies can turn into dictatorships with full consent of the electorate.

In ancient Rome, "why did the senate after killing Caesar turn around and give the government to his nephew?" Lucas said. "Why did France after they got rid of the king and that whole system turn around and give it to Napoleon? It's the same thing with Germany and Hitler.

"You sort of see these recurring themes where a democracy turns itself into a dictatorship, and it always seems to happen kind of in the same way, with the same kinds of issues, and threats from the outside, needing more control. A democratic body, a senate, not being able to function properly because everybody's squabbling, there's corruption."

How did National Socialism rise to power in Germany? What were the keys? We start with a scared population. In that case, it was fear of economic ruin and of unrest and civil war. The German mark has become virtually worthless for a time in the early 1920's, so much so that life savings were wiped out to buy a loaf of bread. It was also a time of great instability as the republic tried to fill the power vacuum left by the Hohenzollerns. Communists and nationalists waged war in the streets and state governments were overthrown. So when the Great Depression came just a few years later, the public panicked out of fear that they would be again ruined. There was also fear of civil war instigated by the Communists. In their fear, they turned to the one man in Germany who offered the prospect of strong leadership. Once Hitler had exploited this fear to earn the Chancellorship, he pushed legislation through to give him (well, the cabinet, but that was quickly fixed) dictatorial authority. There was so much fear in Germany at the time--partially stoked by the mysterious Reichstag fire which the Nazis may have started--and desperation for strong leadership to restore the German economy and stability that even German Jewish groups supported Hitler's bid for dictatorship. Once passed, the "last remnants of the old republic [were] swept away" (from New Hope) and the new empire (reich) rose.

It is the rise of Hitler that the Star Wars story of Palpatine most closely mirrors, though there are many similarities to the rise of the Caesars and Napoleon. Certainly, there are ominous parallels in this country. In our fear of terrorism, we have handed unprecedented power to the president and executive branch. Bush exploited fear of terrorism to get himself re-elected. But we aren't yet as far down the path to the dark side that Palpatine ends up.

By the way, the best Star Wars line that applies to the current situation is from New Hope: who is the greater fool, the fool or the fool who follows him? (And yes, I'm sure I butchered both quotes from New Hope from memory.)

Cox & Forkum: Flushed

Great cartoon from Cox & Forkum, along with comments from the news and bloggers about the brewing fiasco arising from Newsweek's erroneous report from an anonymous source about investigators flushing the Qu'ran down a toilet.



Instapundit has a lot more on the subject.

Update: Andrew Sullivan has some words about what is being overlooked in commentary about Newsweek's error.

More on Evolution in Kansas

In my previous comments on the evolution debate in Kansas schools, I have described the "revisionist" view as reasonable at face value, but a smokescreen for their real ambition, which is to turn religion into science. I guess the smoke is clearing because they are getting quite open about it. The AP reports

The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution weren't limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself. Advocates of 'intelligent design' are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.

Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought. The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science standards.

Stephen Meyer argues that the current definition of science, which focuses on the natural world, is "not neutral. It's actually taking sides" on the question of natural versus supernatural explanation. Well, yeah. Science searches for logical, demonstrable, reproducible explanations for the phenomena around us. That naturally precludes a supernatural explanation. Christians will argue that God is omnipotent, so He can do whatever He wants. Therefore, since God can do anything he wants, there is no way to predict what will ever happen if you bring God into your theory.

If I pick up a pencil and drop it, what will happen? If I take a scientific explanation, I can answer that. I can predict the path it will take, how long it will take to fall to my desk, and how fast it will be travelling when it hits the desk. But if I bring God in, how do I predict what will happen? I cannot. If God can do whatever He wants, then that pencil can follow any trajectory, move at any speed, do anything God wants it to do. There goes any element of predictability in science. This is why God is not part of any scientific theory.

Ironically, what these Christians are doing is basically undermining God. They are saying that even God is subject to the laws of nature. Science is the quest to understand those laws, so if God is part of a scientific understanding, then He is subject to those laws. Even He cannot break them. In other words, God is not omnipotent. This is why, as a Christian myself as well as a scientist, I find this whole line of argument disturbing. God cannot be put in a box, and why these Christians are so insistent on doing so is perplexing.

Fundamentally, we're comparing apples and oranges. On the question of the origins of the universe of or life on Earth, science looks at the "how" and religion looks at the "who" and the "why." As a Christian, I say God created the universe and created all life on Earth. That statement does not address the question of how He created the universe. Science attempts to provide an explanation of the how. Rather than fight against scientific discovery, Christians should be embracing science as a means of further understanding the mind and ways of God. The Bible tells us that God is understood through creation (Rom 1:20). So why do they want to quash that understanding of creation so much?

Wisconsin Voter ID

Wisconsin Republicans have been working hard to pass a voter ID bill in the state legislature. This bill would require voters to show their driver's license or other valid picture ID as proof of identity at the polling booth. Democrats have opposed the bill, arguing that it would disenfranchise voters.

First off, the Republican strategy here is pretty silly. The governor already vetoed one version of the bill back in 2003, so this year they introduce essentially the same bill. Doyle again vetoes it, so they introduce it a third time, simply adding provisions to address felons voting. If they really wanted to get the thing passed, they would work with the Democrats on a compromise bill that Doyle has indicated he would sign. But, as the national Republican party showed in the ongoing debate over partial birth abortion, they are more interested in posturing than in actually doing something. "[T]he Republicans apparently don't see any value or gain in actually doing something."

I have to say I don't understand the idea that this kind of measure would alienate Democrat voters. I've never understood claims by Florida Democrats in 2000 that having police cars patrolling near polling booths in predominantly black neighborhoods suppressed the black (read Democratic) vote in those neighborhoods either. (That one actually sounds vaguely racist.) Maybe I'm just dense. Captain Ed addresses these kinds of objections. On the other hand, Folkbum presents the following statistics:

The photo ID states, in fact, rank 51 (HI), 50 (SC), 43 (GA), 30 (LA), 14 (FL) and, oddly, 8 (SD). States that require ID (not necessarily a photo) at the polls rank 49 (AR), 43 (AZ), 40 (AL), 39 (TN), 33 (KY), 29 (VA), 20 (MT), 18 (DE), 13 (MO), 9 (CO), and 6 (AK). In other words, the bottom half of states require ID far more often than the top.

Given the small number of photo ID states, this is not a totally convincing argument. Both groups show several low turnout states and some high.

In November, because I was registered before election day, I just walked up to the election workers, told them my name, helped them find it on the list (pretty easy since it's almost always first, but they still had to search) and then went to vote. At no point did I have to prove I was who I said I was. I could have easily said I was my neighbor. As a matter of principle, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to require some basic sort of proof of identity. That doesn't necessarily mean photo ID. The Democratic compromise is to include any "document with their voting addresses, such as a utility bill or a bank statement, or the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, in lieu of a photo ID." Republicans complain that this would water down the bill, but is the approach that Doyle says he would sign. It certainly seems like a good compromise: ensuring some minimal requirement of proof of identity without raising the bar too high. The Republican version would be the most rigid regulation of its type in the nation.

That's common sense. But the Republicans are arguing their measure as a means to address problems of voter fraud. As the Journal Sentinel writes, "It 'solves' a problem that no one is yet entirely certain exists." Again, this is a Republican pattern of behavior, most recently demonstrated at the national level with the bankruptcy bill which was supported on grounds that it would resolve abuse of the bankruptcy system, abuse for which no one actually had documentation. Another common sense idea would be to actually understand a problem before trying to solve it.

Marquette Gold Cheers

Milwaukee's Marquette University recently decided to change its nickname to the Gold, a decision met with a storm of criticism. A Penny For complains the change has "made Marquette University the butt of a joke and I am embarrassed to be an alumni of the University." Heraldblog chimes in with suggestions for four cheers.

Terror Alert Correlation with Approval Ratings

JuliusBlog has an interesting chart showing the history of Bush's approval rating, correlating it with terror alerts.

There are few things that are quite evident from the chart:

- Whenever his ratings dip, there's a new terror alert.

- Every terror alert is followed by a slight uptick of Bush approval ratings.

- Whenever there are many unfavorable headlines, there's another alert or announcement (distraction effect).

- As we approach the 2004 elections, the number and frequency of terror alerts keeps growing, to the point that they collapse in the graphic. At the same time, Bush ratings are lower than ever.

(See the comments on the article for a refutation of some of these "quite evident" points.)

In a seperate article, Julius documents the correlation of bad news for the administration with increases to the alert level. These articles put Tom Ridge's admission of clashes with others in the administration on the use of the alert level into some context. As Brewtown Politico says,

It looks like Ridge wants to let the world know he didn't appreciate being used as a political tool as head of Homeland Security.

Wisconsin Voter Fraud

Folkbum has written several posts on the investigation into voter fraud in Wisconsin, particularly right here in Milwaukee, during the last election. (A summary of everything can be found on Daily Kos.) He debunks the argument for voter ID based on the findings of the investigation, since the fraud that was found came in same-day registrations which require voter identification. On the question of requiring voter ID for all voters, he writes

I've seen the conservative half of Wisconsin's bloggers seriously asking the question: Should it be easier for someone to vote than to buy beer? lease an apartment? rent a movie? get a fishing license? The answer, of course, is yes. Voting is not a privilege. Voting is not a right. Voting is a fundamental obligation for people living in a democracy, even a representative one like ours. Any obstacle--whether it be a poll tax or a draconian ID requirement--that keeps people away from the polls is unacceptable. Anyone who tells you that voting should be hard is out to suppress the will of the people. Remember when they finally got the state's biggest lobbyist to admit that more voting would "turn out the wrong people"? This is what the vote suppressors in Wisconsin want--to keep the "wrong people" (read: Democrats) from voting.

Coalition for Darfur: The Attention It Deserves

This week's Coalition for Darfur post is an urgent call to increase the awareness of what is happening there.

This genocide will end in one of two ways: either the international community will begin to take its responsibility to protect the people of Darfur seriously and take whatever steps are necessary to ensure their survival or it will end when the Africans in Darfur have been completely eliminated.

A lot of people, including Kevin Drum who is quoted in this week's article, seem to think that only a large scale invasion of Sudan, presumably by western forces including those of the US, will resolve the problem. But, the African Union already has forces on the ground in Sudan and they have been effective where they have been deployed, and the AU is planning to expand their role. What is needed is for NATO to provide logistical support for the AU forces already on the ground. (As usual, France is a big barrier to this.) In fairness, I should note that Drum considered the AU role as an option, and is none too optimistic about them.

On a side note, the humanitarian aid situation in Darfur is a sharp contrast to what happened in South Asia after the tsunami. BBC reports that Doctors Without Borders raised so much money for tsunami relief (four times what was needed) that they are now trying to contact donors for permission to redirect their donations to other areas, including Darfur. Would that those aiding the suffering of Darfur had the same problem. This contrast shows what can happen when sufficient publicity is given to a problem. The tsunami got the publicity, Darfur has not.

More on the Looming Oil Crisis

Last week, I linked to an article warning of an oil crisis that could be hitting much sooner than anyone expects. The warning comes from Matthew Simmons. Instapundit has a link to Simmons' soon to be published book.

What Bush Got Wrong about Yalta

David Greenberg has written a solid essay in response to the president's recent criticism of the Yalta agreement. What is comes down to is realpolitik. The Soviets by February 1945 had occupied most of Eastern Europe. There were only two realistic options: get Stalin to agree to elections with the promise of allowing self-determination, or a massive escalation of the war to continue on to Moscow. FDR chose the former.

Surely the president would not have preferred another quarter million dead Americans on a drive against the Soviets. And need anyone be reminded about the fate of other nations who had tried to conquer Russia?

The Nuclear Option

The Washington Post has an editorial opposing the so-called nuclear option, i.e. ending the ability for the minority party in the Senate to filibuster against judicial nominees, even though they support the general notion that the president should have leeway in nominating judges to the federal bench and those nominations should get up or down votes. Among its arguments, the Post makes a point that often gets overlooked.

But we oppose the nuclear option for another reason, too: It's rarely a good idea to fashion long-term institutional change for short-term tactical benefit. Nothing illustrates that more clearly than the positions of convenience both sides now take on what should be an issue of principle. For most of the past century, liberals viewed the filibuster as retrograde and antidemocratic. Only now that they are in the minority have they seen the virtue -- not to mention the Founders' handiwork -- in minority obstructionism.

The Republicans have their own situational ethics, having come rather late to the purity of their belief in prompt up-or-down votes for every nominee. Moreover, they continue to defend the filibuster when it comes to legislation, citing principled justifications for minority empowerment: that it cools extremism, promotes bipartisan solutions and slows decisions taken in haste or passion. It's not so terrible, they say, to have to persuade 60 senators before imposing momentous change on the country, but they find offensive the same logic applied to a Supreme Court nominee.

Is there more to either side's conversion than a lust for short-term political advantage?

Detonating the nuclear option to get ten controversial nominees through is an incredibly short-sighted tactic. Surely the Republicans realize there will come a day when they will again be in the minority in the Senate, and when they are they will dearly miss the option of filibustering any controversial nominee by a Democratic president. In the legal world, there is an old aphorism that "hard cases make bad law," the idea being that decisions in extreme cases make a bad foundation for general legal principles. The same applies to the question of the filibuster. Changing the rules for a small handful of controversial nominees makes for bad rules.

Why are the right-wingers so anxious to get these ten nominees through that they are willing to compromise their own position long-term to accomplish this? I think they realize that they may never have such a golden opportunity again. The religious right may never have a president more friendly to their cause than they have now, especially when it is conventional wisdom that Bush won re-election due in large part to them. Because of the perceived power of the religious right today, they may never have the influence they have over the Senate again. So they want to capitalize on their position by getting as many of their judges, with lifetime appointments remember, on the bench as possible. That way their influence will extend well beyond their time of political power.

Well Designed Logo, But For What?

Organizations spend a lot of time and money researching anything associated with their public face, things like logos. Andrew Kantor has a link to an example of the result of such brilliant research:

When told it was a logo for the Institute of Oriental Study, colleague Lindsey Nair quipped, "What is that, 'up the yin-yang'?"

Looming Oil Crisis

The Guardian has a sobering article warning of an oil crisis that could be arriving much sooner than analysts have predicted.

One of the world's leading energy analysts yesterday called for an independent assessment of global oil reserves because he believed that Middle Eastern countries may have far less than officially stated and that oil prices could double to more than $100 a barrel within three years, triggering economic collapse

...

Mr Simmons told the meeting that it was inevitable that the price of oil would soar above $100 as supplies failed to meet demand. "Demand is pulling away from supply...and we have to ask whether we have the resources that we think we do. It could be catastrophic if we do not anticipate when peak oil comes."

The precise arrival of peak oil is hotly debated by academics and geologists, but analysts increasingly say that official US Geological Survey estimates that it will not happen for 35 years are over-optimistic.

When one considers just how many products we consume on a regular basis are derived in part from oil--just think of everything around you right now that has plastic in it--this would be disasterous for the global economy.

The Secret Downing Street Memo

The secret Downing Street memo is available online. This memo is an account of talks between the US and UK governments in July 2002 regarding the course of action to be taken in Iraq. There are plenty of things to note in this document. (A full analysis from a UK point of view has been published by the Sunday Times.)

As of mid-summer 2002,

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Remember, the drama played out publicly was that the decision to attack was not made until much later. Also note the lack of discussion about planning for the war's aftermath, a momentous miscalculation for which many US and UK soldiers have paid with their lives.

Just before the war began, much was made of Turkey's decision to not allow bases there to be used in the war. It was thought this threw a wrench into war planning. But the memo says

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital.

From the beginning, it appears the Pentagon was preparing strategies that did not rely on Turkey. No one has accused the Pentagon of not preparing combat strategy well.

The most interesting paragraph is

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

It is repeated that Bush had already decided to go to war. The difficulty was in justifying it. It was understood that the case for the war, i.e. WMD, was thin. Contrary to the president's dire public warnings about the threat Hussein posed, it was understood that his capabilities were far less than advertised.

On the question of political strategy,

But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

So the push for a UN ultimatum came from Blair. Secretary Powell got a lot of credit for pushing the administration down the path of using the UN, but the memo credits the UK. This is, of course, a UK internal memo so it will emphasize what they were doing and would not necessarily include comments about what the US Secretary of State was saying to his president.

None of this is particularly surprising. Everyone knew, or should have known, that Bush was always pushing for war and that anything else was just a charade to fool the gullible. That Bush didn't want to go through the UN and had to be pressured into it is well understood. The one enlightening element is the revelation that even Bush and Blair understood how weak the WMD argument was. This doesn't mean that Bush did not accept former CIA director Tenet's assertion that the WMD evidence was the "slam dunk" he said it was. Rather, Bush and Blair understood that they were exaggerating the threat from those non-existent weapons in order to get support.

Evolution in Kansas

The Kansas state board of education has begun hearings to discuss the school system's approach on science education, in particular on the subject of evolution.

In June, they will decide whether to revise the science curriculum to include criticisms of the principles of evolution as an explanation of the origin of life, the universe and the genetic code.

I have commented on this subject before. The idea of including criticisms of evolution, indeed of any theory, really should be part of the education system. CBS News has a list of questions evolution critics are encouraging students to ask when taught about evolution. This is good because encourages and fosters deeper exploration of the theory, rather than simply demanding that the student blindly accept whatever he or she is told, which is the antithesis of scientific exploration.

Unfortunately this does not always happen, and many who supposedly support teaching science in science class appear to believe that raising questions is tantamount to undermining science. CNN reports

Ken Schmitz, a University of Missouri/Kansas City chemistry professor attending the hearing said he worried that the attack on evolution could confuse students and endanger their ability to excel in science.

"They are not going to understand this," said Schmitz.

Questioning any theory should not endanger a student's ability to excel in science. If the students are not understanding this, as Dr. Schmitz says, it is because they have been conditioned to not question and to be good little sponges and accept whatever they are told.

While at face value, the first part of what the "revisionists" are aiming for is desirable, it is really just a smoke screen for their real ambition. As part of exploring the questions about evolution, "Teachers would be encouraged to discuss 'alternative explanations'." The alternative explanations desired by the revisionists are, of course, religion masquerading as science.

But even at surface value, this second goal is misguided. It encourages the idea that all explanations have somewhat equal merit, and supposes that there are viable alternatives to the theory in the first place. I cannot personally speak for biological evolution (I never liked biology, and haven't studied it since the 10th grade), but I can for its astrophysical counterpart: cosmology, the study of the origin of the universe. The currently fashionable theory in cosmology is the Big Bang theory. The theory, like all theories, has many holes in addition to the elements which have observational support. But is there a viable alternative that could be taught along side Big Bang in the schools? No. There are alternatives, to be sure. The Steady State cosmology has always been the primary alternative. But should this be taught on something of an even plane with Big Bang? No, because the overwhelming consensus of the astrophysical community is in support of Big Bang. Steady State is on a far from equal footing.

This lack of a viable alternative likely true for evolution as well. To teach loopy, out of the mainstream alternatives side by side with the mainstream theory, with the underlying implication that all explanations have equal value, would give a totally misguided picture of science. (It is ironic that these evangelical Christians, who typically decry pluralism in our culture, want to encourage pluralistic thinking in the teaching of science. In the long term, their goal is self-defeating as it fosters in their children, in the broader picture, a mode of thinking that they totally reject.)

Oklahoma City, Again

Last month, I commented on allegations of a coverup, botched investigation, and even al Qaida ties to the Oklahoma City bombing ten years ago. The Washington Times reports on Terry Nichols' accusations which add fuel to that particular fire.

In a letter from prison, Nichols said Arkansas gun collector Roger Moore gave the explosives to bomber Timothy McVeigh and also provided additional bomb components recently found in Nichols' former Kansas home.

...

FBI agents searched [Nichols' former] home on March 31. Officials said agents found blasting caps and other explosive materials, apparently related to the 1995 attack, buried in a crawl space that hadn't been checked earlier.

If nothing else, what is disturbing about this is that the FBI apparently missed a cache of explosives at Nichols' house and only now, ten years later, have found them! This instills great confidence in the FBI, doesn't it?

XPlanner

And now for something completely different. As I've advanced in my current work position, I've had to take on more management responsibility, specifically in overseeing the technical aspects of projects. I come up with the system designs and hand them off to developers, who then report to me on their progress. As my projects got bigger, I started looking for tools that would help in the coordination. MS Project is too cumbersome, does not necessarily provide what I want, and not everyone has access to it because of licensing restrictions and cost.

I few months ago, I discovered the XPlanner application and would recommend it. It's a free, open source java web application that serves as a project planning tool. What is nice about it is that it allows me to break down the project into discreet tasks, prioritize them, assign them to my developers. Each developer has their own page where they can see their to-do list, with all the tasks assigned to them. The developers can then track their time to each task, allowing me to keep track of progress and to identify any bottlenecks. It also allows analysis of the actual time spent on a task compared to the estimates.

I run it on my PC desktop at work behind a Tomcat app server connecting to a MySQL database. I installed it in a couple of minutes and it ran fine right away. I tried to get it to run behind a Resin server too, but got an error. I'm sure it was just a configuration thing, but I didn't feel like investigating since I use Tomcat for my web apps. I'm sure it will work with other databases too, but changes to the database setup commands may be required to handle the different DBMS's.

In addition to the Web interface, the application provides SOAP services to all the data, allowing users to build their own UIs or tools if desired. Data export to Microsoft Project, XML, and PDF reports are also provided. Finally, integration with calendaring applications is also provided through ICS files the application can create.

Anyway, it is an application that I have found very useful and will now plan all my projects with it. It is simple and easy to use. Admittedly it has bugs and I don't necessarily like all the things it does. (In particular, I don't like how a project phase is determined to be closed after its scheduled end date, even if the tasks for that phase are still open. When the iteration is closed, the tasks, open and closed, and removed from the developer's to-do list, which is a problem if the project is running behind. But when the schedule is adjusted, the tasks reappear.) But, I recommend it to anyone else who has to manage projects.

Media Sloppiness

It's amazing how sloppy the news media in this country can be. In a span of perhaps 2 minutes this morning, I heard some local newscasters make multiple statements to the effect that today, voters in England are going to the polls to choose a prime minister. OK, voters in England are going to the polls, that's true. But they are going everywhere else in the UK too. I assume the news writers and readers understand the difference between England and the United Kingdom, but maybe I'm wrong. And, they are not voting for prime minister. They are voting for Parliament seats. The queen will choose the prime minister based on which party has the most seats in the newly elected Parliament.

Coalition for Darfur: A Very Delicate Balance

This week's Coalition for Darfur post talks about the delicate balance between realpolitik and humanitarianism in Darfur.

These new revelations raise complex questions about our priorities as a nation and serious questions about the future of Darfur. But what must not be ignored in this debate over realpolitik is that millions of people are still in desperate need of humanitarian aid. Thus, we ask you to join the Coalition for Darfur as we seek to raise money for organizations providing life saving assistance to the people of Darfur.

Dumping Darfur

Eddie Beaver has written a harsh indictment of the Bush administration for what he calls dumping Darfur.

It is high time that Americans get involved and raise hell over the genocide, the White House’s betrayal of those being exterminated and the lack of bold, strong leadership on Darfur from a president who has until now embodied those traits. No lesser an authority on America’s greatness and nobility than founding father Alexander Hamilton reminds us today through his writing; “It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race."

His frustration stems in part from the administration's blocking of the Darfur Accountabilty Act of 2005, already passed unanimously by the US Senate. Beaver is not alone in his frustration. The American Prospect's Mark Goldberg writes,

The administration's assault on the Darfur Accountability Act reveals its belief that further coercion aimed at forcing the Sudanese regime to stop the killing is simply not productive. Prendergast says that the Bush administration seems to feel the need to constantly remind Khartoum that congressional pressure is not reflective of the White House position on Sudan. Now, with the attempt to scrap the act, the Bush administration is sending that message very clearly on a daily basis.

All the while, Darfur is burning by the hand of the Khartoum regime.

Why is the administration backing off? Because "the U.S. has quietly forged a close intelligence partnership with Sudan," according to Democracy Now. Whatever happened to, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists?" I'm all for realism in foreign affairs, and understand that sometimes this country will have to work with less than ideal friends, but we must draw a line somewhere, and I think mass murder is well over that line. Beaver argues that the intelligence gain from Sudan is not even all that great, describing the calculations of CIA and the State department as "absurdly idiotic."

Ironically, the administration's calculations could well backfire and create a wedge between the president and his most committed supporters, the religious right. Beaver writes

Political realities within America could act to threaten this budding relationship between the leader of the free world and an Islamic regime committing genocide and creating terrorists. Indeed, the White House’s luck with the hapless Democrats may run out over Darfur. Eventually, perhaps sooner than later, Democrats will look back at how they and their Republican allies shamed Clinton into action over Bosnia, or even how Clinton himself used inaction in Bosnia as a weapon against Father Bush on foreign policy in 1992. They will begin pressing Pres. Bush on the issue, echoing calls of outrage from Christian conservatives and other Republicans who have demanded US action on Darfur that consists of more than feeding hungry people so they can be slaughtered on a full stomach by jihadist militiamen and Sudanese soldiers. Pres. Bush is managing to make America look shameless, callous and foolish all at once in regards to Darfur, not much of an improvement over the UN, EU and AU in this dispute, but a state of affairs Americans, both hawks and doves, will not allow to stand for very long.

This is one of those rare issues which prompt cooperation across the political spectrum, and with the evangelical community's expanded vision for itself, the right-wing demand for action could become deafening.

The president needs to decide what exactly he stands for, and what the nation under his governance stands for. He says he stands for the sanctity of life, once proclaiming

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Sunday, January 20, 2002, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to reflect upon the sanctity of human life. Let us recognize the day with appropriate ceremonies in our homes and places of worship, rededicate ourselves to compassionate service on behalf of the weak and defenseless, and reaffirm our commitment to respect the life and dignity of every human being.

(emphasis mine) Are these empty words, little more than posturing for political advantage? Or do they represent the convictions of his heart? If the latter, the president must show the leadership that comes with such conviction.

Getting Started in Blogging

Mudville Gazette has a "how-to" guide for getting started in the world of blogging. I can't add much to it. I'm hardly one to give advice on how to build a wildly successful blog with my two or three regular readers. One thing I would add to the list would be to build a good, diverse list of blogs you regularly read in some sort of aggregator as they will often point you to good material to comment on. (How do you think I got to this article? Instapundit.)

NFL Draft

Now that the NFL draft is well behind us, maybe it's time I commented. I don't get much into the draft. Why? Teams spend millions of dollars and hundreds of hours preparing for it, and in the end what does all preparation get them? Not much. A sixth round draft pick, someone no one really cares about, is just as likely to make a huge impact as the #1 overall pick. Just ask New England, where throw away pick Tom Brady replaced #1 overall pick Drew Bledsoe, and has won three Super Bowls and counting. Who is the last first round draft pick quarterback to win a Super Bowl? John Elway, drafted back in 1983. The last six Super Bowls have been won by quarterbacks chosen in the 6th round or later. History is replete with examples of misfires in the draft. Joe Montana and Dan Marino where considered bad choices, Ryan Leaf was a sure thing. Brett Favre was passed over by every team in the league and then mocked by the Falcons' head coach for even having the thought of being able to play in the league.

Why is it so hard to draft a player? Part of the problem is that NFL personnel people look at the wrong things. Performance at the combine, with tests like 40 yard dash and bench pressing 235 pounds, is huge. But is that what makes a good football player? Not really. Here is Sports Illustrated's report on Tom Brady after the 2000 draft, before anyone had heard of him:

Two-year starter. Very tall with a thin build. Needs to upgrade his overall strength. Pocket passer with average quickness. Can slide from pressure, but is not very elusive. Doesn't look to run. Holds the ball a bit low, but has a fairly quick release. Lacks a strong arm. Doesn't rifle the long outs, but he's an accurate passer with a good feel for touch. Sails some throws and hangs some deep balls. Leader. Eyeballs his primary target at times, but shows the ability to come off and find alternates. Generally makes good decisions. Had a good Orange Bowl.

(emphasis mine) So, he didn't have great arm strength or quickness, but he was a good leader who made good decisions. Contrast this with the report on Giovanni Carmazzi, the second quarterback taken that year (Chad Pennington was the first, and he turned out pretty well so I won't use him as an example):

Transfer from Pacific. Division 1-AA standout in a short passing game offense. Sturdy. Intelligent. Good athlete. Has a strong arm. Average in his setup quickness. Not nifty to avoid but is a strong runner who can get yardage once he gets outside the pocket. Has an over-the-top delivery with good wrist action. Can throw tight spirals -- loses some effectiveness when throwing from non-set positions. Shows touch, but can be hesitant and late with his passes. Is inconsistent with his overall accuracy. Rough around the edges but has good tools.

When evaluating quarterbacks, what criteria do we hear about over and over? Height, speed, arm strength. Poise, leadership, and the like are not highly valued. Brady had one of these, height. Carmazzi had two, speed and strength, the two most sought. Therefore, Carmazzi went in the third round, second quarterback picked overall, whereas Brady goes in the sixth round, the seventh quarterback overall. (Of the six who went before Brady, only Pennington and Marc Bulger, another sixth rounder, have amounted to much.)

Today, Brady is one of the best deep ball passers in the game, whereas Carmazzi is in the Arena League. After arriving in New England, Brady began working on his strength with the trainers and put on some muscle. The defining characteristics of his first season were his poise and leadership. Look at his performance in that last drive in the Super Bowl against the heavily favored Rams, where with the whole season on the line, Brady, effectively a rookie, flawlessly marched his team down to field goal range against a supposedly vastly superior team with the clock ticking and the world watching. You see, a player can develop his strength. What he cannot really develop is intelligence, leadership, and poise. So the draftniks go for traits that can be developed, and devalue traits that are much more important and intangible.

The other huge problem is that there is quite a difference in the caliber of college play and professional play. I once wrote,

[T]he gap between the caliber of college football and professional football is wide and growing. A player who shows great ability against college caliber opposition may be quite overwhelmed against the pros. Similarly, a player may underwhelm in the restrictive and simplistic college game but excel at the professional level. It's obvious, but many still miss it. Being good in college does not mean you will be good in the pros, does it Steve Spurrier?

Brian Baldinger, calling the draft a "crapshoot," writes,

So teams have all this data, more than ever before, yet they're not drafting better. It's a tough job. Even if teams can avoid being blinded by measurables, they must project how well college talent translates to pro talent and how much impact a player's character and desire will have on the skills God gave him. We try to make it a science, but it's really an art, which is why one team can take Peyton Manning, the next can take Ryan Leaf and both can feel great about it -- until they get on the field.

There is just no way to know how any college player will react to the vastly superior caliber of play in the NFL. Some players will step up to the challenge, others will wilt. Part of that also goes to the ability of a team to develop players. Many have attributed the repeated failure of the Bengals' quarterback choices on an inept system of development.

So, my conclusion is, look at the list of 32 young chosen in the first round. For most, that list will be the last you ever hear of them while players chosen much later and who no one paid attention to will be superstars in five years. Now, stop with the hype already.

Movie Review: Der Untergang (Downfall)

I saw the German film Der Untergang (English title Downfall) last night. The film was nominated for Best Foreign Film at this year's Oscars. It tells the story of the last two weeks of the Third Reich, focusing on the Führer bunker in Berlin which provided safe haven for Hitler and his staff during the Soviet onslaught on the city. For most of my life I've been a student of National Socialist history, so I'm a natural buff for any film documenting events in this period.

The film starts with a brief prologue at Hitler's eastern headquarters from which he ran the war in the Soviet Union. Several women are marched through the woods to Hitler's office where they will apply for a job as his secretary. The job falls to the young, attractive Traudl Junge, through whose eyes we see most of the events in the film (and whose book was one of the sources for the film's script). After this prolog, we jump to Hitler's last birthday, April 20, 1945. Berlin is under constant bombardment from the air and artillery. Hitler and his staff spend most of their time deep under the Chancellery. From there, Hitler orders non-existent divisions to attack the advancing Russians and his generals hide or distort the unpleasant truth of the situation rather than face his murderous rage. Recognizing that the end has come, Hitler marries his longtime companion Eva Braun shortly before committing suicide.

But the story is not Hitler's alone. We follow the story of SS-Gruppenführer Hermann Fegelein, an opportunist married to Eva Braun's sister who has grown disillusioned with Hitler and is unafraid to speak the truth, away from Hitler's ear. We follow Eva herself. The horrific story of the Goebbels' family is recounted. We follow the story of an SS doctor who chooses to stay behind in Berlin to care for the sick when the rest of the SS is evacuated. Many stories are woven into the fabric of this 156 minute film. Perhaps too many, as we end up not really knowing who we are seeing or following much of the time. For example, I don't believe Martin Bormann's character was ever identified by name, yet we follow him around throughout the film. If a viewer doesn't know who he is and can't identify him by his role relative to Hitler, the viewer will be confused. The film could have been shortened by eliminating some story lines and giving a little stronger support to the remaining stories.

That said, I was very impressed with the film. The acting was superb all around. Bruno Ganz does a fantastic job portraying Hitler. It is interesting that even in a film, Hitler dominates everything around him. When he is not onscreen, the film sags. This is a bit of a problem as the last section of the film takes place after Hitler's death and the inmates of the bunker either commit suicide or try to flee. Alexandra Maria Lara portrays Junge as a young woman with all the right blinders on to see only what she wants to see in the man she so faithfully serves. The supporting cast is strong everywhere. There is not a single weak performance.

But apart from Ganz, the greatest acting kudos must go to Corinna Harfouch who plays Magda Goebbels. For the those unfamiliar with the history, Frau Goebbels was married to Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister and probably most fanatical follower. His wife comes a very close second in fanaticism. Faced with the prospect of a world without Hitler and National Socialism, the Goebbels decide to commit suicide like so many others. But before they do, Magda murders each of their eight children, first drugging them to sleep then breaking cyanide capsules in each of their mouths. The eldest daughter seems to understand what is going on and fights her mother and the doctor, then turns away in tears after they have forced the drugs down her throat. This is a brutal scene told with the coldly unsentimental style with which Spielberg made Schindler's List. No weeping strings or any other touches to try to create a mood or manipulate the emotions of the audience. Like Spielberg, director Oliver Hirschbiegel knows that the scene is so horrific it needs no supplement, and that such manipulation would ultimately undermine the scene. Afterward, Magda goes and plays solitaire, never speaking again as far as I recall. The depth of her fanaticism is seen in the contrast between her tearful pleading with Hitler to save himself and the silent, unemotional murder of her own children. The only emotion she shows is when she pulls away from her husband's touch after the murder, but that is more a sign of contempt for his inability to take part than in reaction to what she has done.

With any film in which Hitler is a main character, the filmmaker risks being accused of making the man sympathetic. This film is no different. As with Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, I am forced to wonder just how many hoops one has to jump through. Believe it or not, Adolf Hitler was, gasp, a human being. He could be kind and chivalrous, especially to women. The film shows that, and it is historically correct that he would act that way. Do we rewrite history and show Hitler as an abusive, sadistic boss just because we are uncomfortable with any hint of normalcy in the man? There are plenty of other events in Hitler's life that, if ever put to film, would shock people. For example, the doctor who attended Hitler's mother as she was dying was Jewish. Years later, as the Nazis were rounding up Austrian Jews, Hitler made sure to provide protection to the doctor out of gratitude for the care given his mother.

Apart from a gentle bearing toward Frau Junge and a few other women in his entourage, what exactly is sympathetic about the portrayal of Hitler? The numerous scenes where he shows complete disregard for the German people, not caring that his policies, if carried out, will drive the German survivors back to the state of the middle ages? The scenes where he orders his followers to empty themselves of compassion? The film shows Hitler as a brutal tyrant with complete disregard for life or mercy, a man who orders children to man anti-aircraft guns where they will fight and then, at the last moment, blow their brains out. That such a man could also show kindness is one of the paradoxes of his character. Showing the truth of that paradox does not make for sympathy. Only the hardest core neo-Nazi could feel anything but seething hatred for the man after seeing this film.

The common perception of Hitler is the simplistic picture of a raving lunatic, completely insane. How else can one understand his scorched earth policy, his uncontrollable rages, etc.? But the film does a good job pointing out the internal logic of what Hitler is doing. A foundational principle of National Socialism is an extreme form of social Darwinism, a point Hitler makes in a dinner scene. "What's good for the ape is good for the human," Hitler says. Understanding this, one readily understands Hitler's view of compassion and mercy. His brutality is not the ravings of the madman, but the logical application of a fanatic. Understanding the Nazi view that the war was a fundamental life and death struggle between clashing ideologies, and that defeat would bring the destruction of the German race, one readily understands his demand that every German fight to the death even when all hope is lost. Now, I'm not denying that Hitler was pretty much off his rocker toward the end of his life. But there is a logic to his demands, derived from Nazi ideology, that is often too easily dismissed as lunacy.

Like Schindler's List, this is not a film one particularly enjoys. But it is a fantastic film.

Darfur Drawn

More images from Darfur. This time Human Rights Watch shows drawings made by refugee children depicting all the joys of childhood. Helicopter gunships, dead bodies, bombs, machine guns, rape, you know, all the normal things.