Greatest Show on Turf, Version 2.0

Dan Wetzel writes glowingly about the Rams' offensive performance against the Lions on Monday night.

This was a complete game offensively from a team that completely needed it. The Rams have been insisting all along that – due to good health and smart personnel moves – this is the year they return to the Greatest Show on Turf status. Or at least close.

Um, how can I put this. IT WAS THE LIONS! That defense was ranked #22 last year. Do it against a powerhouse (yes, that's sarcasm) defense like Cleveland and we'll talk. Celebrating putting up big numbers against Detroit is like celebrating a win against San Francisco or a multi-touchdown game against the Vikings. This is more a "join the club" event.

Coalition for Darfur: What It Is All About

This week's Coalition for Darfur post recounts the experiences of a blogger who served as a humanitarian volunteer in Darfur this summer.

What she dealt with daily goes beyond the pale...beyond the nightmares of most people; Children with all four limbs hacked off right above the knee or below the elbow. Twelve year olds who died in childbirth after being gang-raped by the Janjaweed. Women who gave birth to rape-babies who were then cast out by their families for shaming the family name, leaving only one avenue of survival for themselves and their children after the camps: Prostitution.

...

And women are the preponderance of victims. Men do not leave the villages to go to the countryside to gather firewood and other necessary items of sustenance. Women venture out, even though every time they leave their villages, they are at horrific risk of being beaten and raped and disfigured. The reason they go instead of the men? The women are only attacked, the men are killed.

As the post points out, these truths have been well-documented for quite a while. People just haven't paid attention.

And what is the Darfur all about?

Scientific Literacy

Glenn Reynolds links to an article lamenting the state of science knowledge among Americans, asking "What do they teach them in schools these days?" In grad school, I was a teaching assistant for three years in "physics for the English major" type classes. One thing I realized from that experience is that many students are so intimidated by science, they convince themselves they cannot do it and will go to great lengths to confuse themselves to fulfill their prophecy.

A couple of simple examples.

In the astronomy class, we were discussing nuclear physics. One can imagine the intimidation factor of that. In particular, we were considering whether certain nuclear processes were possible by balancing, for example, charge. What it comes down to, literally, is mathematics of the difficulty 1+1 equals 2, 1+1 does not equal 3. (On one side of the equation, there are two positive 1 charges, on the other side there is one +2 charge, so the question is does the total charge on the left side equal the total on the right?) So I had to stand in front of a room of college students and ask what 1+1 was, because they refused to believe, no matter how often it was shown and explained, that they could do nuclear physics, and since they couldn't do it, surely it wasn't as simple as what is 1+1. This was one of the hardest sections of the class, explaining 1+1.

In the same astronomy class, during an exam there was a question about shining a laser at Venus and detecting the return signal a certain time later, asking how far away Venus is. Students kept asking what formula they had to use because they couldn't figure it out. I asked them the question, you get in your car and drive to Springfield and back (this was in the suburbs of Boston) at a constant 60 mph and it takes 3 hours for the trip, how far away is Springfield? Amazingly, the same students didn't need a formula to figure it out. But ask the same question using science words and get the blank looks.

And Now For Something Completely Different

For those in need of a comedy break during the day, Monty Python movie scripts, song lyrics, TV sketches, and even audio files (in German, for some reason) can be found here. One of my favorites, from Holy Grail:

MAYNARD: Armaments, Chapter Two, Verses Nine to Twenty-One.
BROTHER: "And Saint Atila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'Oh, Lord, bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou mayest blow thy enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin, and people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and large --"
MAYNARD: Skip a bit, Brother.
BROTHER: "And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thou foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.'''
MAYNARD: Amen.

And who can forget

GUARD: You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottoms, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur-king, you and all your silly English kaniggets. Thppppt!
GALAHAD: What a strange person.
ARTHUR: Now look here, my good man!
GUARD: I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough water! I fart in your general direction! You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
GALAHAD: Is there someone else up there we could talk to?
GUARD: No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time-a!

(There appear to be some small errors in this transcript. But it's good enough to recall the scenes. This other transcript seems a little more accurate.) I used to know the whole movie pretty much by heart.

Why Some Christians Hate Evolution

Maybe I've just been dense and it never registered before, but I think I finally understand why so many evangelical Christians resist and oppose evolution. And it's not the reason you might think. In a recent Time cover story on the evolution wars, the magazine included short interviews with four people on the question, "Can you believe in God and evolution?" Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says no arguing

For one thing, there's the issue of human "descent." Evangelicals must absolutely affirm the special creation of humans in God's image, with no physical evolution from any non-human species. Just as important, the Bible clearly teaches that God is involved in every aspect and moment in the life of His creation and the universe. That rules out the image of a kind of divine watchmaker.

Before proceeding, let me again reiterate that I am an evangelical Christian by faith and a physicist by education.

Mohler makes two points. The first is that Christians must believe that humans had a special creation that makes them unique and distinct from all other animal species. I think we have to agree Biblically that man has a unique place in creation, but I do not see that that precludes a non-human ancestry.

The second point is what's interesting. He is attempting to debunk a straw man, I think, which is that Christian evolutionists believe in some sort of deism, where God accomplished creation by setting the rules for evolution then stepping back and watching it happen. It's a straw man because I do not believe that's what most Christian evolutionists believe. We embrace the fact that God is "involved in every aspect and moment in the life of His creation and the universe." While that does indeed rule out the divine watchmaker, it is also beside the point.

But it is illuminating. In thinking about this, about a comment in a letter to the editor in Newsweek, and about a comment I heard in church recently, I realize the basic issue is randomness. Evolution suggests life evolved through a series of random mutations in simpler organisms. Randomness suggests, well, randomness, whereas creation suggests order and method. Hence, the two are inexorably opposed, right?

I am glad these anti-evolutionists have not apparently studied modern physics. Randomness is the cornerstone of quantum mechanics, which is founded on the assumption that nature works through probabilism, not determinism. Here's the idea. In classical physics, all the way back to the Greeks, nature was assumed deterministic. That means if I repeat an experiment 1000 times under the same conditions, the exact same result will emerge 1000 times. If I know the initial conditions and the forces involved, I know exactly what will happen. Probabilism, on the other hand, says I have no idea what will happen each time I run the experiment. There are any number of possible outcomes, each with a certain probability of happening. The best I can say is how often I would expect to see some given outcome.

This is necessarily abstract and hard to understand if you haven't studied physics. I will try to illustrate. If I pick up a pencil and let it go, it will fall due to gravity. In a deterministic universe, all I need to know is the height of the pencil to determine exactly what will happen. I can calculate exactly how long it will take to hit the ground, and the speed at which it will be moving when it does hit. More importantly, I can calculate the exactly trajectory of that pencil, marking its exact position at every moment during the fall. And if I do the experiment 1000 times, I will get the exact same results.

In the quantum realm, it is much more complex. I have to consider the straight line path, yes. But I have to consider a trajectory with a single loop, one with two loops, one where it makes a 90 turn, etc. (This sounds weird, I know. At the size scale we are talking about, the probability of each of these paths is 0, except the straight line path, which is why we don't worry about quantum effects in our everyday world. But a proper quantum solution would have to consider all these. The example illustrates the process involved in understanding interactions at much smaller size scales where quantum effects do matter.) Each trajectory has a probability, so repeating the experiment 1000 times, I can estimate how often I would expect to see each path. The same thing will not necessarily happen each time. (Quantum also has the uncertainty principle which says I cannot know the position and momentum of the pencil simultaneously, and other fun effects.)

A more realistic example would be electron-electron scattering. As we know, like electrical charges repel each other, which means an electron flying past another will be deflected. In the quantum world, how would this be explained? The theory is called quantum electrodynamics (QED), perhaps the best tested theory in physics. To explain what happens, one has to determine all the possible interactions, and add up their probabilities. So, a photon (the carrier of the electromagnetic force) could simply be exchanged between the two electrons. Or, a photon could be emitted by one, spontaneously produce a virtual electron/positron pair which then annihilate to go back to one photon. Or two photons could be exchanged. Or there could be multiple virtual pairs. Any number of interactions are possible. (These are typically expressed through Feynman diagrams which represent terms in a series expansion of the equations of QED.) So the probability for each interaction is determined and from this a model of exactly how the electron-electron scattering occurs is derived.

It is crucial to understand that this probabilism is a fundamental property of nature, not some mathematical tool. In classical physics, there is a branch called statistical physics which looks at things like the physics of gases. Probability is involved there as well, but only as a simplification to the impossible task of solving the millions of equations, each of which would be assumed deterministic in principle. In principle, one could solve the equations of motion for every gas molecule, but that's just not realistic because there are so many and the interactions are so complex. Instead, the scenario is simplified to a statistical expression. Out of practical necessity, we give up trying to understand the properties of an individual molecule and instead try to understand the properties of the gas as a whole instead.

That is not the same thing as quantum which asserts this probabilism as a fundamental property of nature. In quantum we give up trying to understand the motion of a single electron around a nucleus because it is fundamentally not possible to understand that motion. The uncertainty principle tells us that the better we know the momentum of an electron, the less we know its position, and vice versa. Even attempting to make a measurement changes the state of what we're measuring.

I don't know how many people have made it this far but I'll press on with the point I'm trying to make. It seems to me that at the core of intelligent design is a resistance to the notion of randomness. The ID supporters want to remove the random mutations of evolution with a more orderly process guided by a designer. This is very similar to the debate in the physics community in the early 20th century when quantum physics began taking hold. Many physicists rejected quantum for exactly the same reason. Einstein and Niels Bohr had a celebrated exchange of letters arguing this philosophical point, with Einstein making the famous comment, "God does not play dice with the universe."

Randomness is not simply an element of evolution. It is a fundamental property of nature. To resist evolution because it is makes use of random processes is to also resist all of modern physics.

So, are randomness and design in conflict? This is the question at the core of the ID movement. As a Christian, I believe, as Mohler does, that "God is involved in every aspect and moment in the life of His creation." As a scientist, I have learned that God's involvement with creation is manifested through processes expressed and understood in the natural realm as random processes. Instead of fighting what science reveals about God to make God fit into some preconceived box, Christians should accept what God is showing them. As I wrote before,

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?

Fantasy? More like a farce

Don Banks has a good article on the phenomenon of fantasy football. I played in a few leagues last year for the first time (did OK too, making the playoffs in 2 of the leagues and finishing second in one) and was asked by a few guys at work this year to play. But I just cannot get into it and won't play this year. Primarily Banks' reasons #1 and #7 apply to me. Too many memories of rooting for the Viking offense (gasp!) because Daunte was my starting quarterback (on my most successful team) or because Marcus Robinson was a WR on another team. Plus, having been raised a Steeler fan, I love a good defense, but those don't count for much in fantasy (Banks' reason #6). I had the Cardinal defense starting on one of my teams last year, for crying out loud.

So, no more fantasy for me. I'll stick to predicting the outcomes of real games and trying to improve on my performance from last year.

Coalition for Darfur: Genocide and Statistics

This week's Coalition for Darfur post discusses a study by Professor Matthew Krain examining "the effectiveness of military action on the severity of ongoing instances of genocide and polititcide." Some key conclusions:

The study reveals that only overt military interventions that explicitly challenge the perpetrator appear to be effective in reducing the severity of the brutal policies. Military support for targets, or in opposition to the perpetrators, alters the almost complete vulnerability of unarmed civilian targets. And these interventions that directly target the perpetrators were not, on the whole, found to make matters worse for those being attacked ... He finds that even military intervention against the perpetrator by a single country or international organization has a measurable effect in the "typical" case.

...

Policy maker concerns that intervention on the behalf of target populations will escalate the killing appear to be unfounded.

The only overt military interventions that appear to be effective in reducing the severity of genocides or politicides are those that explicitly challenge the perpetrator.

...

Intervention against the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed within the first year of the genocide would likely have had a measurable effect on the severity [2003] of state-sponsored mass murder in the following year.

One of the standard arguments in support of the so-called war on terror, most recently reiterated by British Defense Secretary John Reid, is that one has to stand up to bullies. The same truth applies to genocide, not that anyone appears to have the desire to follow through on the logic.

Coalition for Darfur: Darfur: Be A Witness Ad Rejected

The Coalition for Darfur blog quotes an email from Be a Witness:

A few weeks ago we asked you to help support our campaign and put our ad on television. The ads were to begin airing tomorrow on the Washington, DC affiliates of all six networks – ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FoxNews, and MSNBC – that are the focus of our campaign.

Now, we have just learned that two of the stations, NBC-4 and CBS-9, rejected our TV ad. These networks are devoting endless hours to cover Michael Jackson, Tom Cruise, and the 'Runaway Bride,' but they won’t allow us to pay for 30 seconds to challenge them to do a better job covering the Darfur genocide.

You can help today by sending a message to NBC-4 and CBS-9 demanding that they air the TV ad:

http://www.BeAWitness.org/action

During the month of June, NBC News aired 80 times as many segments devoted to Michael Jackson, Tom Cruise, and the Runaway Bride as it did to the Darfur genocide. CBS News was even worse. It did not run a single story on the Darfur genocide.

We can’t let these networks get away with it. We need your help to demand that NBC and CBS air the ad.

What's Going On?

They say August is the slowest month of the year for news. From what I see on political blogs, this has to be true. Look at the big stories most bloggers are talking about: Cindy Sheehan, Able Danger, and Valerie Plame in Who's Who. Is there anything substantive in any of this?

Cindy Sheehan lost her son in Iraq. That's a tragedy. She's now encamped outside the president's ranch in Texas demanding a meeting. This is a big deal? The anti-war bloggers demand that the president meet with Ms. Sheehan. There's vigils all over the place in support of her cause. Why? Is the president supposed to meet with the parents of every single soldier killed in Iraq? He'd never get anything done. The president has a lot more to work on every day than just Iraq. Imagine if Lincoln had to meet with the parents of every soldier killed in his war, or FDR in his. It's not a practical reality, and serves no purpose. This has nothing to do with supporting the war. I've always opposed it. Not to put too cold a spin on it, but soldiers die in war. When one volunteers for the military, as Sheehan's son did, one accepts the risk that he or she may be sent off to fight a war, justified or not, and that they might in fact be killed. It's no different than joining the police or firefighters. When one takes a job, one takes the risks associated with that job. Ms. Sheehan lost a son who volunteered to put his life on the line. Again, that is tragic as is all the loss of life in Iraq. But that loss does not entitle Ms. Sheehan to special privileges such as meeting with the president. The president owes her no more explanation and justification for his actions than he owes the rest of the country.

The Able Danger story is about how one group was tracking Mohammed Atta, ring-leader of the 9/11 attacks, a year before 9/11 but did not inform the FBI about it. This has certainly kicked up a firestorm. Conservatives use this to attack former Clinton-era Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. Liberals go to great lengths to defend Ms. Gorelick, saying that her memos, which some say created the communication wall, did not apply to the Able Danger situation, so conservatives ought to apologize for misleading their readers. Is there anything new in this story? Didn't we know about communication failures between different government agencies long before now? Wasn't that knowledge a primary motivation for the reforms in the intelligence gathering and processing in the last few years? So all this is is a concrete example of something we've known for a long time. In that case, why are so many people working themselves to a tizzy over it?

Valerie Plame. I really don't get this one. Here's my understanding of what happened. Joe Wilson was an ambassador who had information debunking key administration arguments in support of an invasion of Iraq. Someone, now known to be Karl Rove, leaked information that Wilson's wife was a covert CIA operative. This could be a criminal act. Key to Rove's defense is that he did not reveal the actual name of Wilson's wife, simply that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Novak then looked up Wilson's entry in Who's Who and found the name of his wife. Is any of this meaningful? Does it matter that Rove allegedly only referenced this operative by her relationship to Wilson, not actually by name? Either way, he outed a covert CIA operative. Does it matter than it is public record that Wilson's wife is named Valerie? Is that in any way relevant to the issue of outing a covert CIA operative? Does Who's Who have any relevance whatsoever to the question? Then why are so many talking about it? (Granted, this one has quieted down a bit as everyone salivates over Able Danger and Cindy Sheehan.)

Coalition for Darfur: Plagued by Technicalities

This week's Coalition for Darfur post comments on the technicalities in language used by the UN and other observers to avoid doing anything. The term "genocide" has already been discussed. This time it's the word "famine." "How many dying babies make a famine?" asked the BBC.

Terrell Owens

Can someone explain to me what Terrell Owens is thinking? First he decided a contract that last year was great is this year insulting. (Who could possibly live on $49 million over seven years? What a slap across the face.) When that didn't work, he reports to training camp and then sulks like a spoiled child standing with the arms crossed and a stern look on their face as they stomp their feet and say, "No!" (And, like Eagle fans, the parents try not to laugh at the absurdity of the moment).

For a hold-out to work, the player has to have some sort of leverage over the team. What leverage does T.O. have? He's under contract to the Eagles for six more years. What, he's going to sit them all out if he doesn't get his way? The Eagles went to three straight NFC title games without T.O., and a fourth with T.O. out a decent chunk of the season and the playoffs, so T.O. feels himself an absolutely essential component to the Eagles winning?

I'm not entirely clear on how the salary cap works, but I believe the impact to the Eagles if T.O. sits out the season is they would be charged with the pro-rated portion of the signing bonus he got last year. If he plays, they would be hit with the pro-rated bonus plus his salary for the season. If they trade him, they still get hit with the pro-rated bonus. Cutting him, they would be hit with half the remainder of the bonus this year, and the other half next year. Therefore, there is no reason the Eagles can't just force T.O. to sit out season. There's no penalty, other than not having the guy on the field. There is a penalty to cutting him, in addition to the issue of letting Owens win, so that won't happen. Again, where is Owens' leverage over the Eagles? They hold all the cards, Terrell.

Now, from what I understand, he is owed another bonus next spring, so the Eagles realistically could not force Owens to sit for six years. That would just be stupid. So the Eagles could only sit him for one season, then release him.

But who would take Owens? What team would take on the disruptions he brings, even with all the talent? I expect Brian Billick and Ozzie Newsome from the Ravens are breathing a sigh of relief that they got shafted last year when they tried to trade for T.O. Certainly, there are teams out there desperate for a wide reciever, and let's face it, Owens is one of the best. But what could Owens expect? A one or two year contract with a fairly small salary. Something long enough for Owens to prove himself worthy of playing for the team with opportunity to negotiate an extension if things work out, but short and cheap enough that the team could dump his butt quickly if he didn't shape up. So, in holding out and demanding a pay raise, he could well be screwing himself out of a lot of money.

With this in mind, the only sensible thing for Owens to do is swallow his pride, serve out his banishment, crawl back to the Eagles' camp next week and apologize to Reid and the team for his behavior. Then get down to business. But what does he, and his agent who stands to get screwed too, do? They go on ESPN and mouth off even more! What are these guys thinking?

Mars Observing

The astronomy buffs out there probably already know this, but this is a grand time to observe the planet Mars in the northern hemisphere. The planet is at its closest to Earth this year, close enough that even small telescopes in the backyard should allow the observer to study surface features of the planet.

The very smallest Martian features will be visible for nearly a month in 2005. Beginning on October 23 and extending through November 06, the disk of Mars will exceed 20 arcseconds. During this interval the large volcanoes, like those located within Elysium or in the Tharsis regions, may be visible even in a 6-inch telescope.

Closest approach is on Oct. 30, at which time the planet will be slightly more than 20 arcseconds in diameter, or about 2/3 the size of the full moon. During this period, the planet will be observable around midnight (plus or minus an hour or two).

The Political Legacy of 1964

David Schribman has an interesting article on the political legacy of 1964, arguing that it was that election, not the 1960 election, that revolutionized American national politics from what it had been to what it is today.

It's customary to think that modern American politics began in 1960. That's the year John F. Kennedy harnessed the power of television to win the presidency, the year American politics turned from a referendum on the past to a debate about the future, the year modern polling and modern media began their slow climb to dominance in our politics.

...

And so I'd like to adjust the old theory and move the marker up four years -- within the historical margin of error, I suppose, but a significant change nonetheless. The forces that shape our politics today can be traced not to the 1960 election but instead to the 1964 election, when President Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas trounced Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona.

Schribman's argument basically comes down to two points.

First, Goldwater, though he lost, established a strong Republican base in the old South, previously staunchly Democrat, which is today the heart of red state America. In pursuing a civil rights agenda, Johnson alienated the southern white Democrats, who then switched to the Republican party.

Secondly, both Johnson and Goldwater transformed their parties, both of which up to that point refused easy classification as liberal or conservative, into the ideological animals we know today.

This is an interesting argument. As Schribman says, the 1960 election is viewed as a turning point because of the impact of television. But it would 20 years before another TV-savvy president would be elected. Nixon, who is supposed to have lost because of his lack of television appeal, went on to win two landslide victories. Carter (Mr. Malaise) could hardly be described as a charismatic TV presence. It wasn't until Reagan that someone commanded the television screen with the presence Kennedy had. The most one can say, perhaps, is that the 1960 election set the stage for the revolution that came four years later.

Coalition for Darfur: Did It Matter?

This week's Coalition for Darfur post is a reflection on the genocide declaration the US made last year, and has since conveniently forgotten.

Over a year ago, [coalition founder Eugene Oregon] wrote the post below urging the Bush administration to declare the situation in Darfur a "genocide." Since then, an estimated 400,000 people have died, Doctors Without Borders is warning that millions of lives "hang in the balance," and the International Committee of the Red Cross is warning of "chronic instability."

One year later, we have to ask if the "genocide" declaration made any difference at all.

Our Obese President

The president, termed recently the fitted president in history, is obese according to the infamous body-mass index.

But the president isn't a world-class athlete. He's a guy who exercises six times per week. He is exactly what the government says we should aspire to. And yet the government still says he's overweight. Which means if we all worked out as often as the government says we should, we'd probably add to the government's overweight and obesity statistics, not subtract from them. Which means the statistics are wrong. Which means 2/3 of Americans probably aren't "overweight," as we've been told.

Now I don't feel so bad about myself.

Badger Blues' Political Quiz

Badger Blues has put together a quiz to score the reader's political leanings. OK for a slow news and blogging day.

It got me pretty much where I would have expected:

You scored as New Democrat. New Democrats emphasize fiscal conservatism, and have a strong preference for the free market. They believe in small-scale programs that provide targetted help to those in need, while working with the business community. New Democrat 90% Old School Democrat 85% Socially Conservative Republican 75% Green 75% Libertarian 50% Pro Business Republican 40% Foreign Policy Hawk 40% What's Your Political Philosophy? created with QuizFarm.com

Passwords

Megan McArdle, subbing for Glenn Reynolds, writes of password policies at many large companies:

Many companies require long passwords, number/letter combinations, frequent password changes, unique passwords (you can't ever re-use old passwords), and so forth because these are harder to crack. The problem is, they're also harder to remember. Users who can't reemember their passwords have to write them down. It is, to my mind, substantially less safe to have a user's password written on their computer, or taped in their desk (two favourite tricks I spent a great deal of time discouraging), than to have it be a five-letter word.

I would go even further. The requirement that passwords change on a regular basis makes systems less secure, in my opinion. There are only so many cryptic, hard-to-guess, but memorable passwords I can come up. Sooner or later, forcing me to ditch those good ones periodically will use up the list. When that happens, I will have to start using passwords that are much easier to guess, like simple words.

Which is more secure: a cryptic password that is hard to guess but I can remember that stays forever, or a series of steadily less cryptic passwords? It seems to me, clearly the former. But what do companies want? The latter.

A company's security policy should focus on helping users coming up with something cryptic but still memorable and keeping that password until there is some evidence that it has been cracked. It's positive reinforcement: encourage behavior you want to see, discourage negative behavior.

At a previous employer, this is what they did. The employee was not forced to regularly change their password. But, security had software running that was constantly trying to crack the password, and if they succeeded, you had to change. So if I had a password sufficiently cryptic that cracking software couldn't crack it, the employer effectively encouraged me to keep using it. Only employees with bad passwords had to change, to something harder to crack.

That is a good security policy. It encourages behavior condusive to security and addresses behavior contrary to security, unlike my current employer's policy which forces one eventually to choose poor passwords.

More Liberalism Gone Amok

Last year, I wrote about liberalism gone amok, how liberalism has gone from mainstream to being out of step with ordinary Americans. Thinking about this NCAA ruling, banning the use of Native American mascots and nicknames in post-season tournaments, I think this is another example.

Kevin B. Blackistone of the Dallas Morning News writes, "It was good to see the college sports' governing body finally make a move toward eliminating imagery that Native Americans find offensive." They go on to describe the Washington, DC NFL team's nickname (Redskins) as an "insult."

The author of this opinion is, safe to say, not an Indian. OK, so a non-Indian is offended by these nicknames, including that of the Redskins. Indian activists pursuing a political agenda and trying to get their names in the paper are offended. But what do ordinary Indians think? According to a Sports Illustrated poll, "The name 'Redskins' isn't especially controversial either; 69 percent of Native Americans don't object to it."

What's the message here, then, from liberals like Blackistone when those they are nominally standing up for don't agree with their message? The message is, "you should be offended, so we'll be offended for you." If they aren't offended, well just say they are because we know they should be.

Paternalism and condescension like this is part of the problem facing liberalism. It's all well and good to stand up for people. But when they don't want to be stood up for, don't force it down their throats.

Update: Protein Wisdom writes

“If not most”? Not surprisingly, Mashek doesn’t back up that assertion with any supporting evidence, preferring instead to suggest (without referencing the SI poll—or this far more damning Annenberg Poll) that the question is an open one—and that the NCAA’s decision, far from being a product of that “tired term political correctness,” is instead based on something far more noble, though one wonders how ignoring the will of over 80 percent of Native Americans is somehow considered more noble than taking seriously their ability to determine for themselves what is “hostile and offensive.” And really, what can be more PC than cowing to the will of a shrieking vocal minority, and in so doing, implying, self-righteously, that what you are really doing is attempting to protect the feelings of those whom you’ve essentially silenced?

NCAA Bans Indian Mascots...in Post-Season

The NCAA has decided to ban Indian nicknames and mascots from post-season play. Why? Because they are "hostile" and "abusive." So, the Florida State's nickname "Seminoles" is hostile and offense when they appear in a post-season basketball tournament, but perfectly fine during the regular basketball season? College football teams are exempt from the ban because there is no post-season tournament, so having fans run around in Indian dress during Florida State's football games is totally inoffensive? It's only when the basketball team plays in March Madness that it becomes offensive?

We are talking about colleges here, right? In other words, places extolling higher education and intellectual development? And this makes sense?

Culpepper Without Moss

As one who advocated the Moss trade long before it actually happened, though I am a Packer fan, I feel obliged to continue defending that move by pointing to a recent article by Charles Robinson. The whole article is about how Daunte Culpepper will fare without Moss. He quotes some relevant statistics:

While there are few who will suggest Culpepper can't be a good player without Moss, there remains uncertainty over whether he can maintain last season's type of production. Critics were quick to point out Culpepper's last supposed offensive slump when Moss suffered his hamstring issues. But even those criticisms seem slightly off-base. Consider:

• Of the three games Minnesota lost with Moss out or playing as an injured decoy, the defense had surrendered 54 points by halftime, forcing the Vikings to abandon the run and Culpepper to play in constant passing situations.
• In the three losses, Culpepper completed 64 percent of his passes and threw for 763 yards, along with six touchdowns and only two interceptions. Meanwhile, Minnesota's committee of running backs contributed averages of 15 carries per game for 71 yards and scored four total touchdowns.
• Two of the three teams that beat the Vikings were Indianapolis and Green Bay – two playoff teams that had to go toe-to-toe with Minnesota's offense and had to kick game-winning field goals in the final seconds.
• In the two wins without a healthy Moss, Culpepper was still remarkably good, completing 74 percent of his passes for 416 yards, along with three touchdowns and one interception.

Let's look at those three losses. The stat of 763 yards in three games is 254.3 yards/game. The last time I checked, that's a pretty good number. Only 7 QBs (including Culpepper) had better than 254.3 yards/game last year. A two touchdown per game average is awesome, only Daunte (full season) and Peyton Manning had a higher average, with Favre and McNabb just behind. I won't attempt to estimate his QB rating. But, Culpepper goes from being the second best QB in the league to maybe the 5th or 6th best without Moss, and this is considered a slump?

And, of course, Robinson's first point is glaring: the so-called Viking defense put Culpepper in a deep hole all three games. So one would expect something of a drop off in performance. That won't happen this year.

Of course, a quarterback is more than just statistics. Nate Burleson said, "If you watch those games, watch the film and don't just look at some numbers, you would see that Daunte became even more of an incredible player than he was before. He carried us."

Everyone fixates on Moss. There's no question he is a great reciever, one of the best in the game right now. But he can be replaced. Perhaps not fully, but replaced none the less. Culpepper will do fine, and as I've said before, any small decline in offensive production will be more than compensated by greatly improved defense.

Now, let me get back to staring dejectedly at my cheese.

Coalition for Darfur: Garang

This week's Coalition for Darfur post is about the death of recently inaugurated Sudanese vice-president John Garang. "Much of the world's hope for a peaceful solution rested on Garang's ability to reign in the genocidal regime in Khartoum and, with his death, the future of Darfur and the North/South peace accord is now hard to predict." The coalition founders direct readers to three articles on the web:

• Reuters article on the death of Garang,
• an article by Eric Reeves examining what his death means for Darfur and Sudan, and
• a report by Doctors Without Borders reporting that millions of people are still at risk in Darfur and that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the situation is deteriorating, both in terms of humanitarian and security conditions, in many parts of Darfur.

The American Sheik

In another example of US troops on the ground ignoring Secretary Rumsfeld's policy of not engaging in nation building, an American soldier has been made a sheik in Iraq because of the aid and service he's given the people of the region he patrols. No second wife, though.

Bolton Gets Recess Appointment

The president has given Bolton a recess appointment to the post of UN ambassador. The guy strikes me as someone unqualified for any position in the government. But, really, who cares? I've seen concerns from Senators and bloggers that such an appointment will undermine Bolton's credibility. Bolton is an ambassador, a representative of the president. Any credibility he has derives from who he represents, not who he is. Bolton, like any ambassador, can do nothing on his own. Anything that gets accomplished there on behalf of the US will be because of Bush's credibility, not Bolton's.

In many ways, ambassadorships are anachronisms of a bygone age, a time when communication was slow and direct contact between governments consequently rare. In an age of telephones, faxes, email, etc., the president can talk to any world leader he wishes whenever he wishes. If not the president, then the secretary of state. Therefore, any ambassadorship is largely a ceremonial position. So, why have Democrats gotten so much up in arms about this nomination? In the end, so what?

Truman

Thinking about the atomic bombing anniversaries, I am prompted to write a little about Harry Truman. As president, he will always live in the shadow of FDR, but the man has had tremendous impact on his world and on the office he reluctantly assumed on FDR's death. In spite of, or perhaps because of, his lack of ambition to be president, he showed himself capable of great leadership. Three examples of his leadership and long-term impact make the point.

1. The bombings themselves. Remember, Truman had only been vice-president for a few months when he took over. He had not been privy to the research and development of the bomb, nor really to the planning of the war. So, only a few months into a job for which was not well prepared and for which he had not aspired, he was faced with one of the most momentous decisions of the war.
   
   Long term, the impact of dropping the bombs fundamentally changed the global balance of power. If there was any doubt that the United States had emerged as the dominant power in the West, it was laid to rest in the ashes of Hiroshima. Just a few years earlier, the US had been a staunchly isolationist nation. With the occupation of Germany and Japan and the bombs, the US was now positioned as the leader of the free world.
   
   
2. On a related note, he started the Cold War. Whether one approves of this or not, the Cold War was the prevailing paradigm for US foreign relations for 45 years, and in years since we have struggled to deal with the fallout of the Cold War.
   
   
3. Kennedy and Johnson will be remembered as the presidents who championed civil rights reform in the 1960's. Not to detract from what they did, but it is worth remembering that the civil rights movement by then was a notable political force, and those presidents ignored civil rights at their own electoral peril. In contrast, civil rights was not much of an issue when Truman was president. But Truman pushed the issue in 1947 and 1948, the latter an election year. He was the first president to address the NAACP. He desegrated the military, not because of heavy external pressure which forced him to do so, but because he thought it was right. In fact, his support of civil rights in 1948 split the Democratic party and nearly cost him re-election.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are approaching, and with them the annual debate of President Truman's motives and the legitimacy of the bombings. Austin Bay has a good post on the subject.

Why are we so fascinated by these two bombings in particular? These were not the first cities razed to the ground by American bombs during that war. When I lived in Germany, I visited the Museum of the History of the Federal Republic in Bonn. It documents the history of post-war West Germany, now just Germany. With such a focus, the history starts with the end of the war. The first exhibit you see walking in is a looping video showing the major, and many lesser, cities of Germany as they were in summer, 1945. Every city in the country was a smoking pile of rubble infested with rotting corpses of the unburied dead. I imagine the same was true of Japanese cities. So, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are merely the last two entries in the long list of destroyed Axis cities.

These were not the first bombings with mind-boggling death tolls. When whole cities are being destroyed in a single night, e.g. Dresden in Germany, death tolls will be high. In bombings of German cities, tens of thousands were killed all the time. Dresden had something like 50,000 killed. The point is this happened all the time, so Hiroshima and Nagasaki are merely additional examples of what was fairly common at that time. (Yes, Hiroshima was more deadly than any other single bombing during the war, but not by some dramatic factor.)

I think it was in Sum of All Fears, the book not the movie supposedly based on it, where Clancy has a character marvel at the almost mystical attributes we instinctively give nuclear weapons. In the end, the atomic bomb was just a really powerful bomb. One atomic bomb could do what would take thousands of conventional bombs to do. But conventional bombs could do the same thing, as was shown repeatedly during the war. So, to focus on the atomic bombs, questioning if they should have been used, but excluding similar questions about the numerous conventional bombings with similar impact seems strange.

Anyway, Truman's critics argue three basic points:

1. Japan was in a hopeless situation in August, 1945,
2. Japanese leadership recognized this and was preparing to surrender, and
3. Truman knew they were going to surrender and bombed anyway.

The first point is obvious, from our point of view. But, as the German war showed, those on the other side might not be to ready to see the truth. The second claim has just never made sense to me. Let's play this out. Hirohito knows Japan has lost and faces devastation, so he wants to surrender. But he makes no move to do so. The US warns that they have a terrible new weapon that they will unleash on Japan if they don't surrender, but the Japanese still keep quiet about their decision to surrender. August 6 comes and Hiroshima disappears. Surely now Hirohito will immediately surrender, given that he already has decided to? Nope. Two days later, still nothing so Nagasaki disappears. Only now, after two terrifying atomic bombings, do the Japanese give up. If they really had made the decision to surrender, why not announce it earlier, certainly after Hiroshima? No, the Japanese were going to continue the fight, expecting a conventional invasion of the home islands followed by conventional ground warfare.

The Weekly Standard has a lot more on how the decision to drop the bombs was made. Plunge Pontificates has a detailed account of what went on in the Japanese government, as well as a detailed analysis of the options available to Truman and how he made the decision to drop the bomb.